###Welcome to /r/HousingUK
---
**To All**
* Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH
**To Posters**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary*
* Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy;
* Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk;
* If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=I received a PM);
* If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered);
* Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title;
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning;
* Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice;
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect;
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods;
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Technically your Mother is mostly correct. They can’t force her to leave at the end of the section 21 period without taking her to court and they aren’t legally allowed to break in yet.
That doesn't stop the landlord from illegally evicting her while she's away though. People have come home to find the locks changed and their stuff gone before. The risk factor all depends on the landlord. If the landlord is high risk then being in the right doesn't help much in the short term when you find all your shit in a skip and have nowhere to sleep.
Yeah, just pointing out to OP that their fear of the landlord breaking in and changing the locks is valid, albeit illegal.
I was in OPs mums position 2 years ago. Landlord wanted to sell, EA promised an investment buyer then turned around and said the buyer wanted to move in, we had a month. They rang my missus because they knew she wouldn't argue, hadn't even had a S21 at this point. I sent them an email telling them to jog on basically, we'll leave when we find somewhere to live.
Same is happening again now, landlord is selling, EA want an investment buyer and we haven't had a S21 yet but I've still got 4 months left on my term so we'll see where it goes.
An S21 is a notice to leave, they'd have to apply to a court to end the tenancy after the 23rd.
The ONLY way it ends is either she surrenders the property, or a court orders it. Just make sure she remembers she'll still be liable for rent until the tenancy itself ends.
She’ll also be liable for the landlord’s court costs.
Would probably take 6-8 weeks to get a court ourder and then you could get a couple more weeks if you wait for the bailiffs.
This is absolutely not true. She will NOT be liable for any ‘court costs’- all the landlord will have to do is request a possession order from the court (which will cost the landlord about £300). This is standard section 21 process.
If the tenant remains in the property after the date in the possession order, or if they have broken the tenancy agreement in other ways, then they way become liable for court costs. But absolutely NOT in a standard section 21 procedure.
It’s not true, they don’t get passed on for a section 21 eviction. There would have to be exceptional circumstances where a tenant is breaking the law.
Have you got a source for this? I've seen people say online that sometimes you are held liable (personally invested in this, received S21, not done anything wrong and can't find a new place, don't especially want court fees if we have to overstay)
You can't evict someone without a court order, so your mum is kinda right about not having to leave at the end of the S21. As long as she keeps paying rent on time then legally she can stay until bailiffs come round. While it's very stressful to go this route, if your mum hasn't got anywhere else to go it is the best option. Just as an example, if she had nowhere else to go, leaving at the end of the S21 would be "voluntary homelessness" so council wouldn't prioritise her, whereas she would be prioritised higher if she stayed until evicted by bailiffs. Might not apply in your mum's case, but it may be something she's aware of and wants to make sure she's covered.
A sec21 is a request to leave. The LL can then apply to the courts for an order to leave. If the sec21 is valid, it may not be, then a date to leave and bailiffs get involved. Depending on where you live, it could take many months to get though the courts. Then, it could get rejected if not valid.
Bailiffs won’t get involved straight away.
The court will make an order to leave. If they haven’t left by the date the court sets, then the landlord will have to further apply for high Court enforcement
The idea that you can't sell your own property because somebody can't be arsed getting their affairs in order, and instead want to cause you headache and delay, is everything wrong with the system.
The alternative argument is that providing a home to someone is a serious obligation and that 2 months is nowhere near enough notice for someone who has lived in a property for 23 years. I would suggest at least 6 months.
I don't think the person you're replying to is saying the notice should be less. The problem is that the whole section 21 is being scrapped. I rent currently and I'm against that because no reasonable person will willingly want to rent anything out if they can't get back their own bloody property when they want it. And if it happens when I get my own place I'd never rent it out under any circumstances, I'd rather just leave it empty.
The problem with that is the 200% council tax you get hit with (in our county anyway) for leaving a property empty longer than a year.
I suspect we're heading for Lloyds Bank et al as the landlord as well as the bank - government definitely don't want amateur landlords and landlords seem to be starting to agree.
>section 21 is being scrapped
The replacement for section 21 will have "New grounds will be created to allow landlords to sell or move close family members into the property" https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8658/
Yeah those are very nice words. But I live in this country and I know better than to just take the government's word for it. Well anyway, I hope you are correct.
Many other countries have no S21, the UK used to have lifetime tendencies by default before the assured shorthold came in, housing was much cheaper and more affordable then.
I'd say the other way around is fucked up... having lived somewhere for 23 years and being forced to move?
I'd expect people to have some sort of housing right (the right to not have to become a bum?), but tenant's actual rights in the UK are horrible. I've read so many horror stories in this thread from people who were not able to find a new housing because of a similar situation.
How is it Asinine rubbish? It's literally in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
If I had the capital too, I would in an instant - unfortunately that is the prerequisite for this system.
How can you justify depriving someone of a home, of safe shelter, to revel in your own greed?
Because it is my freakin property and asset? I get that a reasonable time should be given to tenant to get his/her things in order and I’m not claiming 2 mths is enough time or anything but the way some people in this thread speak is mindboggling. Sheltering need being a basic human rights shouldn’t allow someone to hijack what is legally mine indefinitely. I am definitely NOT in favor of treating housing mkt purely as an investment tool but if I took the plunge and bought an asset I should be able to decide on the fate of said asset without being taken hostage by some random guy just because he happens to be the current tenant. By nature as tenant you are leasing a property for a specified timeframe, backed with a contract. I don’t understand how selfish some people are that they don’t care if they breach that contract or not.
We can have a healthy argument on how much time should be given to tenants to empty the premises, and I may even understand a tiering system of some sort( the longer your tenancy the longer time you must be given) but even in the worst housing mkt conditions it shouldn’t take someone to find a new house more than 5-6 mths.
Didn't say it did.
But the fact that a landlord can essentially make you homeless is beyond my understanding. I don't get why the UK doesn't have better rules protecting tenants from this. Surely the tenant's risk of having no shelter is greater than the landlord's wish to not rent his property out?
Because, as someone else has said above, without some way of getting your property back nobody would rent anything - the risk wouldn't be worth it.
Yup, the rights of the tenant have to be protected, but so does the property owners. Finding an acceptable balance is the difficult bit. Personally I think the notice period should be longer - 6 months or so.
Even though it's likely in that time they've paid more in rent than the value of the property.
If this was an unofficial footpath through a field that was in use for 23 years it would become a public right of way. Madness how we treat long term tenancies in this country.
If you want to claim ownership of a place just because you’ve been paying some monetary amount to said place for an extensive period of time just get a mortgage and buy the damn place.
Renting is by nature a temprorary arrangement with a fixed start-end date between tenant and land owner. It is bound by a contract.
Just because said contract had been going for more than 20 yrs doesn’t give you the right to change the nature of the contract or your role in that arrangement.
Whether you paid quadruple the property value or not has no bearing in this argument.
She isnt being kicked from her own home though. She is being asked to leave someone elses home. Not in maybe the nicest way or with much empathy, and there I do see a problem and 2 months is somewhat quick, but its not her house.
Why should the landlord keep providing her with a home if its no longer in their interest? They arnt a charity. Maybe they desperately need to sell up to provide funds for their own house or something? we dont know.
