Propertymark has responded to the formal consultation schemes being imposed by a string of local...
Share to Friend
The abolition of Section 21 isn’t really that big a deal, a prominent lettings agent claims.
Kristjan Byfield, who runs the base lettings agency in London and is the co-founder of PropTech platform The Depositary, says in a video interview that the long-promised abolition is not the terrifying onslaught that the industry initially believed.
S21 of the Housing Act was originally to be abolished by the Conservative government elected in 2019 but was effectively shelved following in-fighting amongst Conservative MPs. Now Labour is promising to include its abolition in its Renters Rights Bill to be launched in the autumn - with some observers believing that the abolition could form a stand-alone piece of legislation to allow quicker implementation.
Advertisement
Now Byfield tells an Angels Media interviewer that 85% of tenancies end at the wish of the renter, not the landlord, while there will almost certainly still be elements of Section 8 that will still allow landlords to evict on grounds of rent arrears or anti-social behaviour.
He accepts that with court delays, Section 8 evictions may take even longer than usual, but he insists that many landlords have (or certainly should have) insurance that could provide six or 12 months income in the event of non-payment or a void.
He believes that as a result of all this, the scrapping of Section 21 will in fact only penalise a small 2% or 3% of the private rental sector landlord and agent base.
Mr Byfield clearly doesn't understand what S21 actually is. It's insurance against a rogue tenant. It's all very well saying that landlords should have insurance against loss of rent but if he or she can't get their property back relatively quickly from a tenant that might not be paying, but is also wrecking the place, then there is too much risk. Most landlords will rarely if ever use S21, which hopefully is a similar thing to their buildings insurance. However when you need to use either there will be good reason to do so. The loss of S21 adds to the barrage of attacks against landlords and will be a straw on the camel's back for many.
S21 is currently used as a quicker process to gain possession for rent arrears, nuisance and most commonly nowadays landlord selling up. S8 has proved in the past to be a protracted process due to the significant court delays. Let's hope the courts and staff in the judicial system are set up to deal with the increased influx of S8 notices which will state the above reasons for possession. I agree with Kristjan, any astute landlord will have rent and legal protection in place.
As one cannot turn down those on benefits, zero hours contracts or low paid jobs who obtain top up benefits etc without being targeted and open to litigation just because they want the best possible tenants or in areas of low employment etc. there is no way you can obtain insurance against defaulting tenants. So Unless you know something I don’t. Not every landlord can get such insurance!
Plus landlord's insurance is frequently affected by having tenants that are on benefits, and particularly so if the benefit is paid directly to the landlord and not through the tenant.
Mr. Byfield clearly misunderstands the purpose of Section 21. While he argues that its removal would only affect a small number of private landlords and agents, this view oversimplifies the situation. It’s true that only a small percentage of landlords and agents might use Section 21 without a valid reason. However, there’s a misconception about why Section 21 is typically used. In most cases, there is a legitimate reason behind its use, but these reasons may not be addressed under other types of eviction notices. Rather than targeting all landlords, the focus should be on identifying and addressing the practices of those who are truly unscrupulous.
It’s true only a small number of tenancies are ended using S21 but it’s important Landlords must be able to evict tenants.
Some people pushing this rhetoric have interests in selling insurance policies & such like.
However, if neighbours have had noise for over six months, unless the landlord has concrete evidence a S8 will fail. It’s substantial work to gain this, let’s say:
flicking cigarette off a balcony, noise at 3am, unless the landlord will sit outside the flat video recording, trying to prove noise or certain behaviours, it’s easier to issue a S21.
Try going to court & prove that cigarette came from that mouth & that flat, or knocking on neighbours front doors at 4am for a laugh. Maybe the landlord could ask the managing agents to install CCTV in the communal areas, to then attend their offices to download & gain the evidence. Maybe the freeholder says no. Maybe the managing agents have enough in their plate.
I had a brothel
(That sounds wrong, I didn’t own the brothel but I was the letting agent 😂)
S8 - you need strong evidence.
S21 - you don’t need evidence.
Maybe I could ask the landlord to video the customers coming out & interview them, taking statements of their misgivings.
I could name 100 scenarios S8 is not possible, S21 makes it possible to evict.
