Renters rights

Not so great if you have a property in the UK that you rent out and work and live abroad, retire and want to live in the property you own in the UK.

Not so great if you're in a job that provides accommodation, and the property you bought for retirement has a tenant who you're unable to evict. Where do you live? I suppose you'll have to hope that there'll be sufficient rental accommodation available, not owned by disreputable landlords so you can rent.

One likes to be fair, but some of the ideas to protect the renter are worrying; allowed a pet? From a goldfish to a baby lion - the mind boggles.
You will need to go to the courts to prove anti-social behaviour or get your rent arrears.
All too complicated; no wonder people are reluctant to rent their property and after all this, guess what, people will still be unable to meet the high cost of renting because landlords will put up their prices to cover all the aggravation.

Maybe he’s hoping all the landlords will sell up and free up housing.
The landlords will lose their income, but I’m not certain he’d care.
And yes, Smileless2012 and Boz, your points do seem to have fallen below his notice.

In my seaside town I fear that this will fuel the drive for landlords to move their property to holiday lets/ air B&B's.
I understand the thinking, but there may unlooked- for consequences.

A lot of landlords have sold up already due to concerns about the erosion of no fault evictions and also for when the new EPC ratings are introduced.

I can see this results in more properties being available to buy, but whose going to buy them?

Not all landlords are disreputable. I have a flat which I rent out (well under market rent value, I might add), but the ever-increasing rules and regulations and red tape involved in renting mean that if I could sell, I would. Unfortunately, because it is part of our main property, I can't. There's a world of difference between someone like me and landlords with a big property portfolio, who don't care about anything other than the money side of it.

Not all landlords have entered into this situation as a business venture. When we were farming we lived in a house which was tied to the farm and bought a cottage ready for our retirement - in the meantime it was rented out. In due course we opted to retire to a new area and sold the cottage - we would have been unable to buy our new home if we hadn't been able to sell the cottage.
Now our DS owns a house which is rented out - it was his home before moving in with his new partner. Having been made virtually homeless when his marriage broke down he was understandably reluctant to burn all his bridges.
I fully understand that tenants need some security but if measures are too much in their favour I foresee some landlords becoming homeless whilst their tenants sit pretty

I would think no fault evictions in England will follow the Scottish model. You can evict if you want to live in the property or sell it. The red tape involved in letting in Scotland has caused many landlords to sell. Not everyone can get nor wants a mortgage so selling doesn't alleviate the housing crisis just means fewer rentals for the many (who tend to be the poorer in society) that need them

I blame Mrs Thatcher for this mess.
Yes, it is a good idea for people to buy a house but forcing people onto the private rental/house buying market by selling off council houses was not the way forward.

Rental property is already in very short supply and landlords will not want to have to cope with the new restrictions. Also the rise in interest rates make it a less attractive proposition.
When interest rates come down landlords still won't want to buy to let or rent out inherited property in the same numbers.

There are two properties in my street...privately rented. The tenants are dreadful and have created issue after issue i.e antisocial behaviour.

There has been police and council involvement...even planning as one of them decided to make his own alterations to the property . For some reason....the landlord has refused to act.
Neighbours renting have moved, those of us who own would find it so difficult to sell because of what is happening.

So while I have every sympathy with some renters who really do suffer with bad landlords, people in my situation and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, have no redress whatsoever!

Boz

One likes to be fair, but some of the ideas to protect the renter are worrying; allowed a pet? From a goldfish to a baby lion - the mind boggles.
You will need to go to the courts to prove anti-social behaviour or get your rent arrears.
All too complicated; no wonder people are reluctant to rent their property and after all this, guess what, people will still be unable to meet the high cost of renting because landlords will put up their prices to cover all the aggravation.

One always had to go to court to get rent arrears or anti social behaviour.

In terms of pets, that’s easy, take a slightly higher damage deposit AND ask the tenant to take out contents insurance which specifically covers damage done by pets.

Private renters, in many cases, pay way over the top in rent and need protection, just as landowners do too.

I have 2 small apartments that I let, they are only suitable for singles possibly a couple but no outdoor space. It’s easy to be mobile if you don’t have children, so new legislation won’t bother me
If you have children, moving is a big deal, often involving moving schools, it causes a lot of disruption. There does need to be some kind of restriction on landlords, automatic possession is too open to abuse.

I have a certain amount of scepticism regarding the Labour landlord. He said, his apartments were managed, who was he using a mate? The letting department of an estate agent manages mine for which they charge 11 and a half, plus vat. When there's any issue that needs to be addressed they contact me, and it is expected to be sorted asap, which it is. I've just had a new pump put in the shower room which involved removing the old one, supplying the new one and a certain amount of tiling was also required to make good the access area, it was pretty costly, but that's it, it's a landlord's obligation to make sure everything is in working order and to generally maintain the state of the property. It just doesn't make any sense to me that he didn't know about the state his properties were in, or his -mate or whoever managed them wasn't keeping him informed of their disrepair.

I agree TerriBull something fishy about this…

TerriBull
Thanks for your knowledgeable input on the using an agent to let premises and the potential costs involved of being a landlord.