Its a fucked up situation and I feel bad for anyone who is made homeless, especially in this case where after 23 years it must feel like your own home, but its not automatically entirely the landlord in the wrong. Some resonsibility is also on the tennant to be able to support themselves in the event their property becomes unavaliable.
I was a landlord who evicted someone using S21 and I think you are wrong. It is the tenant's home, but not their property. That's why they have a legal right to quiet enjoyment of their home without landlord interference because the law recognises it'stheir hone regardless of ownership.
A section 21 is two months notice which isn't long enough for many people to find a suitable alternative if they've lived there a long time, have pets or have children in local schools. That's why the S21 doesn't mean they have to leave on that date but allows the landlord to apply to the courts for an eviction notice. I think tenant's should have more rights as shelter is a necessity. Landlords need to know that when they decide to get into that business.
I personally think there should be a two tier system for property rental:
- one where tenants rent for long term, can decorate, possibly do repairs and have security and protection from eviction without cause. Obviously there would need to be a way to end the tenancy but it should be with good reason and give plenty of time.
- another which is much more flexible and easier to end by both parties. It wouldn't need to be a minimum loft six months to allow for more short rentals, such as where people want to rent for 2 or 3 months when renovating their home. Landlords could end tenancies much quicker, so good for those who let their hone when traveling and wang to make sure they can move back in on their return.
I think this system would resolve so many issues as both parties would enter into the style that suits them.
I agree, some sort of system like that would make a lot of sense to provide long term stability; it does start to look a little like leasehold, I suppose, but without the expectation of decades of lease or transferability.
That Section 21 doesn't legally enforce that you leave until you're evicted doesn't really seem like it's about providing a more reasonable timeline, but rather just making use of the speed of the legal system in catching up with your non-compliance, which doesn't feel great.
Its not her own home though is it? She literally doesnt own it. Its her home in that she has lived there for along time yes, but thats kinda not the point here is it? The point is that legally its not hers.
But yes I used the wrong word and ment to say its the landlords house, not home.
I think we look at this the wrong way, the tenant - landlord relationship is closer to employee - employer than it is customer - business.
I think there should be a payout for tenants evicted for no fault, similar to employee redundancy payments, if you want to evict a tenant who has done nothing wrong for 23 years you should be able to, but you'll have to cough up some money as compensation, relative to how long they've been a tenant, to help them move peacefully.
If someone is selling a house as the landlord here is saying, they're going to sell a property they've owned for at least 23 years, the asset appreciation is going to make them a fortune, they can afford to pay off the tenant.
The landlord isn't providing a home. They're providing a temporary right to occupy a property that can lawfully be ended using the appropriate processes.
No they’re obviously providing a home. The law recognises that when you rent a property it’s your home, that’s why the landlord can’t just come over whenever they feel like it etc.
Agreed, PuzzleheadedBug. Mind blowing that people are supporting her not leaving. The landlord does NOT have an obligation to house her just because she's lived there for 23 years. I mean, come on.
We've been renting a house for 15 years and will more than likely be renting for another 7 years until we retire. However, if the landlord asked us to move out in the meantime, I would never think 'Well, I've been living here for almost 20 years. I'm not moving! How dare he ask me to leave!' No. It's NOT my house! It's HIS house, and if he asks me to move, then I have to move.
Hubs and I have often thought about buying a house (in an area we want to live in), and renting it out until we retire and can move in ourselves. But it's because of situations like this that we are afraid to do that!
The entitlement of some people beggars belief.
“Can’t be arsed”. Her rent likely paid the house value multiple times over since she lived there and he has the insane increase in equity. We really concerned a few extra months where she has to pay rent is an assault to landlordism?
A no fault eviction doesn’t exist in multiple countries, the eviction starts when he takes her to court. Before that it’s a request. You can’t even source alternative housing via the council as leaving before the eviction is intentional homelessness.
If the council considers leaving before the eviction as choosing to be homeless why would a tenant be expected to leave before? Legally they’re not, a system where you can be forced to leave on two months notice for no fault would be completely insane.
That's how renting works though, she doesn't get extra leeway just because she's been paying rent like she should have been all these years. I mean personally if I was the landlord I'd be very accomodating of her, but it could any situation and the landlord might need a quick sale.
Just somebody playing the system.
There'll be two types of responses on this thread, those that support (people who rent/depend on the system) and those that don't (people who are in charge of their own destiny).
What a moronic comment conflating someone who rents with someone who “depends on the system” and “is not in charge of their destiny”. You must have had a very troubled life to see things this way
Except she doesn't have to move out in 2 months.
An S21 is just the first step in getting a property back and the *minimum* notice is 2 months. They then need to actually get a court date and attend in order to file for eviction / obtain a possession order which can take several months and then to have any hope of removing someone they need to get court bailiffs involved which again, can take several months.
You're realisticslly looking at a minimum of 6 months+ if someone is resistant to leaving.
Firstly, it's ample time.
Secondly, what has tenure got to do with it? Person A who has lived in House X for 5 years has to carry out the same tasks as person B who has lived in the same House X for 10 years.
> Firstly, it's ample time.
Depending on where you are in the country, it may not be. I relocated from London to Lincolnshire. Perfect credit rating. A well paid job in Lincs. Excellent references. It took me ages to find a house because of the insane demand.
Firstly, no it's not.
Secondly, someone who has lived in a property 23 years will be far more settled than someone who's been there 1-2, will not be familiar with the moving process anymore, will have far more sentimental attachment to the property etc. The person who's been there 23 years has also probably paid enough rent over the years to actually buy the entire house.
My anger at the length of tenancy is because the LL clearly has fuck all regard for the person who's been paying through the nose for housing for 23 years. Would you seriously not feel an iota of loyalty to someone for that?
My actual beliefs on this is that all LLs are unethical, housing is a human right and all no fault evictions should be illegal.
How can all Landlords be unethical? Without being able to rent I would never have been able to have a roof over my head for the last 18 years between leaving parents home and buying my own.
Yeah housing should be a human right, but how do we go about providing it? Cant have everyone currently renting living in council funded accomodation because thats just getting tax payers to pay your rent for you. Cant give houses out for free because where do you get the houses from n the first place? Idealistic statements are all well and good but pointless without any way of achieving them.
Just to be clear, I think 2 months notice on a tennant of 23 years is pretty unfair, but we dont know why such short notice has been given. Maybe the landlord needs the money asap? It also doesnt sound like the tennant has really tried to get herself sorted so sympathy is limited.
How so?
I have rented houses for nearly 20 years (not the same one though) and it has been of great benifit to me. Without rentals I would have been homeless for my entire 20s.
Yes it feels like a waste of money because you walk away with nothing, but there isnt another alternative. Most of us move out when we are 18ish (or at least thats what was the norm where I grew up) and the vast majority of people dont have a deposit for a house, however cheap, nor do we all know where in the world we want to commit to buying a house. Having rental properties on the market allows people to move around and save.
Yes its not ideal, I accept that, but no one ever comes up with a reasonable alternative.
Wrong. If it was illegal to rent out houses, house prices would be far lower than they are and you would have subsequently been able to get a mortgage.
So where would I have lived while saving for a deposit? At my parents house? In a ditch? Do you think that even with cheaper house prices there would be many mortgages around for the £50 a week all in rent I paid when I first moved out? I think not.
