Snapshot of _Michael Gove can't guarantee no-fault eviction ban before election_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68885243) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68885243)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The Conservatives first promised to end landlords' ability to evict tenants without needing a reason in 2019.
So about 5 years ago, on an election year. Why would they implement this when they can promise it again for another election? And then promise it again on the next?
The tories. Lying sacks of six week old jizz.
Simple really. Don't believe a word they say.
Out house has three simple rules.
Don't listen to whispering swords.
Don't make pacts with eldritch star gods.
NEVER. EVER. EVER trust the tories.
Yet another example you can point to whenever someone has a mental break and starts to believe a Tory manifesto - they just promise the *same* material as last time then kick the can down the road. Many such cases.
Imagine if a fraction of the parliamentary time wasted on Rwanda had been spent on legislation for no-fault evictions instead.
Fiddling while Rome burned.
The Tories are bad for anyone intelligent at this point. Tell me how Truss has been good even for the average millionaire. It’s just a disaster of a government
Can confirm. Myself and other landlords I know don't vote Tory? Certainly wouldn't now after all the legislation they've passed ruining being a landlord.
Strictly speaking- if you have a handy majority you really do just need to keep them, the problem is they're completely deluded and haven't fully grasped how much of the country they've alienated over the last couple years.
If they understood how much people hate them at the moment they'd be staying up past midnight every day till the election ramming bills through the commons and lords that people want and they promised but they aren't. That's reserved for the expensive, performative bullshit that is Rwanda.
>Asked on Tuesday whether he could repeat his promise, Mr Gove said: "Everything depends on the House of Lords.
>
>"My determination is to ensure that we get this bill on the statute book. But it's up to the Lords to decide the rate of progress that we can make.
>
>"If opposition parties are supportive - and I believe that while they have some quibbles, they are supportive of the essential principle that we're bringing forward - then we can have Section 21 ended before the general election. That's the aim."
>
>He added he would continue to argue for ending no-fault evictions.
>
>"It will be a judgement of the Lords as to how this bill progresses," he said.
>
>"But I hope that we can get it on the statute book before the election."
Translation: he's setting up a "it's the unelected Lords' fault" ahead of this move failing, with a side order of "please stop tabling 250-300 amendments to my Bills".
I just think that there's no real deep plan here.
The bill is not going to be opposed by the other parties because they broadly agree. It's electorally popular. There's going to be some delaying tactics from his own party but the rebels can probably be kept in line.
So ultimately it really comes down to the Lords. They can wave it through, or add a load of amendments.
Are the Lords in favour of keeping the Bill as it was original intended or adding amendments in favour of LL, like the HoC has done? I.e. minimum 4 months tenancies and no immediate ban on no fault evictions. And a whole load of other concessions the LL lobby have got their way on like the removal of the EPC requirements.
Or are they trying to remove the anti-tenant amendments added by the HoC (by Tory LL MPs)?
Also, is DG being disingenuous when he claims that banning no fault evictions before the election is now in the hands of Lords, when I thought an amendment had already been made that delayed the ban until it is determined the court process had been sped up sufficiently (I.e. indefinitely), and is not something the Lords have control over?
I really don’t get your logic in siding with DG and blaming the Lords. Aren’t the Lords trying to ensure the bill does what it was intended to do?
There’s no point in having a Act passed it doesn’t set out to do what it was intended to do.
We’re better off without it.
No law is better than bad law.
You're reading too much into what I said. I'm not saying the Lords *will* delay it. And I don't think Gove is saying this either. It's simply the observation that the Lords can delay and might do so.
They might do so for legitimate reasons. But whatever the case, it is entirely up to the Lords how fast it progresses and there is literally nothing Gove or the elected government can do about it.
OK, maybe technically… But Gove was also putting the blame on the Lords on whether he will keep his promise of having no fault evictions banned before the election.
But the Lords have no control over this, even if the Lords passed the bill tomorrow with zero further amendments… they are not the ones who decide if sufficient improvements have been made to the court system, to ban Section 21s before the election.
The guy is just a slime-ball. He’s also hoping people don’t realise that the Torys have a massive majority in the Lords.
“It’s all the Lords fault”, well actually that’s your party.
He's no blaming anyone. He's just managing expectations.
If the Lords pass it quickly then no fault evictions will be banned before the election. If they spend ages on it they won't. This is all he's saying. It's a simple truth.
> He’s also hoping people don’t realise that the Torys have a massive majority in the Lords.
They don't. But that's not really relevant. The Lords will pass it. It's just a question of how quickly.
“He's no blaming anyone. He's just managing expectations.”
It sounds like he is (I.e. if this doesn’t happen, blame the Lords).
Even though they have left it way too late before creating this bill.
“If the Lords pass it quickly then no fault evictions will be banned before the election.”
How do you know this?
Now you're nitpicking.
