Labour Brings in excellent Renter's Rights - long overdue.

M0nica

Nannee You still have not produced any eveidence that hundreds of thousands have been dispossessed or over what period. 100,000 plus over 5 years.

Crisis figures disagree with Shelter figures and as we are talking households, not individuals, how many people are in a household is not relevant to the atgument that you yourself based on households.

You do not seem to take on board, that I a the same side as you but that means that any figures we uote in any context must be accurate otherwise we open ourselves to opportunities to those who disagree with us to dismiss us because our figures are unverifiable and are in conflict with the published figures.

Frankly, I find that post heartless and showing no evidence of any understanding of the very real issues. I'm guessing you've never known the physical sickness of being made homeless as a result of a Section 21 notice.

Doodledog

twaddle

Doodledog, If people can't detach themselves emotionally from properties (even inherited ones), they shouldn't become landlords. Provided a tenant sticks to an agreement, the property becomes the property of the tenant for the duration of the tenancy.

I'm not sure why you have addressed that to me. I agree that landlords' properties are tenants homes and have said so more than once.

Because you wrote "I can understand a small LL (eg one who is renting out an inherited house and doesn't have a portfolio of properties) wanting to choose who rents from them and lives in what may be their family home"

Sorry, but that kind of emotional attachment has no place in a business transaction. The home is no longer the landlord's family home. The tenancy agreement signs over to the tenant the rights to the property as a "home", whether it's an inherited property or not.

Nannee You still have not produced any eveidence that hundreds of thousands have been dispossessed or over what period. 100,000 plus over 5 years.

Crisis figures disagree with Shelter figures and as we are talking households, not individuals, how many people are in a household is not relevant to the atgument that you yourself based on households.

You do not seem to take on board, that I a the same side as you but that means that any figures we uote in any context must be accurate otherwise we open ourselves to opportunities to those who disagree with us to dismiss us because our figures are unverifiable and are in conflict with the published figures.

twaddle

Doodledog, If people can't detach themselves emotionally from properties (even inherited ones), they shouldn't become landlords. Provided a tenant sticks to an agreement, the property becomes the property of the tenant for the duration of the tenancy.

I'm not sure why you have addressed that to me. I agree that landlords' properties are tenants homes and have said so more than once.

And, to be tediously repetitive, there may only be 1 tenant per household holding the tenancy and therefore in receipt of the section 21 notice but many more members of the family living in the property sorely affected by being evicted...impossible to quantify how many people without individual data from each case.

Well, make sure you follow your own rules when arguing a cause MOnica and get your facts right.

Crisis homeless charity figures show over 108,000 households received a no fault eviction notice between April 2019 and November 2024. Are their figures inflated?

Crisis data again shows 32,000 section 21 notices served up til year end of 2025, 7% up from the previous year. You have only quoted that previous year 2024 so not actually up to date. Have Crisis got it wrong?

You don't seem to have read the part of my earlier post which quotes from a Co-op Insurance study where their figures indicate a staggering 1.2 million households...11% of tenants... have received a section 21 notice during their current tenancy. Have the Co-op got it wrong too?

Nannee49 saying hundreds of thousands when it is 11,400 and someof those will be for good reason, is being emotive and damages your own arguments for a cause I agree with. people will tend to dismiss you - and your cause - because you are making wild statements that can only be proved to be wrong.

Even 108,000 over 5 years is not hundreds of thousands. You gave no time frame for your figures - and some of those eviction notices will be for good reason. The owner needs to sell, or live in the property, for example

Certainly for those suffering an unjust Section 21 eviction it is a distressing and emotional time, and I have every sympathy for them and I am not opposed to them being stopped.

But when I am arguing a cause, I always make sure that all the facts and figures I uote are reliable and properly sourced. if you make wild claims, you will lose your argument.

This new act, as a whole, is driving many landlords out of the market. The rental market is falling into the hands of big letting companies, and I do not think this is necessarily a good thing. It can be far harder to get repairs done, they are freuently more inflexible and far less amenable to minor changes than big companies whose owners are often unknown.