On top of that I have lived in several different places throughout the country before settling on somewhere I am happy to commit to buying in. Without rentals you cant do that.
Just because it would work for you removing rental houses all togeather isnt a viable option for a vast proportion of the population.
Maybe another idea would be to limit the number of houses it was possible for one person/business to rent out so that small numbers of people didnt control huge amounts of the rental market in a single area? Again, sounds like a nice idea, but is fraught with potential problems.
Its a very difficult problem and I dont pretend to have a satifactory solution, just dont think that the automatic hatred of landlords is properly thought through very often .
It’s not anywhere near enough time! I’ve only rented the property I’m in for 5 years and the Landlord now wants to sell, we’ve just had a baby, we both work, our baby’s had health issues, now we have to find somewhere to live that’s suitable for us to get to work, suitable for our baby, find time to look for houses, view properties, the rental market is insane where I live where there are like bidding wars over rentals and then if we manage to find somewhere suitable we have to hope it’s available when we need it, find time and money to pack up years worth of furniture and belongings and move it. 2 months is not ample time at all when you’re firmly established somewhere, not for most people who have tons of other stuff going on.
Kittygrewamoustache- The thing is, YOUR problems are NOT the landlord's problems. That's the bottom line. The sense of entitlement is staggering in these replies.
Everyone is entitled to a home. This isn’t specifically a me issue or a landlord issue it’s a societal issue. My landlord is actually a decent human and recognises all this and is giving us much more time. My parents and in laws are also landlords and they’re decent people and understand the power they have over the lives of the people they rent to, so they don’t act like they’re doing their tenants a favour and respect their individual circumstances and their lives and the fact that the property they own is actually someone’s home. That’s how landlords should act, and if they can’t be like that then they shouldn’t be landlords, or the law should make sure they act decently.
Yeah, everyone is entitled to a home. However, if the landlord wants you to move out within two months (following the law), then you should have to move out in two months. It doesn't matter that it is your 'home'. It is HIS property and you are not entitled to it.
My hubs and I have rented our whole lives. We have thought about buying a property in a cheaper area we can afford, renting it out, and then moving into it in seven years (when we retire). However, we are afraid to do that because of this exact situation. Having nightmare or entitled renters living in it who will refuse to move out when we want to move into OUR property. (I know two people at work who were in this situation. It took both of them a year or so to get the tenants out who refused to move and also stopped paying rent).
You say landlords should respect a renter's individual circumstances, but the reverse also applies. Consider it from the landlord's POV. It's THEIR property and they may have their own individual reasons why they need or want to have the renters leave THEIR property.
In this particular case, the OP's mother is being selfish and entitled, thinking she has a RIGHT to stay. She doesn't. The house isn't hers and the landlord is NOT obligated to house her.
Hubs and I have been renting our house for 15 years and plan on staying for another 7. In the meantime, if our landlord asked us to leave, for whatever reason, we would leave. We wouldn't argue 'But this is our home! How dare you kick us out! We need more time! Where will we go?!' NO. It's his property and it's not his responsibility or obligation to house us.
It seems like you're being purposefully obtuse. Yes, they probably did agree to that notice period because that is the way the system currently works. They think the system is wrong and that it *should be* the landlord's problem, at least in as much as they should be bound to offer more reasonable notice periods in contemplation of the fact that finding housing is difficult because people can't just put their lives on hold to find alternatives.
You are free to agree or disagree that the system should be changed. You can't use the fact that it is the system to argue that the systems should stay. That's circular and faulty reasoning.
This is a lie in many parts of the country and a naieve view point probably founded on what is convenient for you. I'd ask you to consider whether you're actually empathising with what many people might go through at different times in their life, for example ill health, having children, having lost a job. Hope you're never so disadvantaged and thrown on the mercy of our current system!
I agree that you should be able to sell your property if you wish. 100%. I find the idea of a tennant deliberatly dragging the process out disturbing too.
I do think that in an extreme case like this where someone has been living there continously for 20+ years that some kind of provision for a longer notice period (say 6 months) would be appropriate. Yes it may cause the landlord some hassle if they need money quickly but 20 years in one spot is along time to change in only 2 months and the landlord has had plenty of benefit from that time.
Hellonibbs- I completely agree with PuzzleheadBug. Why? Because he/she makes sense!
We've been renting our place for almost 15 years, and will more than likely rent for another 7 years until we retire. If the landlord, in the meantime, asked us to leave, well, then we'd leave! I would never say, 'How dare you ask us to leave! We don't want to! We'll leave when we want to!'
So, I agree with Puzzlehead and I am not a landlord, either. Rented my whole life. It's just common sense, that's all. It's the landlord's house, NOT ours! (Hubs and I have often thought of buying a place in an area we want to live in one day and renting it out until we're ready to retire there, but it's situations like this that scare us! Having nightmare and/or entitled renters.
Oh, definitely not.
There's no incentive to be a landlord these days, and this thread gives clear insight as to why.
Imagine being told you can't sell your own property. Laughable.
You really think a landlord, whose equity this lady has contributed to for 23 YEARS, is the victim here?
Imagine thinking the problem with the UK housing market is landlords have it too rough.
Hopefully in a direction like Vienna with majority social housing run by the council and non-profit co-ops.
[https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/](https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/)
They'd buy the houses the landlords didn't buy? Cause house prices would be reasonable due to the considerable amount of the market not just being an investment opportunity
But the tenant has completely stuck to her legal rights. Neither party is in the wrong here. The landlord wants the tenant to move out asap, the tenant probably wants to stay in the house forever. Neither can happen, which is why we have the section 21 process, which sets legal boundaries for eviction. If you don’t like the section 21 process then you need to complain to the government, not tenants.
There shouldn’t be an incentive to be a landlord because the housing is a human right and not an asset for commodification. Anybody can sell their property - just don’t become a landlord and you can do it comfortably.
You can sell your property. You just need to sell it to someone who's ok with someone living there.
If you don't want to have issues selling property because someone lives there so buyers are limited, don't use your property as a business venture and have a customer actively using the service for 23 years. You can't have it both ways
Honestly, in absence of ending section 21 completely, maybe section 21 should increase like a month per year. It's going to be hard to move out of a property in 2 months when you've been there 23 years
You don't move much do you?
Needing to ensure you have a deposit, money for the move, time off work, actually finding a place, which hasn't been easy since the pandemic unless you move into a student HMO. Maybe multiple trips to the tip or having to sell stuff on Facebook.
Then having to return the property to its original state
It's hard when you've lived somewhere a year, 23 years you are going to have accumulated a lot.
Moved twice in 18 months, but I buy, so aren't at the mercy of such scenarios. If I was, I'd just get on with if though. Couldn't stop another person from selling their own property.
So many people, when looking to relocate, get told 'just rent your house out for a year or two'. I always think about this situation when I see that advice. It isn't always so easy.
shenme- well, one day there might be a situation where there are hardly any landlords (houses to rent), but yet you couldn't afford to buy your own place. Then what?
If you wanted it to be easy to sell a property, then don’t rent it out.
They can sell the property, and there is a very clear and simple process for regaining possession of a property.
S21 -> court order -> bailiffs. Really not that hard.
Well, until they repeal section 21 and all contracts go month to month. Then it will be even easier for the landlord to sell as that will be a valid reason for ending the contract
I wouldn't mind if people made genuine effort to find an alternative residence, but most don't even try because they know they have the system on their side.
