Two leading eviction experts have rejected recent calls by landlord and property educator Ranjan Bhattacharya to reduce the evictions notice period to 14 days.

His controversial claim, which was made during a YouTube video for his 27,600 subscribers four weeks ago, asked fellow landlords to sign a petition calling on the government to reduce the notice period.

Bhattacharya argues that the existing system – even when the current restrictions are discounted – is unfair to landlords, claiming it can take up to a year in normal times to evict a tenant.

But Tim Frome, legal director at Landlord Action, and John Stewart of the NRLA have rejected this, point out that it is both unlikely to happen politically and also paints landlords in a bad light, however well intentioned.

- Advertisement -

“I’m afraid that this kind of campaign is not helpful during the Covid crisis and it’s unlikely to have legs when the pandemic is over,” says Stewart (left).

Frome agreed, saying that in normal times two months is a reasonable period of time to give notice to a tenant before seeking to take action in the courts.

“You’ve got to remember that these are people’s homes even though, of course, there has to be a reasonable time period to get the property back if a tenant breaches the terms of their tenancy, and I think two months’ notice strikes that balance.”

The pair were talking during a live webinar at today’s National Landlord Investment Show, which normally takes place at Olympia but this year is online only.

Stewart also revealed during the webinar that the NRLA has been lobbying the government to give landlords who face unreasonable tenants who change locks, ignore communications and fail to pay their rent to be given an easier access to evictions.

“This needs to transferred to the Section 8 notice process once Section 21 is abolished,” he said.

Read our story about Bhattacharya’s campaign.
Visit Landlord Action or NRLA.

2 COMMENTS

  1. I supported the 14 day eviction.
    But as I understand now this could cause issues with what is rent default etc.

    Therefore 14 days is too soon.

    However a revised S21 system would work like this with no Court action required.

    So S21 to be used in future ONLY for rent defaulting.

    So after 2 months of rent default which for rent paid monthly in advance would be 1 month and 1 day.

    Then serve a S21 the day after and 14 days later the LL may remove the tenants with Police assistance if necessary.

    If on that 14th day the tenant is able to pay all the rent arrears in cleared funds then the LL would not be allowed to remove the tenant.
    If they did that would be wrongful eviction.

    This revised S21 process would mean the maximum period a still rent defaulting tenant could occupy a property would be 1 month and 15 days.

    That seems reasonable to me.

  2. I supported this on the basis 14 days might seem unfair, but nowhere near as unfair as a landlord having to wait 6 months to a year to reposes their property, as many of the tenancy advocate groups would impose permanently if they had their way. Landlords need to push back and the odd ambit claim is at least a starting position for negotiation, rather than giving the farm away at the outset, much like NRLA do with their limp-wristed position on pretty much every piece of the tidal-wave of anti-landlord legislation that has come or is coming our way. Great example – where do they stand on the latest dictates on EPC level C by 2025? As far as I can tell, they are not against it other than measures taken should be future-proofed. I do not imagine I am alone in thinking this legislation is going to impose a massive cost based upon an arbitrary deadline and singles out one section of the community to bear the burden of the government attempts to demonstrate their green credentials. Why not force all houses that are sold after 2025 to have an EPC rating of C? why are the NRLA not saying as much, or at least putting up a fight?

    Anti landlord legislation was meant to redress the so-called imbalance in the relationship between landlord and tenant. Aside from the legitimacy of such a claim, the advantage is clearly with the tenant to the point landlords are giving up. Great strategy!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here