Many thanks twaddle. I've seen the distress in my own family as my extremely houseproud daughter, who kept her rented flat in immaculate condition and never ever fell into arrears was served a section 21 due to a damp issue the landlord had no intention of addressing, forcing her to move out of a place where she had been very happy with her then four year old daughter.

So luckily, after a very long wait she secured a social housing tenancy but I will never forget the distress and actual fear the eviction gave her.

That was fifteen years ago when property to rent was slightly more available and social housing a bit less stretched. It's an absolutely horrendous situation now. And, as you say, extremely insulting to dismiss the very real trauma as "emotive talk".

We are entering an era where - unless we are very well heeled and can afford to support our children/grandchildren in buying on now quite large amounts - they will suffer from bad landlords if we had allowed it to continue.

I agree with you, Nannee49. It really isn't "emotive talk" and it's insulting to dismiss it like that.

Doodledog, If people can't detach themselves emotionally from properties (even inherited ones), they shouldn't become landlords. Provided a tenant sticks to an agreement, the property becomes the property of the tenant for the duration of the tenancy.

Not "emotive talk" at all MOnica.

The distress and heartbreak of being evicted from your home IS a most emotional thing to have to deal with and can't be lightly dismissed as semantics.

And, please, get YOUR numbers right before referring to "grossly inflated figures" as a quick Google shows the AI generated following -

A Co-op insurers survey indicates 1.2 million renters - 11% of tenants - have relieved a section 21 notice during their current tenancy

Crisis figures show over 108,000 households received a no fault eviction notice between April 2019 and November 2024

Even the NRLA state the use of section 21 has been used "extensively" - I'll leave you to ponder on the exactly what volume it means by using extensively MOnica - since it's introduction in 1988.

These are not grossly inflated figures, if anything, I'm not even in the approximate ball park, as MaizieD kindly noted, I've completely underestimated the amount of victims - not just the tenancy holders but the children, their families - subjected to this abject misery.

It's a pity the various landlord associations didn't have the wit to understand how the endemic use of this hated, unfair legislation would reflect badly on all landlords and maybe took steps to at least discuss the implications.

A tenant is obliged to leave the property clean and in the state it was at the beginning, save for fair wear and tear. However in order to enforce this at the end of the tenancy the LL must ensure there is a formal documented check in process with many and multiple, clear photos for everything that may become subject to dispute at a later stage- that must be signed by tenant. It goes to arbitration if any later disputes to the deposit holding company. So for example- hamsters need to have free time to roam out of cage and can nibble at curtains and carpets, nails can scratch skirting boards etc if allowed out in any room. So you would need sufficient close photos of every inch of carpet, skirtings and curtains for example to be able to demonstrate damage at the end of the tenancy. But even then the tenant could say that with a hamster as a pet that could be reasonably deemed to be fair wear and tear with a hamster pet, possibly bought as a pet after the tenants move in.

Neither can a LL now ask or expect the tenant to conduct a deep clean at the end of the tenancy period. Under the new Renters Rights there is prohibition of professional cleaning clauses; they are considered unfair and unenforceable. Similarly LLs also can not demand that tenants to purchase pet insurance.

Again- I agree it is the renter's home and pets are part and parcel of normal family life for many. Just there needs to be a balance for both renters and LLs.

Many LLs are saying that the new Act tips things far more in the renters' favour, reduces their rights, places more restrictions all at the same time as all their costs are rising. The new LL restrictions are not necessarily covered by insurance and thus increase risks. Hence many rental properties are currently up for sale and if LLs continue to leave the market, in high numbers, unless the government steps in and fills the gap availability will go down and rental costs up.

I'm not arguing against LL rights, not at all. I think they have every right to expect their properties to be respected, and (other than normal wear and tear) to be left as they were found. They shouldn't have to wait months for rent, either.

I can understand a small LL (eg one who is renting out an inherited house and doesn't have a portfolio of properties) wanting to choose who rents from them and lives in what may be their family home, but when it comes to agencies or people with many houses for rent it doesn't seem right that they can legally discriminate against groups.

Also, definitions can be tricky. Are pensioners 'benefit claimants' for instance? What is on the list of 'professions' that allow professionals to rent a house? What do people in, say, office work or trades do if they can't afford to buy near their work and nobody will rent to them? What about people in work who get UC top ups? Should they and their families be denied housing?