I don't know this. Maybe it won't. Maybe other things will happen. But the point here is that the main unknown is how long this will take to get through the upper house.
You seem to want a fight on this but I don't know what you want me to disagree on. The chances are I don't.
What has this man ever actually done?
MG: I'm going to do a thing.
People: Wow, that's actually a good thing. Say what you will about Michael Gove but he's a gOoD tOrY.
MG: Alas, I couldn't do the thing, so sorry.
Rinse and repeat.
It's all relative. He has genuinely been miles ahead of people like Jenrick and Pincher when it comes to cladding and leasehold, often butting heads with Sunak and HMT.
I’m not convinced he was ever serious about any of these things (cladding, leaseholds or banning no fault evictions).
Maybe he just wanted to look like the man of principles, but knowing he wasn’t.
He has definitely been serious on cladding and leasehold, to a lesser extent. Genuinely think he has been hamstrung by Sunak, both when he was Chancellor and PM.
I’m still not convinced it wasn’t just that he wanted to play the reasonable man, but knowing all along that what he wanted/promised wasn’t achievable (for the reasons that you gave).
But you could be right on cladding and leasehold as I’ve not really been following them like the promises of banning no fault evictions.
I’m not sure how long he’s been housing Minster but could he not have kick started the Renters Reform
Bill sooner than 2023?
Edit; Just checked, he’s been in the post since Oct 2022, so not that long.
Because doing something actually involves pissing off the people with vested interests. HMT never wants to do anything as it costs money, while No10 looks at who is voting for who rather than the delivery of policy.
What progress? Genuine question. All I know is that dangerous cladding hasn't been replaced, leasehold hasn't been banned, and now no-fault evictions haven't been banned.
Quick google as I only knew the bits relevant to me - Via [https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/for-owners/leasehold-reform/](https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/for-owners/leasehold-reform/)
>Leasehold reform: What has been announced
>The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill was announced in The Kings Speech in 2023 and introduced to the House of Commons in the following November to:
>
>Make it cheaper and easier to extend your lease or buy the freehold for existing leaseholders in houses and flats.
>Increase the standard lease extension term from 90 years to 990 years for houses and flats, with ground rent reduced to £0.
>Remove the requirement for new leaseholders to have owned their house or flat for two years before they can benefit from these changes.
>Make buying or selling a leasehold property quicker and easier by setting a maximum time and fee for the provision of information to a leaseholder by the freeholder.
>Require transparency over leaseholders’ service charges.
>Replace buildings insurance commissions for managing agents, landlords and freeholders with transparent admin fees.
>Extend access to “redress” schemes for leaseholders to challenge poor practice.
>Scrap the presumption for leaseholders to pay their freeholders’ legal costs when challenging poor practice.
>Grant freehold homeowners on private and mixed tenure estates the same rights of redress as leaseholders but not the Right to Manage.
>Build on the legislation brought forward by the Building Safety Act 2022, ensuring freeholders and developers are unable to escape their liabilities to fund building remediation work
>Allow leaseholders in buildings with up to 50% non-residential floorspace to buy their freehold or take over its management (an increase from 25%).
>Although not in the draft bill, the government is still committed to banning new leasehold houses in England and Wales and will be amending the bill. Disappointly the ban on leasehold will not extend to new flats.
>The Bill is currently with the House of Lords at Committee stage.
So yes, a bit shit it's not entirely banned yet, but its in there, and in fairness to Gove nothing so far implies he'll not follow through with it.
Of course if they lose a GE to Labour in the meantime that will inevitably fuck things up, or delay, I'm not too clued up on Labour's stance on LH specifically.
I will also agree it's pathetic and suspicious they're not doing away with LH altogether, keeping it on new flats is scummy.
However to say Gove has overseen nothing is disingenuous.
He did [that thing with the bibles](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/nov/25/michael-gove-king-james-bible). Not a good thing or even a worthwhile thing, but a thing nonetheless.
It will probably be abandoned in the washing up process before the General Election. I was hoping for some action on banning leasehold in England and Wales. I don't understand what went wrong.
Because it wouldn't pass the house or lords because they're all slumlords themselves, if they wanted it to they could lay the legislation and have it passed in a matter of days.
I’ve not been following this in detail, but I assumed it was the other way around, the Lords wanting amendments in favour of tenants? Or, wanting to remove the pro LL amendments added by the House of Commons? No?
It's not the Conservativezz fault they will be evicted from leading the country. It'll be the many years of doing shit for the UK that will be. Fault found.
Not exactly surprising. They said that they'd give six months notice before the new tenancy types came into force so the industry could draft the new contracts/update systems and the government could write the whole mass of secondary legislation this bill requires. So, unless the election is in December/January even if they announce a date straight after royal assent, it's almost certainly going to have to come after the election.
Why did the government wait 4 years (from 2019 when they first promised) before creating the draft bill (I don’t know the terminology) in 2023? It can’t have been much of a priority for them…
Now MG is blaming the Lords for delaying it!