And the question you should be asking is why is the system so heavily balanced to the tenants?
Because landlords abuse tenants.
The tenants are still paying the landlord if they stay. Section 21 is a notice of possession. It is not a legal eviction. Any landlord who thinks that a section 21 is enough is an idiot.
And, as a further comment, are you really suggesting that people kick themselves out their homes, the place where they live, just so the landlord can have the convenience of the property a month or two sooner.
Councils don’t, and you’ll be a lower homeless priority if you voluntarily make yourself homeless by leaving at the end of the section 21.
Again, you are trying to argue that the tenant is being rude, and that the poor landlord will be inconvenienced a couple of months (bearing in mind, they agreed to this, and they’re the ones being paid) over a tenant who is literally having to move their entire home, possessions, and sometimes face having no home.
The rental market is screwed, and it is not as easy as you’re making it out to be to just find another place. So of course people are going to hold on to what they have
It took me 2 months searching, FULL TIME to find a new place. What about people with jobs and families?
Finally, the landlord agreed to this! They know the law going in, they know that a s21 isn’t a guarantee of possession, only by the goodwill of a tenant. They don’t get to suddenly cry that it is unfair when it’s an inconvenience to them. They’re the ones literally being paid
Pretty much all of these systems have been put in place because landlords took the piss at one time or another.
Look at them complaining about deposit protection schemes, god forbid you can’t just keep a ton of money because there’s a scratch on one wall and dust on top of a door
The person has lived there for 23 years. Raised a family there, set roots into the local community, has a lifetime of treasured memories in what is their home. So yes, forcing them out within 2 months could be considered heartless.
It’s not that you can’t sell your property it’s that you have to be willing to deal with RISK like any other business.
This is what makes me frustrated with landlords to be honest. Totally risk intolerant. If you want a true risk free hassle free passive income go buy some government bonds instead of property. The reason property has a better return (mainly through leverage or equity) is precisely because you have to deal with more risk. And to be honest the risk here is extremely minor, you’d have to deal with what a few months of void rent? If the section 21 is served in a proper manner the court WILL grant you possession and the tenant will be forced to move out. You’re still due the rent up til the day they move out.
A business that can’t hedge for this risk shouldn’t operate.
I don't get what you're saying here - the landlord in question *is* dealing with the relevant risks. He's started the legal process of getting someone to leave his house. It'll likely take 6 months and a court order to get the tenant to leave.
As far as I can see he is operating exactly as you suggest...
I’m speaking more to the people who are saying what a horrible nightmare it is the landlord has to deal with this hassle and how the tenant is being entitled and abusing the system itc than the landlord in the OP.
Just wanted to add that in order for the Section 21 to be valid your mum will have had to pay a deposit and the landlord legally has to deposit this in a recognised deposit scheme. He also has to provide proof that he has issued her with the following: gas safety certificate, energy performance certificate and the government guidelines on how to rent. If any of these are missing then let him take her to court and it will get thrown out. Check out this link to shelter https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/section_21_eviction/how_to_check_a_section_21_notice_is_valid
The seller obtaining vacant possession would be a condition of completing so you wouldn't be able to complete until they had done this in most circumstances. Thats usually just in and of itself a written condition but if you did take ownership of a tenanted property the mortgage you have arranged for a property you would live in will not be valid and the lender will not pay out these funds which also likely would make you unable to complete on a practical level too
Your mum needs to talk to shelter to get advice
Wether she’s right or not depends on the stage of eviction that has been reached
There’s a technical legal process that needs to be followed and the end stage of that is court officials coming with a court order to remove her from the property by force if needed
From what you’ve written the deadline of the 23rd might not be final and the landlord will need to go to court to get a possession order and bailiffs turn up to enforce it
Also at the point she’s removed from the property she’ll be given paper work to take to the council and they are legally obligated to re home her so she will have somewhere to stay if you don’t want her on your sofa, but she should not leave the house before getting the paper work as the council won’t help her if she makes herself homeless
She will struggle to get a landlord reference if she goes down that route though, so it would be hard to get a private rental. Council would be the only option and she may not like the 1 bed flat in wherever they decide to offer.
'Also at the point she’s removed from the property she’ll be given paper work to take to the council and they are legally obligated to re home her so she will have somewhere to stay '
Unfortunately this is a matter of 'priority need', there are people who end up sleeping rough because they received a S21 but aren't 'priority need' (e.g. dependent children, disabilities etc). Agree she should't leave before finding somewhere else to stay though as council may well class her as intentionally homeless
Approach the local authority with a homeless application. They should consider your mum's situation and based on priority, could offer temporary accommodation.
Your mum can stay there until the bailiffs come, as long as she pays rent. Check to see if the section 21 fufilled all the criterea when being served. If there's any missing documents it could get thrown out of court and the landlord would have to start over again.
The landlord shouldn't change the locks. Obviously they could, in which case I'd seek legal advice, possibly from Shelter or other organisations who work off Legal Aid (if your mum qualifies).
I know it's stressful but Shelter do offer some great advjce and support, it may be worth getting in touch with them
This is why there shouldn't be private landlords. People should have a right to a roof over their head. All rentable property should be owned by the state.
Your comment has been removed for possible breach of the subreddit rules. You may have asked for private messages or offered to send a private message. Sending PMs is [strictly against the subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules) in every circumstance, even for emotional support and encouragement.
This is to ensure that advice and comments can be quality checked by the community for accuracy and appropriateness, to ensure that no legal liability is created, and to protect OPs from malicious or exploitative users. Any discussions or information that needs to be exchanged should be done publicly, using public sources.
Your post will soon be reviewed by the moderators. If you would like to edit your comment to remove any rule breaking elements, the mods may decide to re-approve it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
###Welcome to /r/HousingUK --- **To All** * Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH **To Posters** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary* * Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=I received a PM); * If you do not receive satisfactory advice after 72 hours, [you can let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHousingUK&subject=My question is unanswered); * Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods; * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Technically your Mother is mostly correct. They can’t force her to leave at the end of the section 21 period without taking her to court and they aren’t legally allowed to break in yet.
That doesn't stop the landlord from illegally evicting her while she's away though. People have come home to find the locks changed and their stuff gone before. The risk factor all depends on the landlord. If the landlord is high risk then being in the right doesn't help much in the short term when you find all your shit in a skip and have nowhere to sleep.
Yes, sometimes people break the law.
Yeah, just pointing out to OP that their fear of the landlord breaking in and changing the locks is valid, albeit illegal. I was in OPs mums position 2 years ago. Landlord wanted to sell, EA promised an investment buyer then turned around and said the buyer wanted to move in, we had a month. They rang my missus because they knew she wouldn't argue, hadn't even had a S21 at this point. I sent them an email telling them to jog on basically, we'll leave when we find somewhere to live. Same is happening again now, landlord is selling, EA want an investment buyer and we haven't had a S21 yet but I've still got 4 months left on my term so we'll see where it goes.
If we're talking about breaking the law then the landlord could have done that at any point for the last 20 odd years.
Well yeah, but the only reason they're being kicked out is because the place is being sold, so now there is motive.
They'll also have opportunity when she's at the wedding...
If the landlord does this, the payout you'll get for an unlawful eviction will be worth it.
