Call Us TODAY on 020 3588 4240
Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin Instagram Tiktok Pinterest

Proposed Leasehold Reform – Part 2

Check Out Our Solutions

Worth Sharing?

Download Our Free E-book

Get Access to the Best Content on High Court Enforcement

Download E-book
Download E-book
Quick Resources

Call the Bailiffs Time to Pay Up Season 1

I have been so busy this week that I was thinking about leaving this ‘Part 2’ tonight…but then I thought of you.  Left checking my blog every few minutes to see if Part 2 had been posted.  I mean I didn’t leave you on cliffhanger but no doubt I left you eager to know more (if you instruct me and I ask you that question just agree…who knows you might get some chocolate in the post!).

So having looked at the reason why the Government felt they should act in respect of section 21 orders I now want to look at what were the issues that they wanted to resolve.  Well, the first issue they identified was that tenant has no security and could be asked to leave the property (with notice) as and when the landlord likes after the end of the fixed term.  They make it sound as if the tenants have been forced into signing this tenancy.  The agreement is for a certain amount of time, its agreed upon between all of the parties, if at the end of the agreement it suits both parties to enter into another agreement (or allow the contract to run periodically) then they do.  This is their choice.  Why does it need to be amended?

The Government have also completely ignored the obvious.  Why does someone let a property?  I would suggest it is because the landlord wishes to make an income through renting the property to a tenant.  There may be other reasons but I think we can all agree that this is the overriding one.  If this is the case why do the Government think that landlords are obtaining section 21 orders are evicting their tenants?  Does this really enhance their objective to make money?  It doesn’t make sense that someone who wishes to make money from the rental market, for no good reason, decides to dispose of his source of income simply to have the outlay involved in obtaining another tenant.  I am not saying it doesn’t happen at all but I cannot see it happens often enough to justify abolishment.

The problem is that the Government think that the section 21 process is being used by ‘rogue landlords’ who, it appears to me, ignore any good business sense just to either make tenants lives a misery!  Now I know there are rogue landlords out there but the question I will leave you on is.  If the Government are targeting ‘rogue landlords’ they are presumably targeting those individuals that are acting contrary to the law.  If these individuals don’t respect the currently legal process, what makes the Government think that they either use the section 21 process to gain vacant possession of their property now or will do in the future?

I think like my roses to Salma earlier this week, they have missed their target

Content Writer​

You Might Also Like

DISCLAIMER NOTICE |

The following disclaimer applies to Shergroup Limited and its platform, shergroup.com. Please read this notice carefully before accessing or using any information provided on our platform.

  1. No Legal Advice | The information presented on shergroup.com, including but not limited to articles, blog posts, FAQs, and other resources, is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be considered, legal advice. The information provided does not create a solicitor/client relationship between Shergroup Limited and the user.
  2. Not a Substitute for Legal Advice | The information on shergroup.com should not be relied upon as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified professional. The application of laws and regulations can vary based on specific circumstances, and legal advice tailored to your particular situation is crucial. Therefore, we may refer you to a member of our partner firm -Shergroup Legal – on legal matters or encourage you to take your own legal advice from your preferred advisor.
  3. No Guarantee of Accuracy | While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, Shergroup Limited does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information on shergroup.com. The legal landscape is constantly evolving, and laws may vary across jurisdictions. Therefore, any reliance you place on the information provided is at your own risk.
  4. No Liability | Shergroup Limited, including its officers, employees, agents, and affiliates, shall not be held liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages arising out of your access to or use of shergroup.com or any information contained therein. This includes, but is not limited to, any errors or omissions in the content, or any actions taken or not taken based on the information provided.
  5. Third-Party Links | Shergroup.com may contain links to third-party websites or resources. These links are provided solely for convenience and do not imply endorsement or responsibility for the content, accuracy, or legality of such websites or resources. Shergroup Limited shall not be liable for any damages or losses incurred as a result of accessing or using any third-party websites or resources.
  6. Changes to Disclaimer | Shergroup Limited reserves the right to modify or amend this disclaimer notice at any time without prior notice. Any changes will be effective immediately upon posting on shergroup.com. It is your responsibility to review this notice periodically for updates.

By accessing or using shergroup.com, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agreed to this disclaimer notice. If you do not agree with any part of this notice, you should refrain from accessing or using shergroup.com.

Last updated | 19 July 2023

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this disclaimer notice, please contact us at [email protected]