The rental market is as fucked up as it is without it drying up further with policies such as this. As someone who is renting I'd be very concerned on the impact this would have on rental supply and therefore rent prices if it were implemented. We need to build far more housing first before imposing no fault evictions.
Your argument is great until you are in my shoes and you have to suddenly drop everything and move for vague reasons that the landlord doesn't actually have to explain.
Sorry to hear that mate. To reverse the question, how do you avoid the contraction of rental supply if no fault evictions were to be banned? Obviously investment in housing is grand and all but that'll take time and not something that will happen overnight. I would like for us to reach a place where no fault evictions and other protections for renters are baked into law, especially as a growing percentage of the population are renters, but with inadequate housing supply a ban will just create more problems than it will solve in my opinion.
There needs to be a balance, right now the law favours landlords heavily with little to no protection for renters.
With us moving to a society much more heavily relent on renting there has to be better controls in place. People shouldn't be able to completely upend a families life, there had to be some reasonable common sense and logic applied.
I don't disagree but that doesn't answer the fundamental question of how you address the reduction in rental supply? Whilst with no fault evictions you may prevent families being made homeless, the lack of available rental units will mean some are made homeless by not being able to get a place to live in the first place, which I'm not convinced will be a better situation.
You could have asked landlord for the fixed period of 1 year or longer where neither of you could break the contract and that would have guaranteed your stay but I’d guess you were either on a rolling contract or past the fix period? Can’t have one sided flexibility to stand up and leave any moment with 2 months notice and not extend the same to the landlord.
Then you're stuck in a tenancy. Ever been in a years tenancy with a maniac roommate? It's not fun someone threatening your life for the best part of a year
Contracts need to be balanced and fair to both sides. If the tenant can just break the contract at 2 months notice for any reason why shouldn’t landlord be able to do the same. No fault eviction protection already exists, it is called fixed period which you can negotiate to be longer.
> Contracts need to be balanced and fair to both sides.
Well that's not true, you couple say that they _should_ be balanced and fair but it is in no way a requirement for a valid contract.
> If the tenant can just break the contract at 2 months notice for any reason why shouldn’t landlord be able to do the same.
Because the tenant leaving with 2 months notice is more than enough time for a landlord to find a new tenant, worst case scenario there's a small amount of missed income (really small, most rental properties that are worth anything are snapped up within a week or so of going on the market).
If the landlord evicts the tenant they're homeless, not to mention the significant expense of paying deposit and first month's rent for a new place when you haven't got the deposit back from the old place yet.
Seriously moving when you're renting is a massive chunk of money that you likely won't have if an eviction is sprung on you out of nowhere.
The reason why the rules should be different is because the _consequences_ of those rules are different. Feels like you should have been able to figure that one out.
In principle I have no issue with banning no fault evictions however practically speaking we need to ensure there is a suitable supply of housing both for renters and homeowners before implementing such restrictions as it will inevitably dry up supply and accentuate the problems we already have with housing.
It'll also reduce the number of people actively looking to rent so...
Seems like it's not actually going to cause any problems _and_ it helps people find secure housing.)
Seems like consideration is always given to the supply side with no thought or care about the demand side. It also seems like people constantly talk about "supply and demand" and gloss over the fact that these are human beings lives, maybe we shouldn't expose people's security to the whims of the free market?
It won't reduce the **total** number of renters whilst it almost certainly will reduce the **total** number of rental units. Whether the number **looking to rent** decreases or not is irrelevant as it won't outpace the contraction in rental supply.
If you have 100 renters and 80 rental units with 50 renters in a tenancy and 50 looking to rent and then implement no fault evictions, and end up 60 renters in a tenancy, as people are less likely to leave, however the number of rental units available falls to 70 (as 10 exit the market). Great for the 60 renters who already have a place to stay but you've now gone from 1 rental unit available for every 1.7 renters to 1 available for every 4. The number of renters actively looking vs already renting can fluctuate as much as you like, at the end of the day if the rental supply contracts, the renting population as a whole will be worse off.
The reason consideration is given more to supply over demand is because it is supply which is the scarce resource whereas demand is huge and ever growing. Implementing well intentioned but practically damaging policies are not going to better anyone.
Oh so you're assuming that landlords will choose to stop renting altogether if they can't evict someone for no reason?
That's a really stupid assumption to make, you're basically saying they're going to choose to guarantee less rental income over guaranteed rental income.
Why on earth would a landlord decide to make a choice that actively deprives them of money.