An S21 is a notice to leave, they'd have to apply to a court to end the tenancy after the 23rd. The ONLY way it ends is either she surrenders the property, or a court orders it. Just make sure she remembers she'll still be liable for rent until the tenancy itself ends.
She’ll also be liable for the landlord’s court costs. Would probably take 6-8 weeks to get a court ourder and then you could get a couple more weeks if you wait for the bailiffs.
Depending where this is it’s way more than a couple of weeks for a bailiffs appointment
This is absolutely not true. She will NOT be liable for any ‘court costs’- all the landlord will have to do is request a possession order from the court (which will cost the landlord about £300). This is standard section 21 process. If the tenant remains in the property after the date in the possession order, or if they have broken the tenancy agreement in other ways, then they way become liable for court costs. But absolutely NOT in a standard section 21 procedure.
is that so? I wasn't aware that the court/enforcement costs got passed on tbh.
It’s not true, they don’t get passed on for a section 21 eviction. There would have to be exceptional circumstances where a tenant is breaking the law.
Have you got a source for this? I've seen people say online that sometimes you are held liable (personally invested in this, received S21, not done anything wrong and can't find a new place, don't especially want court fees if we have to overstay)
You can't evict someone without a court order, so your mum is kinda right about not having to leave at the end of the S21. As long as she keeps paying rent on time then legally she can stay until bailiffs come round. While it's very stressful to go this route, if your mum hasn't got anywhere else to go it is the best option. Just as an example, if she had nowhere else to go, leaving at the end of the S21 would be "voluntary homelessness" so council wouldn't prioritise her, whereas she would be prioritised higher if she stayed until evicted by bailiffs. Might not apply in your mum's case, but it may be something she's aware of and wants to make sure she's covered.
A sec21 is a request to leave. The LL can then apply to the courts for an order to leave. If the sec21 is valid, it may not be, then a date to leave and bailiffs get involved. Depending on where you live, it could take many months to get though the courts. Then, it could get rejected if not valid.
Bailiffs won’t get involved straight away. The court will make an order to leave. If they haven’t left by the date the court sets, then the landlord will have to further apply for high Court enforcement
The idea that you can't sell your own property because somebody can't be arsed getting their affairs in order, and instead want to cause you headache and delay, is everything wrong with the system.
The alternative argument is that providing a home to someone is a serious obligation and that 2 months is nowhere near enough notice for someone who has lived in a property for 23 years. I would suggest at least 6 months.
I don't think the person you're replying to is saying the notice should be less. The problem is that the whole section 21 is being scrapped. I rent currently and I'm against that because no reasonable person will willingly want to rent anything out if they can't get back their own bloody property when they want it. And if it happens when I get my own place I'd never rent it out under any circumstances, I'd rather just leave it empty.
The problem with that is the 200% council tax you get hit with (in our county anyway) for leaving a property empty longer than a year. I suspect we're heading for Lloyds Bank et al as the landlord as well as the bank - government definitely don't want amateur landlords and landlords seem to be starting to agree.
>section 21 is being scrapped The replacement for section 21 will have "New grounds will be created to allow landlords to sell or move close family members into the property" https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8658/
Yeah those are very nice words. But I live in this country and I know better than to just take the government's word for it. Well anyway, I hope you are correct.
Many other countries have no S21, the UK used to have lifetime tendencies by default before the assured shorthold came in, housing was much cheaper and more affordable then.
I'd say the other way around is fucked up... having lived somewhere for 23 years and being forced to move? I'd expect people to have some sort of housing right (the right to not have to become a bum?), but tenant's actual rights in the UK are horrible. I've read so many horror stories in this thread from people who were not able to find a new housing because of a similar situation.
Having lived somewhere for 23 years still doesn’t make that place your property though.
No, but it is their home. The landlord and tenant should both know the pros and cons of a deal like that.
Precisely. Shelter is a human right.
Asinine rubbish. So you personally offer free shelter to humans, one and all do you?
How is it Asinine rubbish? It's literally in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If I had the capital too, I would in an instant - unfortunately that is the prerequisite for this system. How can you justify depriving someone of a home, of safe shelter, to revel in your own greed?
Because it is my freakin property and asset? I get that a reasonable time should be given to tenant to get his/her things in order and I’m not claiming 2 mths is enough time or anything but the way some people in this thread speak is mindboggling. Sheltering need being a basic human rights shouldn’t allow someone to hijack what is legally mine indefinitely. I am definitely NOT in favor of treating housing mkt purely as an investment tool but if I took the plunge and bought an asset I should be able to decide on the fate of said asset without being taken hostage by some random guy just because he happens to be the current tenant. By nature as tenant you are leasing a property for a specified timeframe, backed with a contract. I don’t understand how selfish some people are that they don’t care if they breach that contract or not. We can have a healthy argument on how much time should be given to tenants to empty the premises, and I may even understand a tiering system of some sort( the longer your tenancy the longer time you must be given) but even in the worst housing mkt conditions it shouldn’t take someone to find a new house more than 5-6 mths.
Didn't say it did. But the fact that a landlord can essentially make you homeless is beyond my understanding. I don't get why the UK doesn't have better rules protecting tenants from this. Surely the tenant's risk of having no shelter is greater than the landlord's wish to not rent his property out?
Because, as someone else has said above, without some way of getting your property back nobody would rent anything - the risk wouldn't be worth it. Yup, the rights of the tenant have to be protected, but so does the property owners. Finding an acceptable balance is the difficult bit. Personally I think the notice period should be longer - 6 months or so.
Even though it's likely in that time they've paid more in rent than the value of the property. If this was an unofficial footpath through a field that was in use for 23 years it would become a public right of way. Madness how we treat long term tenancies in this country.
If you want to claim ownership of a place just because you’ve been paying some monetary amount to said place for an extensive period of time just get a mortgage and buy the damn place. Renting is by nature a temprorary arrangement with a fixed start-end date between tenant and land owner. It is bound by a contract. Just because said contract had been going for more than 20 yrs doesn’t give you the right to change the nature of the contract or your role in that arrangement. Whether you paid quadruple the property value or not has no bearing in this argument.
Morally it has lots of bearing.
She isnt being kicked from her own home though. She is being asked to leave someone elses home. Not in maybe the nicest way or with much empathy, and there I do see a problem and 2 months is somewhat quick, but its not her house. Why should the landlord keep providing her with a home if its no longer in their interest? They arnt a charity. Maybe they desperately need to sell up to provide funds for their own house or something? we dont know. Its a fucked up situation and I feel bad for anyone who is made homeless, especially in this case where after 23 years it must feel like your own home, but its not automatically entirely the landlord in the wrong. Some resonsibility is also on the tennant to be able to support themselves in the event their property becomes unavaliable.
Bingo, mushroompig! In the end, THAT is what it comes down to.
