Groups representing landlords and letting agents forming a ‘Fair Possessions Coalition’ have united in warning that plans to abolish Section 21 repossessions without a new system in place would undermine investment in the sector at a time when private landlords are relied upon on to provide homes for one in five households in England. The Guild of Residential Landlords is part of this coalition.
Section 21 repossessions should be retained in the private rented sector unless and until a new system is in place that provides landlords with the same level of confidence about repossessing properties in legitimate circumstances.
In a statement the Coalition notes that whilst landlords much prefer to have good tenants staying long term in their properties they need certainty that in legitimate circumstances, such as tenant rent arrears or anti-social behaviour, they can swiftly and easily repossess their properties in much the same way as social landlords and mortgage lenders.
It is argued that the current ‘Section 8’ process, under which landlords can repossess properties based on a number of grounds, is not fit for purpose and does not provide the level of certainty offered by Section 21. The current judicial process for dealing with possession cases is confusing for tenants and takes an average of over five months from a landlord applying to the courts for a property to be repossessed to it actually happening.
Instead of tinkering with the system, the Coalition calls for a comprehensive overhaul of the regulations and processes enabling landlords to repossess their properties. It should lay out clear grounds for repossession that are unable to be exploited by criminal landlords or unreliable tenants.
Linked to the reform should be the establishment of a new, dedicated, fully funded housing court. This should make better use of mediation taking into account models in use abroad and meet in local venues such as schools and community centres, making the process less intimidating and easier for landlords and tenants to obtain the swift and accessible justice they need if the relationship is to work effectively.
The Coalition argues that such reforms must form part of a wider package of measures including welfare reforms to better support vulnerable tenants to sustain tenancies and smart taxation to encourage the development of the new homes for private rent the country needs.
FAIR POSSESSIONS COALITION
ARLA Propertymark; Cornwall Residential Landlords Association; Country Land and Business Association; East Midlands Property Owners; Eastern Landlords Association; Guild of Residential Landlords; Humber Landlords Association; iHowz; Landlord Action; Leeds Property Association; National Landlords Alliance; National Landlords Association; North West Landlords Association; Portsmouth and District Private Landlords’ Association; Residential Landlords Association; Safe Agent; South West Landlords Association; Theresa Wallace (Chair, The Lettings Industry Council)
It’s good to see that the rational thinking of landlords and Associations is now getting a voice
The coalition must get many more groups on board if our voice is to be heard and taken seriously
at all levels
This is a good start let’s make it a great finish
I think it is very unfair that a Landlord cannot get their property back without a lot of hassle. It is giving nightmare tenants a free range to just rule the roost. I think the housing position will worsen as Landlords will just sell up. While what I have read the thinking is it will make more properties available for people to buy. I think the opposite. There will always people that cannot afford to buy or who don’t want to buy. I know that housing authorities are desperate for houses to house people. This will only worsen as more landlords don’t want the hassle of renting and the councils rely on private landlords to help fill the gap. My daughter rents a house and has had hassle with the tenant paying the rent. So much so she was going to give tenant notice. The council begged her to let tenant stay if they paid her directly. The council said they had 500 cases to house and they were lucky to solve 2 a week with permanent housing. Can only get worse with uncertainty.
You state, “It is argued that the current ‘Section 8’ process, under which landlords can repossess properties based on a number of grounds, is not fit for purpose and does not provide the level of certainty offered by Section 21.” That is an understatement!
Below I’ve set out some fine examples that the landlords advice line I work for has been made aware of:
• A judge took one look at the perfectly valid Form 3 Section 8 notice the landlord had served on the tenant, and immediately dismissed the claim on the basis the notice was invalid because it referred to agricultural occupancy.
• Two Section 8 claims were thrown out because a Section 21 notice was not served at the same time. Section 8 and Section 21 are completely separate from each other and one does not require service of the other. A housing barrister checked the paperwork afterwards and found everything in order.
• Another example was where a Section 8 was thrown out because the expiry date was not the last day of a tenancy period (this is only applicable to Section 21 notices, and was in fact changed to allow just two straight months under the Deregulation Act 2015).
• Yet another: an overseas landlord instructed a fully qualified and regulated solicitor to attend his Section 8 hearing in his absence, and the solicitor produced his client’s instruction, but the case was still thrown out by the judge on the ground that the claimant was not present. Solicitors and barristers have a right of audience to attend court in their client’s place.
While I agree that a housing court is needed, I don’t believe it’s going to happen in England as there is no funding for one. Perhaps instead of expecting possession cases to be decided by a judge (even if there’s no hearing), why not use trained case officers to decide on straightforward possession claims?
There is at least one other example of case officers deciding on important legal property matters in another government agency; Land Registry uses highly trained case officers to determine legal title to land (with the option to refer cases to inhouse lawyers where necessary) and has done so throughout its long history.
I understand the Association of District Judges is strongly opposed to a housing court, suggesting instead that judges with specialist housing law knowledge could be ‘ticketed’ – which begs the question – why isn’t this being done now and if it is, it clearly isn’t working?
Outside housing law, there are several examples of matters of extreme importance being decided at tribunals such as the right to remain in the country, sexual harassment and employment.
The Coalition ideas would be ideal, but I think we know they will not be adopted. Why can’t Sec 21 time be extended (say, to six or nine months) ? This will give tenants plenty of time to source another property & obviate the need for new Primary legislation.
I totally agree with the coalition’s statements however, when one is dealing with politicians and legislators common sense and logic – to say nothing about legitimate applications made by interested and affected parties – are ignored in favour of the “we have heard what you say but we know best” attitude adopted by those putting on place the legislation generally resulting in much confusion and legal argument.
A separate format of court, overseen by suitably knowledge individuals is needed to deal with possession orders instead of the existing system whereby judges, with little knowledge of the nuances of such claims are making some very questionable decisions.
Observations of the governments campaign against Private landlords has shown that their ‘consultations’ are merely a box ticking exercise, they ignore the outcome. In fact, the more people get involved, the greater they can claim were consulted…
All battles have already been lost in the media. Public concern (sympathy) for Landlords is at an all time low, and no one is going to worry if some ‘rogues’ loose their life savings. (Some will consider it fair justice). Thrashing Landlords is a vote winner for all political parties and a positive seller for all media outlets. Its a clear ‘win-win’ for everyone (else).
Some people ‘may’ sit up and listen if a sound argument was promoted showing the detrimental effects on the rental sector and the economy. I positive media image would also help. Who is going to step forward and save us Landlords from our own government? It’s a David and Goliath job, and I fresh out or rocks….
P.S. First we gotta change the name, it sucks. I hardly own any land, and I’m not a Lord!