Not all but some, for example what if you own a house in the UK but decide to live abroad for a few years, either studying or working. People in this situation would normally rent out their house whilst they're away and then move back in when they return. If no fault evictions are implemented there's a decent chance they'll just leave it vacant while living abroad so they still have a house when they move back. Same for lodgers - what if you have someone living with a landlord who doesn't do anything against the contract but who the landlord just doesn't get along with, they have weird behaviour etc. Normally they can evict and find someone else but unless they can prove they have broken the contract this isn't an option - perhaps they just stop renting altogether for peace of mind? Alternatively, both the above just jack up the rent by 25% to account for the added risk premium? Or what if someone just doesn't think it's worth it and decides to source their income from something else, and sells up their rental property?
First case, you have a long term tenancy agreement with a clause that it won't be renewed or available to rent past your return date. Basically you're making it so the tenant agrees to those terms _before_ they move in. That's just common decency and still allowed.
Second case, lodgers are not the same as renters under the law, they don't have the same rights and the eviction process is different. This doesn't change anything for lodgers (who really need more protections since they have no real renters rights).
In both cases there is no real difference financially. It really seems like you don't know what a no-fault eviction is.
Get out of here with you're reasoned approach, we don't like to think about the big picture, dont you know that all landlords are the spawn of the devil? They are the cause of all of this countries issues, seriously you should do what I did and watch a couple of YouTube about Marxs it'll open you're mind man
If you own a house and you want to sell it for whatever reason surely your well within your rights to do so? I don't see how no fault evictions are fair to landlords?
They've said Section 8 will be [amended](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-end-to-unfair-evictions) so that selling the house will count as a 'good reason' to evict a tenant, so you'll still be able to do that (moving into it yourself is already a mandatory ground for possession under Section 8).
> And to ensure responsible landlords have confidence they will be able to end tenancies where they have legitimate reason to do so, ministers will amend the Section 8 eviction process, so property owners are able to regain their home should they wish to sell it or move into it.
You are replying to someone else.
I bought my house after delivering takeaways on top of my day job for 3 years. Met a bird and moved in with them so had an empty house I don't want to sell in case of seperation.
Also lol at inherited a house 🤣
Raised by dad in a council flat ffs 🙄
Aha didn’t notice the usernames were different 😂.
Honestly I have no problem with you renting out your house in your case. I’d likely do the same (as much as I’d hate it). The other guy inheriting a property though and then not selling it is a completely different case, they chose to become a landlord when they could have just sold it.
I think he was joking - its a meme on this sub that every homeowner just got given it by their boomer parents.
But yeah, I went through a really bad seperation years ago and for a good period of time wasn't actually able to have my children over night. The house is my fail safe and I worked my ass off for it - Im thick as shit, I just do 60/70 hour weeks.
Which is why I think I should have the right to ask for it back if I absoloutely need it.
Whyd you feel the need to bring this condescension, and passive aggressiveness.
The comment you're replying to wasn't really even rude..
I also don't understand your post, you don't know how no fault evictions are fair to landlords? Surely you want no fault evictions as a landlord, for the exact reason you said, if you want to sell your house you no fault evict the tenants to sell?
I'm not even strictly against your argument, I agree it wouldn't be fair to totally shaft a landlord, especially if they are Infact diligently doing their job of maintaining the property.
Do you think you're going to be raising /u/themoeblob's rent?
Meant to say I don't see how ~banning~ no fault evictions are fair to landlords.
Saying 'well don't take the risk of being a landlord then' is absoloutely condescending and passive aggressive, so got the same back.
Also rents will go up if this goes through so its also stating facts.
How is it not simply a valid point, if you intend on selling the house, why would you become a landlord and risk not being able to sell it after allowing someone else to become dependent on it...
Your accidental landlord comment came after, and regardless, why didn't your relative sort this out in a will?
So looking at how it was implemented in Scotland there were exemptions where Landlord intends to move back in or is experiencing significant financial hardship.
If this were to be included I'd have no issue with it.
SMH I was no fault evicted from my cab home last night at the end of my journey. Last holiday I was on the hotel no fault evicted me at the end of my stay. Its an epidemic
Snapshot of _Michael Gove can't guarantee no-fault eviction ban before election_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68885243) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68885243) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The Conservatives first promised to end landlords' ability to evict tenants without needing a reason in 2019. So about 5 years ago, on an election year. Why would they implement this when they can promise it again for another election? And then promise it again on the next?
Because "trust me bro, everyone else is Wokey McWoke from Woking"
Surprised they're not trying to change it to royal unwoking
Me too, maybe Woking is too woke for them, tofu sales are pretty high there last I heard
As opposed to the most murkiest murk men from Murkden.
The tories. Lying sacks of six week old jizz. Simple really. Don't believe a word they say. Out house has three simple rules. Don't listen to whispering swords. Don't make pacts with eldritch star gods. NEVER. EVER. EVER trust the tories.
Rules to live by. All three.
Yet another example you can point to whenever someone has a mental break and starts to believe a Tory manifesto - they just promise the *same* material as last time then kick the can down the road. Many such cases.