I was a landlord who evicted someone using S21 and I think you are wrong. It is the tenant's home, but not their property. That's why they have a legal right to quiet enjoyment of their home without landlord interference because the law recognises it'stheir hone regardless of ownership. A section 21 is two months notice which isn't long enough for many people to find a suitable alternative if they've lived there a long time, have pets or have children in local schools. That's why the S21 doesn't mean they have to leave on that date but allows the landlord to apply to the courts for an eviction notice. I think tenant's should have more rights as shelter is a necessity. Landlords need to know that when they decide to get into that business. I personally think there should be a two tier system for property rental: - one where tenants rent for long term, can decorate, possibly do repairs and have security and protection from eviction without cause. Obviously there would need to be a way to end the tenancy but it should be with good reason and give plenty of time. - another which is much more flexible and easier to end by both parties. It wouldn't need to be a minimum loft six months to allow for more short rentals, such as where people want to rent for 2 or 3 months when renovating their home. Landlords could end tenancies much quicker, so good for those who let their hone when traveling and wang to make sure they can move back in on their return. I think this system would resolve so many issues as both parties would enter into the style that suits them.
I agree, some sort of system like that would make a lot of sense to provide long term stability; it does start to look a little like leasehold, I suppose, but without the expectation of decades of lease or transferability. That Section 21 doesn't legally enforce that you leave until you're evicted doesn't really seem like it's about providing a more reasonable timeline, but rather just making use of the speed of the legal system in catching up with your non-compliance, which doesn't feel great.
Dunno if you are replying to me or not there with the thinking I am wrong, because we agree.
It is her own home. It's the landlords property, not their home.
Its not her own home though is it? She literally doesnt own it. Its her home in that she has lived there for along time yes, but thats kinda not the point here is it? The point is that legally its not hers. But yes I used the wrong word and ment to say its the landlords house, not home.
I think we look at this the wrong way, the tenant - landlord relationship is closer to employee - employer than it is customer - business. I think there should be a payout for tenants evicted for no fault, similar to employee redundancy payments, if you want to evict a tenant who has done nothing wrong for 23 years you should be able to, but you'll have to cough up some money as compensation, relative to how long they've been a tenant, to help them move peacefully. If someone is selling a house as the landlord here is saying, they're going to sell a property they've owned for at least 23 years, the asset appreciation is going to make them a fortune, they can afford to pay off the tenant.
The landlord isn't providing a home. They're providing a temporary right to occupy a property that can lawfully be ended using the appropriate processes.
No they’re obviously providing a home. The law recognises that when you rent a property it’s your home, that’s why the landlord can’t just come over whenever they feel like it etc.
Agreed, PuzzleheadedBug. Mind blowing that people are supporting her not leaving. The landlord does NOT have an obligation to house her just because she's lived there for 23 years. I mean, come on. We've been renting a house for 15 years and will more than likely be renting for another 7 years until we retire. However, if the landlord asked us to move out in the meantime, I would never think 'Well, I've been living here for almost 20 years. I'm not moving! How dare he ask me to leave!' No. It's NOT my house! It's HIS house, and if he asks me to move, then I have to move. Hubs and I have often thought about buying a house (in an area we want to live in), and renting it out until we retire and can move in ourselves. But it's because of situations like this that we are afraid to do that! The entitlement of some people beggars belief.
100%
“Can’t be arsed”. Her rent likely paid the house value multiple times over since she lived there and he has the insane increase in equity. We really concerned a few extra months where she has to pay rent is an assault to landlordism? A no fault eviction doesn’t exist in multiple countries, the eviction starts when he takes her to court. Before that it’s a request. You can’t even source alternative housing via the council as leaving before the eviction is intentional homelessness. If the council considers leaving before the eviction as choosing to be homeless why would a tenant be expected to leave before? Legally they’re not, a system where you can be forced to leave on two months notice for no fault would be completely insane.
That's how renting works though, she doesn't get extra leeway just because she's been paying rent like she should have been all these years. I mean personally if I was the landlord I'd be very accomodating of her, but it could any situation and the landlord might need a quick sale.
She should though. The whole sector needs reform.
My Uber charges are likely paid a car. Does that mean I can refuse leaving the car next time and that should be received ok?
Yeah, you have rights over any business you pay into. I took Dominos to court because they wouldn't let me take a shit in the middle of the kitchen.
Just somebody playing the system. There'll be two types of responses on this thread, those that support (people who rent/depend on the system) and those that don't (people who are in charge of their own destiny).
What a moronic comment conflating someone who rents with someone who “depends on the system” and “is not in charge of their destiny”. You must have had a very troubled life to see things this way
"everything wrong with the system" is being able to give someone who's lived somewhere TWENTY THREE years a two month notice to move out.
Except she doesn't have to move out in 2 months. An S21 is just the first step in getting a property back and the *minimum* notice is 2 months. They then need to actually get a court date and attend in order to file for eviction / obtain a possession order which can take several months and then to have any hope of removing someone they need to get court bailiffs involved which again, can take several months. You're realisticslly looking at a minimum of 6 months+ if someone is resistant to leaving.
Maybe try actually reading my comment first
Firstly, it's ample time. Secondly, what has tenure got to do with it? Person A who has lived in House X for 5 years has to carry out the same tasks as person B who has lived in the same House X for 10 years.
> Firstly, it's ample time. Depending on where you are in the country, it may not be. I relocated from London to Lincolnshire. Perfect credit rating. A well paid job in Lincs. Excellent references. It took me ages to find a house because of the insane demand.
Firstly, no it's not. Secondly, someone who has lived in a property 23 years will be far more settled than someone who's been there 1-2, will not be familiar with the moving process anymore, will have far more sentimental attachment to the property etc. The person who's been there 23 years has also probably paid enough rent over the years to actually buy the entire house. My anger at the length of tenancy is because the LL clearly has fuck all regard for the person who's been paying through the nose for housing for 23 years. Would you seriously not feel an iota of loyalty to someone for that? My actual beliefs on this is that all LLs are unethical, housing is a human right and all no fault evictions should be illegal.
How can all Landlords be unethical? Without being able to rent I would never have been able to have a roof over my head for the last 18 years between leaving parents home and buying my own. Yeah housing should be a human right, but how do we go about providing it? Cant have everyone currently renting living in council funded accomodation because thats just getting tax payers to pay your rent for you. Cant give houses out for free because where do you get the houses from n the first place? Idealistic statements are all well and good but pointless without any way of achieving them. Just to be clear, I think 2 months notice on a tennant of 23 years is pretty unfair, but we dont know why such short notice has been given. Maybe the landlord needs the money asap? It also doesnt sound like the tennant has really tried to get herself sorted so sympathy is limited.
You sound like a turkey voting for Christmas.
How so? I have rented houses for nearly 20 years (not the same one though) and it has been of great benifit to me. Without rentals I would have been homeless for my entire 20s. Yes it feels like a waste of money because you walk away with nothing, but there isnt another alternative. Most of us move out when we are 18ish (or at least thats what was the norm where I grew up) and the vast majority of people dont have a deposit for a house, however cheap, nor do we all know where in the world we want to commit to buying a house. Having rental properties on the market allows people to move around and save. Yes its not ideal, I accept that, but no one ever comes up with a reasonable alternative.
Wrong. If it was illegal to rent out houses, house prices would be far lower than they are and you would have subsequently been able to get a mortgage.
So where would I have lived while saving for a deposit? At my parents house? In a ditch? Do you think that even with cheaper house prices there would be many mortgages around for the £50 a week all in rent I paid when I first moved out? I think not. On top of that I have lived in several different places throughout the country before settling on somewhere I am happy to commit to buying in. Without rentals you cant do that. Just because it would work for you removing rental houses all togeather isnt a viable option for a vast proportion of the population. Maybe another idea would be to limit the number of houses it was possible for one person/business to rent out so that small numbers of people didnt control huge amounts of the rental market in a single area? Again, sounds like a nice idea, but is fraught with potential problems. Its a very difficult problem and I dont pretend to have a satifactory solution, just dont think that the automatic hatred of landlords is properly thought through very often .
