Campaigning charity Shelter - which last week suggested landlords were more likely to quit buy to let because they grew old than because they were now more heavily taxed - now wants a fundamental shift of power in the sector in favour of tenants.
In the charity’s third blog within a week to be given over to the private rental sector, it says that fundamental reform is necessary if buy to let landlords are to be persuaded not to evict sitting tenants when they sell - and, if they do dispose of a unit with a tenant in situ, to ensure the buyer doesn’t then evict the renter.
The blog considers why landlords often wish to sell their properties vacant rather than tenanted - because vacant properties may be more valuable, with a wider audience of potential buyers than that which comes to a tenanted apartment or house.
It considers whether capital gains or other financial incentives could be fine-tuned to persuade more landlords to sell with tenants in situ, but it comes down against these ultimately as they do not ensure the purchaser will not evict as soon as they complete.
Instead, the charity says, Britain should follow what it claims is the case in Germany - that most landlords are expected to sell with tenants in place.
But it says even this would not be enough and instead calls for an end to “the landlord’s power to evict at any time, for any reason, outside a fixed term tenancy” and says compulsory five year tenancies with reduced or no eviction rights may be a solution.
“If we are to put any additional measures in place to reduce the negative consequence of landlord exit, a change like this – to limit landlord’s complete freedom to evict irrespective of the circumstances – is an essential first step” says Shelter.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
.png)
%20(002).jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Shelter do not and never have understood thr real commercial world.
And, shamefully, their obsession with the PRS makes them blind to the issues facing tenants in the social sector and we all know the consequences of that. If they need to keep slagging off housing providers why not conduct their negative campaigning against the social sector too? That might help them in their main aim which is to distract attention from the fact that they provide no housing themselves. At the moment Shelter seems to be in the throes of a kind of delirium, building up into a crescendo. They need a metaphorical slap in the face to bring them back to reality.
I am so sick of Shelter constantly having a go at decent landlords, refusing to even consider that there might be bad tenants who actually need to be evicted, Shelter wilfully refusing to see things from the landlord's point of view at any time, refusing to consider that they (Shelter) might actually be contributing to landlords packing in long-term rentals and changing to short-term holiday lets instead, thereby increasing the problems they are supposed to be addressing - that I recently re-wrote my will and changed from donating to Shelter, to donating instead to https://www.habitatforhumanity.org.uk/what-we-do
In other words changing my housing legacy to an organisation that actually *does something about providing more housing*! instead of just politicking re the problems.
Maybe shelter should try actually living up to their name and prevent rather than increase homelessness.
No way I would ever donate to this lot of clowns.
They need to start purchasing properties and letting them to homeless people.
Maybe when they start getting properties wrecked they will stop slagging off landlords.
If section 21 goes, I sell up, and I have yet to evict without good reason. I wouldnt sell if I had a sitting tenant unless I was forced to for example by a lender, or large service charge bill.
I would however use the section 21 rights in order to reduce my costs and time evicting a non paying tenant, although in practice I only actually used this once against a drug dealer who wasnt paying.
It is the landlord that then has to clean up the mess left behind by previous tenants, this takes time and money.
Any mandatory 3 or 5 year tenancy will mean I will not have another tenant, and will sell when any existing tenant move out.
The risk of making it much more difficult to remove a bad tenant is simply too great.
Good luck getting all those tenants into either the purchase or social sector.
Their are hardly any properties left in the social sector thanks to Maggie Thatchers right to buy policy, and even if all landlords sold their entire portfolios the cost of purchasing a property would still be far too high for a lot of tenants.
This would ultimately cause an increase in homelessness.
Wait, arnt shelter supposed to be reducing homelessness, seems they have their donors wrapped round their finger under false pretences doesn't it.
You expressed much more eloquently than myself, exactly what I was trying to say Steven, thanks!
Please login to comment