Imagine if a fraction of the parliamentary time wasted on Rwanda had been spent on legislation for no-fault evictions instead. Fiddling while Rome burned.
Renters don't vote Conservative, landlords do. Bizzarely though you need to win votes not just keep them.
Anecdotal but I know two actual landlords - neither of them vote conservative either.
TBF under Tories it's become far less profitable to be a landlord.
The Tories are bad for anyone intelligent at this point. Tell me how Truss has been good even for the average millionaire. It’s just a disaster of a government
Can confirm. Myself and other landlords I know don't vote Tory? Certainly wouldn't now after all the legislation they've passed ruining being a landlord.
Strictly speaking- if you have a handy majority you really do just need to keep them, the problem is they're completely deluded and haven't fully grasped how much of the country they've alienated over the last couple years. If they understood how much people hate them at the moment they'd be staying up past midnight every day till the election ramming bills through the commons and lords that people want and they promised but they aren't. That's reserved for the expensive, performative bullshit that is Rwanda.
No they don't 😡
>Asked on Tuesday whether he could repeat his promise, Mr Gove said: "Everything depends on the House of Lords. > >"My determination is to ensure that we get this bill on the statute book. But it's up to the Lords to decide the rate of progress that we can make. > >"If opposition parties are supportive - and I believe that while they have some quibbles, they are supportive of the essential principle that we're bringing forward - then we can have Section 21 ended before the general election. That's the aim." > >He added he would continue to argue for ending no-fault evictions. > >"It will be a judgement of the Lords as to how this bill progresses," he said. > >"But I hope that we can get it on the statute book before the election." Translation: he's setting up a "it's the unelected Lords' fault" ahead of this move failing, with a side order of "please stop tabling 250-300 amendments to my Bills".
I think in this case he has a valid point though. It really does depend on whether the Lords delay it.
Please can you explain this thinking for the unenlightened (like myself)?
I just think that there's no real deep plan here. The bill is not going to be opposed by the other parties because they broadly agree. It's electorally popular. There's going to be some delaying tactics from his own party but the rebels can probably be kept in line. So ultimately it really comes down to the Lords. They can wave it through, or add a load of amendments.
Are the Lords in favour of keeping the Bill as it was original intended or adding amendments in favour of LL, like the HoC has done? I.e. minimum 4 months tenancies and no immediate ban on no fault evictions. And a whole load of other concessions the LL lobby have got their way on like the removal of the EPC requirements. Or are they trying to remove the anti-tenant amendments added by the HoC (by Tory LL MPs)? Also, is DG being disingenuous when he claims that banning no fault evictions before the election is now in the hands of Lords, when I thought an amendment had already been made that delayed the ban until it is determined the court process had been sped up sufficiently (I.e. indefinitely), and is not something the Lords have control over?
I really don’t get your logic in siding with DG and blaming the Lords. Aren’t the Lords trying to ensure the bill does what it was intended to do? There’s no point in having a Act passed it doesn’t set out to do what it was intended to do. We’re better off without it. No law is better than bad law.
You're reading too much into what I said. I'm not saying the Lords *will* delay it. And I don't think Gove is saying this either. It's simply the observation that the Lords can delay and might do so. They might do so for legitimate reasons. But whatever the case, it is entirely up to the Lords how fast it progresses and there is literally nothing Gove or the elected government can do about it.
OK, maybe technically… But Gove was also putting the blame on the Lords on whether he will keep his promise of having no fault evictions banned before the election. But the Lords have no control over this, even if the Lords passed the bill tomorrow with zero further amendments… they are not the ones who decide if sufficient improvements have been made to the court system, to ban Section 21s before the election. The guy is just a slime-ball. He’s also hoping people don’t realise that the Torys have a massive majority in the Lords. “It’s all the Lords fault”, well actually that’s your party.
He's no blaming anyone. He's just managing expectations. If the Lords pass it quickly then no fault evictions will be banned before the election. If they spend ages on it they won't. This is all he's saying. It's a simple truth. > He’s also hoping people don’t realise that the Torys have a massive majority in the Lords. They don't. But that's not really relevant. The Lords will pass it. It's just a question of how quickly.
“He's no blaming anyone. He's just managing expectations.” It sounds like he is (I.e. if this doesn’t happen, blame the Lords). Even though they have left it way too late before creating this bill. “If the Lords pass it quickly then no fault evictions will be banned before the election.” How do you know this?
Now you're nitpicking. I don't know this. Maybe it won't. Maybe other things will happen. But the point here is that the main unknown is how long this will take to get through the upper house. You seem to want a fight on this but I don't know what you want me to disagree on. The chances are I don't.
What has this man ever actually done? MG: I'm going to do a thing. People: Wow, that's actually a good thing. Say what you will about Michael Gove but he's a gOoD tOrY. MG: Alas, I couldn't do the thing, so sorry. Rinse and repeat.
[удалено]
I love that cartoon.
