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