UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?

[Arakhor]

The last thing I want is for Labour to simply implement all of the Tories' policies, however competently they do it.

There have to be more protections for renters - if keeping no-fault evictions means that people can still be terrorised into silence or have their rent vastly increased rather than being chucked out on their ear, then clearly NFEs need to be banned.

 

[Zardnaar]

It only took 14 years and the perilous descent of almost every socioeconomic metric!

1. I did say that was the downside.
2. My realpolitik opinions are to keep them out of power.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

There still being wiggle room doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of no fault evictions. Landlords should 100% need a reason to evict.

Well yes.. but what reason is reasonable? Who is policing if the reasonable request is truthful? This is my point. It collapses immediately on inspection.

 

[Gorbles]

Well yes.. but what reason is reasonable? Who is policing if the reasonable request is truthful? This is my point. It collapses immediately on inspection.

The extent to which a reason is reasonable is debatable. No reason isn't debatable at all, and is therefore a different thing.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

The extent to which a reason is reasonable is debatable. No reason isn't debatable at all, and is therefore a different thing.

Yes, but if all it takes is a LL to make up a reason.. what is the point? It doesn't even need to be negative about the tenant.

"I would like to terminate the tenancy as I wish to live in the property" BOOM, all the huff and bluster of removing no fault evictions evaporated instantly. Tenant has to move out.. and then the LL "changes their mind".. its back on the market.

 

[Senethro]

The problem is that landlords want both a captive market and no-fault evictions and for the state to use its policing powers to fix any trouble arising from having it all.

 

[Arakhor]

"I would like to terminate the tenancy as I wish to live in the property" BOOM, all the huff and bluster of removing no fault evictions evaporated instantly. Tenant has to move out.. and then the LL "changes their mind".. its back on the market.

And then you expressly forbid that, with legal consequences if necessary. Just refusing to do anything because bad actors will abuse loopholes is cowardice.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

And then you expressly forbid that, with legal consequences if necessary. Just refusing to do anything because bad actors will abuse loopholes is cowardice.

Forbid the owner of a property the right to live in it?

 

[Arakhor]

No, you forbid "changing one's mind" within a period of time, such as four to six months. If the landlord really wants to live in it, they won't be re-offering it any time soon.

 

[Senethro]

Forbid the owner of a property the right to live in it?

Yes, it sounds silly and against "common sense" (as the newspapers and pub blokes would say it) but its also a smaller harm against fewer people than homelessness and extortionate rents.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

No, you forbid "changing one's mind" within a period of time, such as four to six months. If the landlord really wants to live in it, they won't be re-offering it any time soon.

Ok, but now you're enforcing where someone does live. Which is even weirder .. and who is going to police it? Is there money for this new enforcement team?

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, but if all it takes is a LL to make up a reason.. what is the point? It doesn't even need to be negative about the tenant.

"I would like to terminate the tenancy as I wish to live in the property" BOOM, all the huff and bluster of removing no fault evictions evaporated instantly. Tenant has to move out.. and then the LL "changes their mind".. its back on the market.

Because, as has been pointed out, making up a reason involves actually documenting a reason. This is evidence. I don't know enough about being evicted, thankfully, but that alone is better than "no evidence".

Like I said at the start: just because landlords can lie about reasons, doesn't mean that no-fault evictions are somehow justified. And scrupulous landlords should have nothing to worry about.

 

[Arakhor]

Ok, but now you're enforcing where someone does live. Which is even weirder .. and who is going to police it? Is there money for this new enforcement team?

You realise I'm not actually in government, right? Why are you asking me such specific questions?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Forbid the owner of a property the right to live in it?

Happens all the time. Many jurisdictions happily permit foreigners to own properties
without giving them a visa to live in the country where the property is.

The "I need my property back because I need somewhere to live" may be very appropriate
on occasions when a person lets their only house e.g. when posted overseas and
then when that assignment ends needs somewhere to live on that return to their country.

But many landlords have more than one property, and are already living in a property;
so they simply do not need a particular property to be emptied for them to live in it.

And if the landlord has signed a contract giving someone else the right to live in that property,
then their own right to live there is on hold until that contract expires. The concept that a valid
reason ought to be given for terminating a contract is hardly a burden for a landlord.

Yes, but if all it takes is a LL to make up a reason.. what is the point? It doesn't even need to be negative about the tenant.

"I would like to terminate the tenancy as I wish to live in the property" BOOM, all the huff and bluster of removing no fault evictions evaporated instantly. Tenant has to move out.. and then the LL "changes their mind".. its back on the market.

Obtaining an eviction by falsely claiming they intend to live in a property falls somewhere between fraud and perjury.

And if one owns 20 properties and wants to evict ten tenants who won't pay a doubled rent, the court
may recognise that it has heard that excuse from the same landlord a number of times before.

Banning no fault eviction in the UK is not about preventing a landlord from returning to live in their property,
it is about preventing abuse; e.g. if you complain again about the roof leakage, I will just no fault evict you etc.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

You realise I'm not actually in government, right? Why are you asking me such specific questions?

That's usually how a discussion works?

Banning no fault eviction in the UK is not about preventing a landlord from returning to live in their property,
it is about preventing abuse; e.g. if you complain again about the roof leakage, I will just no fault evict you etc.

They will just not renew the contract. Same affect, just delayed a few months.

 

[Senethro]

They will just not renew the contract. Same affect, just delayed a few months.

Good. A few months is better than nothing. Consider what even one week sleeping rough does.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Good. A few months is better than nothing. Consider what even one week sleeping rough does.

Current "no fault" eviction is not immediate.. it is 8 weeks notice. So again.. this will make no real difference.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Then if it makes no real difference, why are landlords so against having no fault eviction abolished?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Then if it makes no real difference, why are landlords so against having no fault eviction abolished?

I'm one and I'm telling you I don't mind one bit.

If I put my ting foil hat on... It's a really safe 'battle ground' the tories were playing with to pretend to be for the renters... And for big land lords it was simply the current battle eroding their power. They would fight anything as its simply business.

You can look at other countries for how progressive rental controls could be.

 

[EvaDK]

Reading that Suella Braverman is doing her worst to drag the smoking pile of rubble known as the Conservative Party, even further towards the far right and Nigel Farage's Reform party.

In which case Labour doesn't have to defeat the opposition party; the Tories might just self-destruct completely on their own.