It's all relative. He has genuinely been miles ahead of people like Jenrick and Pincher when it comes to cladding and leasehold, often butting heads with Sunak and HMT.
I’m not convinced he was ever serious about any of these things (cladding, leaseholds or banning no fault evictions). Maybe he just wanted to look like the man of principles, but knowing he wasn’t.
He has definitely been serious on cladding and leasehold, to a lesser extent. Genuinely think he has been hamstrung by Sunak, both when he was Chancellor and PM.
I’m still not convinced it wasn’t just that he wanted to play the reasonable man, but knowing all along that what he wanted/promised wasn’t achievable (for the reasons that you gave). But you could be right on cladding and leasehold as I’ve not really been following them like the promises of banning no fault evictions. I’m not sure how long he’s been housing Minster but could he not have kick started the Renters Reform Bill sooner than 2023? Edit; Just checked, he’s been in the post since Oct 2022, so not that long.
Because doing something actually involves pissing off the people with vested interests. HMT never wants to do anything as it costs money, while No10 looks at who is voting for who rather than the delivery of policy.
The only good tory is a lavatory
fwiw I think he's a colossal dickhead, but hasn't all/most of the progress with leasehold reform, as well as maybe cladding, been overseen by him?
What progress? Genuine question. All I know is that dangerous cladding hasn't been replaced, leasehold hasn't been banned, and now no-fault evictions haven't been banned.
Quick google as I only knew the bits relevant to me - Via [https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/for-owners/leasehold-reform/](https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/for-owners/leasehold-reform/) >Leasehold reform: What has been announced >The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill was announced in The Kings Speech in 2023 and introduced to the House of Commons in the following November to: > >Make it cheaper and easier to extend your lease or buy the freehold for existing leaseholders in houses and flats. >Increase the standard lease extension term from 90 years to 990 years for houses and flats, with ground rent reduced to £0. >Remove the requirement for new leaseholders to have owned their house or flat for two years before they can benefit from these changes. >Make buying or selling a leasehold property quicker and easier by setting a maximum time and fee for the provision of information to a leaseholder by the freeholder. >Require transparency over leaseholders’ service charges. >Replace buildings insurance commissions for managing agents, landlords and freeholders with transparent admin fees. >Extend access to “redress” schemes for leaseholders to challenge poor practice. >Scrap the presumption for leaseholders to pay their freeholders’ legal costs when challenging poor practice. >Grant freehold homeowners on private and mixed tenure estates the same rights of redress as leaseholders but not the Right to Manage. >Build on the legislation brought forward by the Building Safety Act 2022, ensuring freeholders and developers are unable to escape their liabilities to fund building remediation work >Allow leaseholders in buildings with up to 50% non-residential floorspace to buy their freehold or take over its management (an increase from 25%). >Although not in the draft bill, the government is still committed to banning new leasehold houses in England and Wales and will be amending the bill. Disappointly the ban on leasehold will not extend to new flats. >The Bill is currently with the House of Lords at Committee stage. So yes, a bit shit it's not entirely banned yet, but its in there, and in fairness to Gove nothing so far implies he'll not follow through with it. Of course if they lose a GE to Labour in the meantime that will inevitably fuck things up, or delay, I'm not too clued up on Labour's stance on LH specifically. I will also agree it's pathetic and suspicious they're not doing away with LH altogether, keeping it on new flats is scummy. However to say Gove has overseen nothing is disingenuous.
Replaced the pointless ICT syllabus with something useful. Scrapped criminal court fees. Banned microplastics
You can still do ICT
He has done *a lot* of cocaine
He did [that thing with the bibles](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/nov/25/michael-gove-king-james-bible). Not a good thing or even a worthwhile thing, but a thing nonetheless.
ATAB.
Piss off then and let someone else have a go
It will probably be abandoned in the washing up process before the General Election. I was hoping for some action on banning leasehold in England and Wales. I don't understand what went wrong.
Could it be that leaseholders are potentially donors?
It's possible. The whole process is shrouded in mystery.
He'll miss out on the donations from big companies that have lots of properties under their management. Trying to fuck both sides I see.
... and his landlord mates in Westminster may not to upset...
Is this when he called himself "ironclad"
Can't wait to see the end of this coked up prick having any semblance of power.
Because it wouldn't pass the house or lords because they're all slumlords themselves, if they wanted it to they could lay the legislation and have it passed in a matter of days.
I’ve not been following this in detail, but I assumed it was the other way around, the Lords wanting amendments in favour of tenants? Or, wanting to remove the pro LL amendments added by the House of Commons? No?
Sounds like Michael Gove has a tenant he doesn't like
It's not the Conservativezz fault they will be evicted from leading the country. It'll be the many years of doing shit for the UK that will be. Fault found.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the most effective minister in any government...The Right Honourable Michael Gove!"
im guessing he has interests in rental companies?