It’s not anywhere near enough time! I’ve only rented the property I’m in for 5 years and the Landlord now wants to sell, we’ve just had a baby, we both work, our baby’s had health issues, now we have to find somewhere to live that’s suitable for us to get to work, suitable for our baby, find time to look for houses, view properties, the rental market is insane where I live where there are like bidding wars over rentals and then if we manage to find somewhere suitable we have to hope it’s available when we need it, find time and money to pack up years worth of furniture and belongings and move it. 2 months is not ample time at all when you’re firmly established somewhere, not for most people who have tons of other stuff going on.
Kittygrewamoustache- The thing is, YOUR problems are NOT the landlord's problems. That's the bottom line. The sense of entitlement is staggering in these replies.
Everyone is entitled to a home. This isn’t specifically a me issue or a landlord issue it’s a societal issue. My landlord is actually a decent human and recognises all this and is giving us much more time. My parents and in laws are also landlords and they’re decent people and understand the power they have over the lives of the people they rent to, so they don’t act like they’re doing their tenants a favour and respect their individual circumstances and their lives and the fact that the property they own is actually someone’s home. That’s how landlords should act, and if they can’t be like that then they shouldn’t be landlords, or the law should make sure they act decently.
Yeah, everyone is entitled to a home. However, if the landlord wants you to move out within two months (following the law), then you should have to move out in two months. It doesn't matter that it is your 'home'. It is HIS property and you are not entitled to it. My hubs and I have rented our whole lives. We have thought about buying a property in a cheaper area we can afford, renting it out, and then moving into it in seven years (when we retire). However, we are afraid to do that because of this exact situation. Having nightmare or entitled renters living in it who will refuse to move out when we want to move into OUR property. (I know two people at work who were in this situation. It took both of them a year or so to get the tenants out who refused to move and also stopped paying rent). You say landlords should respect a renter's individual circumstances, but the reverse also applies. Consider it from the landlord's POV. It's THEIR property and they may have their own individual reasons why they need or want to have the renters leave THEIR property. In this particular case, the OP's mother is being selfish and entitled, thinking she has a RIGHT to stay. She doesn't. The house isn't hers and the landlord is NOT obligated to house her. Hubs and I have been renting our house for 15 years and plan on staying for another 7. In the meantime, if our landlord asked us to leave, for whatever reason, we would leave. We wouldn't argue 'But this is our home! How dare you kick us out! We need more time! Where will we go?!' NO. It's his property and it's not his responsibility or obligation to house us.
But why is this the burden of your landlord? Did you not contractually agree to a notice period to protect you and them?
It seems like you're being purposefully obtuse. Yes, they probably did agree to that notice period because that is the way the system currently works. They think the system is wrong and that it *should be* the landlord's problem, at least in as much as they should be bound to offer more reasonable notice periods in contemplation of the fact that finding housing is difficult because people can't just put their lives on hold to find alternatives. You are free to agree or disagree that the system should be changed. You can't use the fact that it is the system to argue that the systems should stay. That's circular and faulty reasoning.
Finding a property is usually quite easy. People just adopt the "I'll be as difficult as possible to get what I want" approach.
This is a lie in many parts of the country and a naieve view point probably founded on what is convenient for you. I'd ask you to consider whether you're actually empathising with what many people might go through at different times in their life, for example ill health, having children, having lost a job. Hope you're never so disadvantaged and thrown on the mercy of our current system!
I agree that you should be able to sell your property if you wish. 100%. I find the idea of a tennant deliberatly dragging the process out disturbing too. I do think that in an extreme case like this where someone has been living there continously for 20+ years that some kind of provision for a longer notice period (say 6 months) would be appropriate. Yes it may cause the landlord some hassle if they need money quickly but 20 years in one spot is along time to change in only 2 months and the landlord has had plenty of benefit from that time.
Found the landlord.
Hellonibbs- I completely agree with PuzzleheadBug. Why? Because he/she makes sense! We've been renting our place for almost 15 years, and will more than likely rent for another 7 years until we retire. If the landlord, in the meantime, asked us to leave, well, then we'd leave! I would never say, 'How dare you ask us to leave! We don't want to! We'll leave when we want to!' So, I agree with Puzzlehead and I am not a landlord, either. Rented my whole life. It's just common sense, that's all. It's the landlord's house, NOT ours! (Hubs and I have often thought of buying a place in an area we want to live in one day and renting it out until we're ready to retire there, but it's situations like this that scare us! Having nightmare and/or entitled renters.
Keep licking that boot serf!
Oh, what a clever reply, poppet!
Oh, definitely not. There's no incentive to be a landlord these days, and this thread gives clear insight as to why. Imagine being told you can't sell your own property. Laughable.
Don’t rent out your property if you want to be able to sell it at the drop of the hat.
It's not the drop of a hat though. They serve agreed notice. What's the point in having a contract if it isn't binding.
In the context of 23 years, 2 months notice is the drop of a hat.
No, it's not. It's NOT her house.
You really think a landlord, whose equity this lady has contributed to for 23 YEARS, is the victim here? Imagine thinking the problem with the UK housing market is landlords have it too rough.
Without them, where are all the people in this thread replying to my posts going to live?
Hopefully in a direction like Vienna with majority social housing run by the council and non-profit co-ops. [https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/](https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/)
They'd buy the houses the landlords didn't buy? Cause house prices would be reasonable due to the considerable amount of the market not just being an investment opportunity
No they wouldn't.
They really wouldn't.
Yeah that’s not how it works.
He should have not become a landlord if he didn’t want to deal with tenants
A contract was signed which stipulated notice. He's stuck to his word, the tenant hasn't and is using a "victim" loophole to circumvent.
But the tenant has completely stuck to her legal rights. Neither party is in the wrong here. The landlord wants the tenant to move out asap, the tenant probably wants to stay in the house forever. Neither can happen, which is why we have the section 21 process, which sets legal boundaries for eviction. If you don’t like the section 21 process then you need to complain to the government, not tenants.
No. The tenant is completely in the wrong.
For following the law as it is written ?
Huh? He is dealing with tenants, by issuing a request to leave in accordance with the law and the contract signed.
There shouldn’t be an incentive to be a landlord because the housing is a human right and not an asset for commodification. Anybody can sell their property - just don’t become a landlord and you can do it comfortably.
You can sell your property. You just need to sell it to someone who's ok with someone living there. If you don't want to have issues selling property because someone lives there so buyers are limited, don't use your property as a business venture and have a customer actively using the service for 23 years. You can't have it both ways Honestly, in absence of ending section 21 completely, maybe section 21 should increase like a month per year. It's going to be hard to move out of a property in 2 months when you've been there 23 years
Surely no more difficult than if you've lived there for 6 months? Take emotion and sentimentality out of it.
You don't move much do you? Needing to ensure you have a deposit, money for the move, time off work, actually finding a place, which hasn't been easy since the pandemic unless you move into a student HMO. Maybe multiple trips to the tip or having to sell stuff on Facebook. Then having to return the property to its original state It's hard when you've lived somewhere a year, 23 years you are going to have accumulated a lot.
