Possession cases with severe rent arrears will now be exempt from the ban on evictions, meaning bailiffs and high court enforcement officers can move to enforce warrants and complete evictions, but just how long does the government consider to be ‘substantial’?
According to the latest guidance, the ban on evictions will only apply to cases where the equivalent of nine months’ rent arrears had accrued prior to the 23rd March 2020, when the country went into national lockdown.
“There are concerns about how long it will take those landlords, whose arrears cases fall short of the government’s definition of “substantial” i.e. nine months, to regain possession,” said Paul Shamplina, founder of Landlord Action.
But ultimately, the evictions specialist has welcomed the move by the government.
“This is very welcome news for those landlords whose tenants had stopped paying rent months prior to the pandemic and, until now, had been given carte blanche to continue living rent free,” he said.
Landlord Action is currently acting on behalf of dozens of landlords who have severe pre-Covid possession cases and who have been powerless to act over the last eight months.
He added: “If we cannot rely on the UK courts to uphold the simple contract signed by the tenant, to pay rent within a reasonable period of time, how can we be expected to operate as landlords in this country?
“Even before Covid, it took too long to gain possession. Landlords do not need any more disincentives. It is the good, honest tenants that will suffer as it means landlords will be far more cautious of who they let to, putting for example, self-employed people, at greater risk of being overlooked.
“As a landlord, I would always show compassion and help a tenant if I could, but I simply cannot afford to pay rent for someone else for two years.”
The eviction ban started in March and ended in September, only to be reinstated in areas classified as Covid risk Tier 2 or Tier 3.
On 5 November, the government said renters would be protected during the second national restrictions, currently in place until at least 2 December, with no bailiff enforcement action, except for the most egregious cases such as anti-social behaviour.
Shamplina continued: “Put simply, landlords are not banks or the welfare state. In fact, banks get their money back, but landlords are expected to swallow these losses.
“How is it fair that a landlord should be covering the rent for someone who was already failing to pay rent long before the pandemic started?”
Comments (8)
The justifiable reaction of LL to less than quality tenants is only to be expected.
The completely dysfunctional repossession process has led to LL withdrawing rental opportunities from those aspirant tenants who are incapable of providing guarantors or qualifying for RGI.
The harder it is made for LL to repossess rental property especially from rent DEFAULTING tenants the harder it will be for tenants to source tenancies.
There can be no justification for the law to protect rent defaulting tenants from repossession.
It matters not why the tenant is rent defaulting they should be booted out after 2 months rent default which is 1 month and 1 day where rent is paid monthly in advance.
Give 14 days notice and on the 15th day after the 2nd month rent default the LL may remove them with Police assistance if required.
No Court action required at all.
However there is no doubt that Govt intends to make repossession for any reason even more difficult.
LL have to seriously consider their position.
If they cannot achieve tenants with RGI or guarantors is it worth the risk of being a LL.
I suggest NOT.
Those tenants who can pass stringent referencing etc are very thin on the ground.
Rent defaulting tenants cause LL over £9 billion in losses for LL every year with apparently that increasing to £10 billion this year all mostly caused by rent defaulting tenants.
I know of NO other business in the UK that is forced by law to continue to provide a full service accommodation facility for zero cost.
LL are the only business that are forced to provide this.
How can this be deemed in anyway acceptable!?
There are hundreds of thousands of LL that will be bankrupted by their inability to remove feckless rent defaulting tenants.
A lender can repossess a property very quickly from a mortgage defaulting LL so why the difference in timescale and process for the LL compared to the lender!!??
Govt is effectively supporting tenant fecklessness.
There is absolutely NO excuse for tenants not to pay rent.
They had ample opportunity to save for sudden income loss but chose NOT to.
Their choice.
But why should LL be expected to support their tenants’ spendthrift ways by forced by law to continue to provide a full accommodation service at zero cost!!??
It is clear the UK Govt seeks to drive ENGLISH LL out of business.
As an aside it seems some LL believe they aren’t liable for S24 taxes if they aren’t being paid any rent for WHATEVER reason.
Got news for you dopey sole trader mortgaged LL S24 tax is due irrespective of occupancy status of your mortgaged rental properties.
So now you are expected to pay tax on fictitious income with non-existent fictitious rental income!!
Come on for many LL the game just isn’t worth bothering with anymore.
Sell up especially all those LL with sub C status for MEES.
Time to create mass tenant homelessness by selling up.
Then it will be for Govt to somehow house millions of homeless tenants.
No idea how they would achieve that.
Well said, Paul.
I have one property SSTC – please God the tenant leaves at the end of the notice. THre more waiting to hit the market as soon as the current tenants give notice.
U say it perfectly Paul:
The completely dysfunctional repossession process has led to LL withdrawing rental opportunities from those aspirant tenants who are incapable of providing guarantors or qualifying for RGI.
The harder it is made for LL to repossess rental property especially from rent DEFAULTING tenants the harder it will be for tenants to source tenancies.
Indeed I know you have vast experience of dealing with the let us say the lower end of the PRS but that even you are being beaten down by all these circumstances such that you are changing your business strategy and are moving to quality tenants when you can. I know that if you could get rid of rent defaulting tenants quickly if you wished you would have no issues letting to those riskier tenants that your business has thrived on over many years. No good LL gets rid of tenants who pay their contractual rent!! I know for certain that if there was a fast track eviction process where rent defaulting occurs that LL would be prepared to take risks on tenants who they ordinarily WOULDN’T consider. So perversely enabling fast track evictions for rent defaulting tenants would actually encourage LL to consider taking on the dodgier tenants. This could save Councils billions in TA costs. I don’t have a problem with any other reasons for eviction being managed by court processes. Just allow LL to quickly boot out rent defaulting tenants and aspirant tenants will find many more LL prepared to let to them. But of course the elephant in the room which the Govt is fully aware of is that rent defaulting tenants cost LL about £9 billion per year. If a fast track eviction process was allowed it would mean much of that £9 billion of rent losses would have to be covered by Councils for TA costs Currently Govt is forcing LL to subsidise feckless tenants. This is why there will NEVER be a fast track repossession process. Indeed the process is scheduled to become even more difficult with the pending abolishment of the AST and S21. LL are being placed in an impossible position in being prevented from repossessing their properties in a timely fadhion. Essentially returning to the bad old days of sitting tenants. LL will naturally withdraw from letting if they are prevented from recovering their properties quickly from rent defaulting tenants. Few LL have any desire to offer a free accommodation service!!!
That’s it Paul, if we exaggerated things & let Landlords get house back quick if bad tenant, more Landlords would say Ooh I’ll buy more, I’ll take a chance on anyone if can get house back quick.Why would a Landlord want to get rid of a good paying tenant? Yes why? We don’t.More Landlords would buy, prices would come down, standards would go up, otherwise they’d just move up the road to the cheaper better house as there would be loads of ’em.
U say it exactly Paul: It is the good, honest tenants that will suffer as it means landlords will be far more cautious of who they let toAnd that’s what’s happening now, I’m now refusing good honest tenants, cause I want ’em to come with only Letting Agent quality now, full guarantors the whole works.
@marc da silva
Now this is property news – informative, interesting and useful for us to know.
Please can we have more articles like this and stop giving oxygen to the self publicists who again have two articles today, where in the comments sections it clearly shows your readership have no interest in.
Thank you
AGREED. Marc?