People can make other peoples lives a misery, aggressive behaviour to neighbours for example. An insurance policy will help the landlord but will not stop the 40 phone calls a day from neighbours asking to ‘sort your tenant out’
Yes Im not sure I buy this at all. Six months insurance where there will be an excess as well, is no real insurance at all, and I dont see whay landlords should be forced to buy insurance for something that will no doubt come with a hefty premium, as these delays will be quite commonplace. With all the huge delays that are likely with the backlogs, six months will also be a drop inb the ocean. Try 18 months before you get your property back if it goes well and with the new hardship test where every tenant will claim their job is at risk as standard, try never. Who is going to insure a risk like that?
.png)
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Mr Byfield clearly doesn't understand what S21 actually is. It's insurance against a rogue tenant. It's all very well saying that landlords should have insurance against loss of rent but if he or she can't get their property back relatively quickly from a tenant that might not be paying, but is also wrecking the place, then there is too much risk. Most landlords will rarely if ever use S21, which hopefully is a similar thing to their buildings insurance. However when you need to use either there will be good reason to do so. The loss of S21 adds to the barrage of attacks against landlords and will be a straw on the camel's back for many.
Well said, John.👍
S21 is currently used as a quicker process to gain possession for rent arrears, nuisance and most commonly nowadays landlord selling up. S8 has proved in the past to be a protracted process due to the significant court delays. Let's hope the courts and staff in the judicial system are set up to deal with the increased influx of S8 notices which will state the above reasons for possession. I agree with Kristjan, any astute landlord will have rent and legal protection in place.
As one cannot turn down those on benefits, zero hours contracts or low paid jobs who obtain top up benefits etc without being targeted and open to litigation just because they want the best possible tenants or in areas of low employment etc. there is no way you can obtain insurance against defaulting tenants. So Unless you know something I don’t. Not every landlord can get such insurance!
Plus landlord's insurance is frequently affected by having tenants that are on benefits, and particularly so if the benefit is paid directly to the landlord and not through the tenant.
Mr. Byfield clearly misunderstands the purpose of Section 21. While he argues that its removal would only affect a small number of private landlords and agents, this view oversimplifies the situation. It’s true that only a small percentage of landlords and agents might use Section 21 without a valid reason. However, there’s a misconception about why Section 21 is typically used. In most cases, there is a legitimate reason behind its use, but these reasons may not be addressed under other types of eviction notices. Rather than targeting all landlords, the focus should be on identifying and addressing the practices of those who are truly unscrupulous.
It’s true only a small number of tenancies are ended using S21 but it’s important Landlords must be able to evict tenants.
Some people pushing this rhetoric have interests in selling insurance policies & such like.
However, if neighbours have had noise for over six months, unless the landlord has concrete evidence a S8 will fail. It’s substantial work to gain this, let’s say:
flicking cigarette off a balcony, noise at 3am, unless the landlord will sit outside the flat video recording, trying to prove noise or certain behaviours, it’s easier to issue a S21.
Try going to court & prove that cigarette came from that mouth & that flat, or knocking on neighbours front doors at 4am for a laugh. Maybe the landlord could ask the managing agents to install CCTV in the communal areas, to then attend their offices to download & gain the evidence. Maybe the freeholder says no. Maybe the managing agents have enough in their plate.
I had a brothel
(That sounds wrong, I didn’t own the brothel but I was the letting agent 😂)
S8 - you need strong evidence.
S21 - you don’t need evidence.
Maybe I could ask the landlord to video the customers coming out & interview them, taking statements of their misgivings.
I could name 100 scenarios S8 is not possible, S21 makes it possible to evict.
People can make other peoples lives a misery, aggressive behaviour to neighbours for example. An insurance policy will help the landlord but will not stop the 40 phone calls a day from neighbours asking to ‘sort your tenant out’
Yes Im not sure I buy this at all. Six months insurance where there will be an excess as well, is no real insurance at all, and I dont see whay landlords should be forced to buy insurance for something that will no doubt come with a hefty premium, as these delays will be quite commonplace. With all the huge delays that are likely with the backlogs, six months will also be a drop inb the ocean. Try 18 months before you get your property back if it goes well and with the new hardship test where every tenant will claim their job is at risk as standard, try never. Who is going to insure a risk like that?
Please login to comment