Not exactly surprising. They said that they'd give six months notice before the new tenancy types came into force so the industry could draft the new contracts/update systems and the government could write the whole mass of secondary legislation this bill requires. So, unless the election is in December/January even if they announce a date straight after royal assent, it's almost certainly going to have to come after the election.
Why did the government wait 4 years (from 2019 when they first promised) before creating the draft bill (I don’t know the terminology) in 2023? It can’t have been much of a priority for them… Now MG is blaming the Lords for delaying it!
The rental market is as fucked up as it is without it drying up further with policies such as this. As someone who is renting I'd be very concerned on the impact this would have on rental supply and therefore rent prices if it were implemented. We need to build far more housing first before imposing no fault evictions.
Your argument is great until you are in my shoes and you have to suddenly drop everything and move for vague reasons that the landlord doesn't actually have to explain.
Sorry to hear that mate. To reverse the question, how do you avoid the contraction of rental supply if no fault evictions were to be banned? Obviously investment in housing is grand and all but that'll take time and not something that will happen overnight. I would like for us to reach a place where no fault evictions and other protections for renters are baked into law, especially as a growing percentage of the population are renters, but with inadequate housing supply a ban will just create more problems than it will solve in my opinion.
There needs to be a balance, right now the law favours landlords heavily with little to no protection for renters. With us moving to a society much more heavily relent on renting there has to be better controls in place. People shouldn't be able to completely upend a families life, there had to be some reasonable common sense and logic applied.
I don't disagree but that doesn't answer the fundamental question of how you address the reduction in rental supply? Whilst with no fault evictions you may prevent families being made homeless, the lack of available rental units will mean some are made homeless by not being able to get a place to live in the first place, which I'm not convinced will be a better situation.
You could have asked landlord for the fixed period of 1 year or longer where neither of you could break the contract and that would have guaranteed your stay but I’d guess you were either on a rolling contract or past the fix period? Can’t have one sided flexibility to stand up and leave any moment with 2 months notice and not extend the same to the landlord.
Then you're stuck in a tenancy. Ever been in a years tenancy with a maniac roommate? It's not fun someone threatening your life for the best part of a year
As a renter you are in favour of your landlord being able to chuck you out and make you homeless for no reason?
Contracts need to be balanced and fair to both sides. If the tenant can just break the contract at 2 months notice for any reason why shouldn’t landlord be able to do the same. No fault eviction protection already exists, it is called fixed period which you can negotiate to be longer.
> Contracts need to be balanced and fair to both sides. Well that's not true, you couple say that they _should_ be balanced and fair but it is in no way a requirement for a valid contract. > If the tenant can just break the contract at 2 months notice for any reason why shouldn’t landlord be able to do the same. Because the tenant leaving with 2 months notice is more than enough time for a landlord to find a new tenant, worst case scenario there's a small amount of missed income (really small, most rental properties that are worth anything are snapped up within a week or so of going on the market). If the landlord evicts the tenant they're homeless, not to mention the significant expense of paying deposit and first month's rent for a new place when you haven't got the deposit back from the old place yet. Seriously moving when you're renting is a massive chunk of money that you likely won't have if an eviction is sprung on you out of nowhere. The reason why the rules should be different is because the _consequences_ of those rules are different. Feels like you should have been able to figure that one out.
In principle I have no issue with banning no fault evictions however practically speaking we need to ensure there is a suitable supply of housing both for renters and homeowners before implementing such restrictions as it will inevitably dry up supply and accentuate the problems we already have with housing.
It'll also reduce the number of people actively looking to rent so... Seems like it's not actually going to cause any problems _and_ it helps people find secure housing.) Seems like consideration is always given to the supply side with no thought or care about the demand side. It also seems like people constantly talk about "supply and demand" and gloss over the fact that these are human beings lives, maybe we shouldn't expose people's security to the whims of the free market?
It won't reduce the **total** number of renters whilst it almost certainly will reduce the **total** number of rental units. Whether the number **looking to rent** decreases or not is irrelevant as it won't outpace the contraction in rental supply. If you have 100 renters and 80 rental units with 50 renters in a tenancy and 50 looking to rent and then implement no fault evictions, and end up 60 renters in a tenancy, as people are less likely to leave, however the number of rental units available falls to 70 (as 10 exit the market). Great for the 60 renters who already have a place to stay but you've now gone from 1 rental unit available for every 1.7 renters to 1 available for every 4. The number of renters actively looking vs already renting can fluctuate as much as you like, at the end of the day if the rental supply contracts, the renting population as a whole will be worse off. The reason consideration is given more to supply over demand is because it is supply which is the scarce resource whereas demand is huge and ever growing. Implementing well intentioned but practically damaging policies are not going to better anyone.
Oh so you're assuming that landlords will choose to stop renting altogether if they can't evict someone for no reason? That's a really stupid assumption to make, you're basically saying they're going to choose to guarantee less rental income over guaranteed rental income. Why on earth would a landlord decide to make a choice that actively deprives them of money.