Well of course you can manage your property let yourself and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't turn a blind eye. I prefer to use a letting agent because I want everything done by the book as to the renewal of safety inspections and certificates required re. electricity, no gas in my block, but smoke alarms etc.

As usual on GN lots of misrepresentation of the facts of this legislative change and lots of unnecessary doom mongering. If you let out a property and wish to sell or move into it yourself you can still do that. This legislation is aimed at preventing landlords evicting tenants so that they can hike up rent. If a tenant doesn’t pay the rent or is causing problems then they are not a ‘no fault’ tenant and so are not protected.
A good move for our new government would be to massively increase the building of new social housing and stopping the right to buy. Too many former council houses have ended up in the hands of landlords whose rents far exceed those of social houses.

Cossy

Boz

One likes to be fair, but some of the ideas to protect the renter are worrying; allowed a pet? From a goldfish to a baby lion - the mind boggles.
You will need to go to the courts to prove anti-social behaviour or get your rent arrears.
All too complicated; no wonder people are reluctant to rent their property and after all this, guess what, people will still be unable to meet the high cost of renting because landlords will put up their prices to cover all the aggravation.

One always had to go to court to get rent arrears or anti social behaviour.

In terms of pets, that’s easy, take a slightly higher damage deposit AND ask the tenant to take out contents insurance which specifically covers damage done by pets.

Private renters, in many cases, pay way over the top in rent and need protection, just as landowners do too.

Cossy, you are not allowed to take a slightly higher damage deposit or make any demands about tenants and their pets. It is a difficult choice for a Landlord to make, well it was when they had one. Tenants cannot take out insurance for the Landlord's carpets, wallpaper, etc.
I have always liked to think about the property I rent as someone's home so I have always given due consideration to the request for pets. However, I have been left with a flea infestation so bad that you couldn't step into the house without being covered in an instant. As the tenant had significant rent arrears, there was no deposit to pay for it. Another tenant had asked for a cat, we agreed. 3 cats later in an upstairs cat, they had clawed the wallpaper off the walls and piddled all over the brand new carpets.
Whilst tenants need protection, so do Landlords. The law needs to come down heavily on rogue landlords, not penalise the good ones.

Magsymoo
If you let out a property and wish to sell or move into it yourself you can still do that. This legislation is aimed at preventing landlords evicting tenants so that they can hike up rent. If a tenant doesn’t pay the rent or is causing problems then they are not a ‘no fault’ tenant and so are not protected.

icanhandthemback
Whilst tenants need protection, so do Landlords. The law needs to come down heavily on rogue landlords, not penalise the good ones.

Both very good points. I’ve had little to do with rented properties, but my niece was given a no fault eviction because the Landlord wanted to move a family member into it.
The house was soon for rent again at a higher cost.
On the other hand one of my sisters is fighting to evict her tenant because she had made alterations to the house to suit the tenants and now there is no other property suitable for the tenant’s disabled daughter.
If they’d pay the rent, she’d have no problem, but they don’t.

Boz

One likes to be fair, but some of the ideas to protect the renter are worrying; allowed a pet? From a goldfish to a baby lion - the mind boggles.
You will need to go to the courts to prove anti-social behaviour or get your rent arrears.
All too complicated; no wonder people are reluctant to rent their property and after all this, guess what, people will still be unable to meet the high cost of renting because landlords will put up their prices to cover all the aggravation.

Yes, we have a small flat that we bought to let and the last thing we want is to have it stinking of cat pee or wet dog when we need to let it again. Do they expect us to buy new carpets every time?
Our flat is really only suitable for a single person, are they going to make us rent it to a couple? We had this forced upon us once when a tenant moved his girlfriend in and they moved out shortly afterwards as it is simply too small.
I suppose that we will still be allowed to take up references, or will we have to let it to the first comer, regardless of financial status or suitability as a tenant?
The net result of all this will be coninuous challenges when a letting agent declines to rent to somebody unsuitable, for whatever reason.
People are forgetting that not all landlords are evil, we've been letting our flat since 2012 and our tenants have stayed for some time and been happy. We've only put our rent up once in that time, and that by a relatively small amount.
We have no objection to a tenant on benefits, our current tenant is an elderly man on Pension Credits who is by all accounts very happy there.
If we were to sell the flat (which is in a very popular tourist city) when he eventually leaves it is more than likely that it would be sold as a second home to somebody rich enough to carry the costs, which we are not.

(Sorry about the typos)

I’m glad we were never able to afford to buy a property to let out. I wouldn’t want to have these new rules pushed upon us. If I did own such a property, I’d think now was the time to sell it, before these rules become law.

Our flat has specific terms in the lease which forbid short term lets, to avoid aggravation to other people in the block. Unless you own a freehold house this is likely to be the case, as even "share of freehold" flats usually have leases.
Several small houses close to our last home were sold as buy to lets and the result was very noisy weekends due to airbnb lettings to stag and hen nights, not at all fair to neighbours in a residential area.

Does anyone have an answer to this?Let's assume:-
There are x number of homes in the country. Some are owner occupied and some are rented. All are occupied. Big panic and the landlords sell up. Who to? If so who moves in? Someone who was previously renting? Renters have nowhere to rent? First time buyers can't afford a mortgage? My question is what happens to the homes renters sell and who do they sell to?¹