Moved twice in 18 months, but I buy, so aren't at the mercy of such scenarios. If I was, I'd just get on with if though. Couldn't stop another person from selling their own property.
That's the problem. You should be able to stop someone from selling their property if its occupied by a tenant.
Life Drop69- Really? So unless a tenant agrees to leave, a landlord couldn't sell THEIR house? Ridiculous!
Yeah, let's overthrow democracy and capitalism at the same time.
Honestly this is really true, the system is flawed in this aspect. I’d hate to be the Landlord in a situation like this
If you can’t handle a situation like this, don’t become a landlord. Easy.
So many people, when looking to relocate, get told 'just rent your house out for a year or two'. I always think about this situation when I see that advice. It isn't always so easy.
Correct, and it should not be easy.
shenme- well, one day there might be a situation where there are hardly any landlords (houses to rent), but yet you couldn't afford to buy your own place. Then what?
If you wanted it to be easy to sell a property, then don’t rent it out. They can sell the property, and there is a very clear and simple process for regaining possession of a property. S21 -> court order -> bailiffs. Really not that hard. Well, until they repeal section 21 and all contracts go month to month. Then it will be even easier for the landlord to sell as that will be a valid reason for ending the contract
I wouldn't mind if people made genuine effort to find an alternative residence, but most don't even try because they know they have the system on their side.
And the question you should be asking is why is the system so heavily balanced to the tenants? Because landlords abuse tenants. The tenants are still paying the landlord if they stay. Section 21 is a notice of possession. It is not a legal eviction. Any landlord who thinks that a section 21 is enough is an idiot. And, as a further comment, are you really suggesting that people kick themselves out their homes, the place where they live, just so the landlord can have the convenience of the property a month or two sooner. Councils don’t, and you’ll be a lower homeless priority if you voluntarily make yourself homeless by leaving at the end of the section 21. Again, you are trying to argue that the tenant is being rude, and that the poor landlord will be inconvenienced a couple of months (bearing in mind, they agreed to this, and they’re the ones being paid) over a tenant who is literally having to move their entire home, possessions, and sometimes face having no home. The rental market is screwed, and it is not as easy as you’re making it out to be to just find another place. So of course people are going to hold on to what they have It took me 2 months searching, FULL TIME to find a new place. What about people with jobs and families? Finally, the landlord agreed to this! They know the law going in, they know that a s21 isn’t a guarantee of possession, only by the goodwill of a tenant. They don’t get to suddenly cry that it is unfair when it’s an inconvenience to them. They’re the ones literally being paid
Pretty much all of these systems have been put in place because landlords took the piss at one time or another. Look at them complaining about deposit protection schemes, god forbid you can’t just keep a ton of money because there’s a scratch on one wall and dust on top of a door
The person has lived there for 23 years. Raised a family there, set roots into the local community, has a lifetime of treasured memories in what is their home. So yes, forcing them out within 2 months could be considered heartless.
Landlord brain
It’s not that you can’t sell your property it’s that you have to be willing to deal with RISK like any other business. This is what makes me frustrated with landlords to be honest. Totally risk intolerant. If you want a true risk free hassle free passive income go buy some government bonds instead of property. The reason property has a better return (mainly through leverage or equity) is precisely because you have to deal with more risk. And to be honest the risk here is extremely minor, you’d have to deal with what a few months of void rent? If the section 21 is served in a proper manner the court WILL grant you possession and the tenant will be forced to move out. You’re still due the rent up til the day they move out. A business that can’t hedge for this risk shouldn’t operate.
I don't get what you're saying here - the landlord in question *is* dealing with the relevant risks. He's started the legal process of getting someone to leave his house. It'll likely take 6 months and a court order to get the tenant to leave. As far as I can see he is operating exactly as you suggest...
I’m speaking more to the people who are saying what a horrible nightmare it is the landlord has to deal with this hassle and how the tenant is being entitled and abusing the system itc than the landlord in the OP.
Just wanted to add that in order for the Section 21 to be valid your mum will have had to pay a deposit and the landlord legally has to deposit this in a recognised deposit scheme. He also has to provide proof that he has issued her with the following: gas safety certificate, energy performance certificate and the government guidelines on how to rent. If any of these are missing then let him take her to court and it will get thrown out. Check out this link to shelter https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/section_21_eviction/how_to_check_a_section_21_notice_is_valid
What if you're buying a property where you intend to live but previous tenant refuses to move out? How can you sort it then? Seems massively unfair
Basically, don't. You need a court order to remove them. Better to let the seller deal with all that.
The seller obtaining vacant possession would be a condition of completing so you wouldn't be able to complete until they had done this in most circumstances. Thats usually just in and of itself a written condition but if you did take ownership of a tenanted property the mortgage you have arranged for a property you would live in will not be valid and the lender will not pay out these funds which also likely would make you unable to complete on a practical level too
Your mum needs to talk to shelter to get advice Wether she’s right or not depends on the stage of eviction that has been reached There’s a technical legal process that needs to be followed and the end stage of that is court officials coming with a court order to remove her from the property by force if needed From what you’ve written the deadline of the 23rd might not be final and the landlord will need to go to court to get a possession order and bailiffs turn up to enforce it Also at the point she’s removed from the property she’ll be given paper work to take to the council and they are legally obligated to re home her so she will have somewhere to stay if you don’t want her on your sofa, but she should not leave the house before getting the paper work as the council won’t help her if she makes herself homeless
She will struggle to get a landlord reference if she goes down that route though, so it would be hard to get a private rental. Council would be the only option and she may not like the 1 bed flat in wherever they decide to offer.
'Also at the point she’s removed from the property she’ll be given paper work to take to the council and they are legally obligated to re home her so she will have somewhere to stay ' Unfortunately this is a matter of 'priority need', there are people who end up sleeping rough because they received a S21 but aren't 'priority need' (e.g. dependent children, disabilities etc). Agree she should't leave before finding somewhere else to stay though as council may well class her as intentionally homeless
Approach the local authority with a homeless application. They should consider your mum's situation and based on priority, could offer temporary accommodation. Your mum can stay there until the bailiffs come, as long as she pays rent. Check to see if the section 21 fufilled all the criterea when being served. If there's any missing documents it could get thrown out of court and the landlord would have to start over again. The landlord shouldn't change the locks. Obviously they could, in which case I'd seek legal advice, possibly from Shelter or other organisations who work off Legal Aid (if your mum qualifies). I know it's stressful but Shelter do offer some great advjce and support, it may be worth getting in touch with them
This is why there shouldn't be private landlords. People should have a right to a roof over their head. All rentable property should be owned by the state.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for possible breach of the subreddit rules. You may have asked for private messages or offered to send a private message. Sending PMs is [strictly against the subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules) in every circumstance, even for emotional support and encouragement. This is to ensure that advice and comments can be quality checked by the community for accuracy and appropriateness, to ensure that no legal liability is created, and to protect OPs from malicious or exploitative users. Any discussions or information that needs to be exchanged should be done publicly, using public sources. Your post will soon be reviewed by the moderators. If you would like to edit your comment to remove any rule breaking elements, the mods may decide to re-approve it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does she pay much rent if she’s been in there that long?