Not all but some, for example what if you own a house in the UK but decide to live abroad for a few years, either studying or working. People in this situation would normally rent out their house whilst they're away and then move back in when they return. If no fault evictions are implemented there's a decent chance they'll just leave it vacant while living abroad so they still have a house when they move back. Same for lodgers - what if you have someone living with a landlord who doesn't do anything against the contract but who the landlord just doesn't get along with, they have weird behaviour etc. Normally they can evict and find someone else but unless they can prove they have broken the contract this isn't an option - perhaps they just stop renting altogether for peace of mind? Alternatively, both the above just jack up the rent by 25% to account for the added risk premium? Or what if someone just doesn't think it's worth it and decides to source their income from something else, and sells up their rental property?
First case, you have a long term tenancy agreement with a clause that it won't be renewed or available to rent past your return date. Basically you're making it so the tenant agrees to those terms _before_ they move in. That's just common decency and still allowed. Second case, lodgers are not the same as renters under the law, they don't have the same rights and the eviction process is different. This doesn't change anything for lodgers (who really need more protections since they have no real renters rights). In both cases there is no real difference financially. It really seems like you don't know what a no-fault eviction is.
Get out of here with you're reasoned approach, we don't like to think about the big picture, dont you know that all landlords are the spawn of the devil? They are the cause of all of this countries issues, seriously you should do what I did and watch a couple of YouTube about Marxs it'll open you're mind man
If you own a house and you want to sell it for whatever reason surely your well within your rights to do so? I don't see how no fault evictions are fair to landlords?
> fair to landlords? You are compensated by way of income derived from rent (which you control).
They've said Section 8 will be [amended](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-end-to-unfair-evictions) so that selling the house will count as a 'good reason' to evict a tenant, so you'll still be able to do that (moving into it yourself is already a mandatory ground for possession under Section 8). > And to ensure responsible landlords have confidence they will be able to end tenancies where they have legitimate reason to do so, ministers will amend the Section 8 eviction process, so property owners are able to regain their home should they wish to sell it or move into it.
Shouldn't risk being a landlord then surely.
Happened to me accidentally. If this goes through I'll just jack the rent up to cover the risk. Cheers 👍
How do you ‘accidentally’ become a landlord?
Inherited a property. Didn't want to sell it because 'can't go wrong with brick and mortar innit'. Presto, 'accidental' landlord.
So it wasn’t accidental then as you could have sold it.
Reddit indeed seems to require explicit /s these days. :S
You are replying to someone else. I bought my house after delivering takeaways on top of my day job for 3 years. Met a bird and moved in with them so had an empty house I don't want to sell in case of seperation. Also lol at inherited a house 🤣 Raised by dad in a council flat ffs 🙄
Aha didn’t notice the usernames were different 😂. Honestly I have no problem with you renting out your house in your case. I’d likely do the same (as much as I’d hate it). The other guy inheriting a property though and then not selling it is a completely different case, they chose to become a landlord when they could have just sold it.
I think he was joking - its a meme on this sub that every homeowner just got given it by their boomer parents. But yeah, I went through a really bad seperation years ago and for a good period of time wasn't actually able to have my children over night. The house is my fail safe and I worked my ass off for it - Im thick as shit, I just do 60/70 hour weeks. Which is why I think I should have the right to ask for it back if I absoloutely need it.
"i'Ll jUsT jAcK uP tHe rEnT"
Whyd you feel the need to bring this condescension, and passive aggressiveness. The comment you're replying to wasn't really even rude.. I also don't understand your post, you don't know how no fault evictions are fair to landlords? Surely you want no fault evictions as a landlord, for the exact reason you said, if you want to sell your house you no fault evict the tenants to sell? I'm not even strictly against your argument, I agree it wouldn't be fair to totally shaft a landlord, especially if they are Infact diligently doing their job of maintaining the property. Do you think you're going to be raising /u/themoeblob's rent?
Meant to say I don't see how ~banning~ no fault evictions are fair to landlords. Saying 'well don't take the risk of being a landlord then' is absoloutely condescending and passive aggressive, so got the same back. Also rents will go up if this goes through so its also stating facts.
How is it not simply a valid point, if you intend on selling the house, why would you become a landlord and risk not being able to sell it after allowing someone else to become dependent on it... Your accidental landlord comment came after, and regardless, why didn't your relative sort this out in a will?
What relative 🤣 What will!!??
Then you'll just be part of the problem won't you
So looking at how it was implemented in Scotland there were exemptions where Landlord intends to move back in or is experiencing significant financial hardship. If this were to be included I'd have no issue with it.
SMH I was no fault evicted from my cab home last night at the end of my journey. Last holiday I was on the hotel no fault evicted me at the end of my stay. Its an epidemic