But it's not your home, if you have a tenant living there. Once a landlord signs a tenancy agreement, he or she gives up certain rights and that includes how the tenant lives (so long as it doesn't cause a nuisance). The tenant is obliged to leave the property as it was at the beginning of the tenancy (minus fair wear and tear), so of course there should be a more than thorough deep clean if there have been pets and any damage should be repaired at the tenant's expense. I think it's cruel not to allow tenants to have pets, which happens too often.

I can understand good LLs, that follow all the rules and regulations, and provide rental accommodation of safe and good standard, are worried about the new restrictions on evictions. Most good LLs will have never had to evict a tenant to date. However they want to know they can, relatively easily and without undue delays and huge expense if just cause.

E.g. when the tenant fails to pay their rent- fails to care for the property or trashes the property. The evection process is costly and can take a year or more to reach first tier tribunal for the case to be heard. Then if an eviction notice is granted can then take, as other posters have said, and as reported by BBC yesterday, a year or more to process eviction- with more associated costs. Meanwhile the LL must pay all necessary costs and mortgage payment whilst receiving rent. Then they may incur additional renovations costs to bring the property back to safe and good repair standard to rent to a new tenant or sell.

Some posters have said there are LL insurance policies available to cover such things. For malicious tenant damage/trashing property no there is not- that is an exclusion clause. Failed rental payment LL insurance only covers rental payments for a specified maximum period- e.g 3 or 6 months and is expensive. LL Insurance policies also predominantly specify it only provides cover when the property is rented to those who are "professionals and/or in full time employment and exclude benefit recipients. However under the new Renters Rights Act it is illegal for LLs and letting agents to have blanket bans on renting to benefit recipients or to advertise to "professionals only".

I'm all for renters rights- and have no problem with strengthening those as in the act. However there need to be safeguards in place for LLs in balance. More money needs to be put into property tribunals to address the Covid backlog for example.

I wouldn't want someone else's pets in my home either, but I can see that it's unfair to disallow long-term renters the right to a companion if they look after it properly. I fully agree that a tenant with a pet should have to make good any damage when the tenancy ends though, and maybe would support a deposit to ensure that would happen, taken out when the pet moves in.

It seems clear from this thread that there are different kinds of LLs - those who may be affected by the act, and those who won't - which is pretty much what I suspected, and it confirms my believe that it is a good thing that it has been brought in.

Doodledog

Smileless2012

I posited in my post yesterday re Section 21, why some good landlords may have sold or are thinking of doing so Doodledog.

And I replied.

If, as you say, LLs are likely to sell because they can't evict easily, it begs the question why would someone want to evict without good cause. If there is good reason to evict, people can be evicted - all the act does is protect tenants from the stress of knowing that they can lose their home at any time for no good reason.

We're not considering selling any rental home. These new rules are acceptable because we do do the right thing. I do dislike the pet bits.

Smileless2012

I posited in my post yesterday re Section 21, why some good landlords may have sold or are thinking of doing so Doodledog.

And I replied.

If, as you say, LLs are likely to sell because they can't evict easily, it begs the question why would someone want to evict without good cause. If there is good reason to evict, people can be evicted - all the act does is protect tenants from the stress of knowing that they can lose their home at any time for no good reason.

According to Shelter there were, 11,400 Section 21 evictions in 2024. allowing that a signficant number of them will have had a reasonable cause behind it , the number of injustified uses of this Section will be seen to be a fraction of the fugure you uote

Was it Shelter who said that 'a significant number of them will have a reasonable cause behind them' or is that your opinion, MOnica?

In view of Shelter giving the figure of 11,400 section 21 evictions and the number comprises hundreds and thousands I don't see that Nannee's post is that far off... Even if only half were no fault evictions (which we have no way of knowing) that is still a great many people.

Nannee49

It's stating the bleedin' obvious but this whole issue is summarised in the title NO FAULT evictions.
Way too many good, non arrears, non damaging tenants cruelly turfed out of their homes due to no fault of their own.

No point in landlords bewailing the new legislation, they've brought it on themselves with the callous, endemic use of section 21 - unlike the no fault tenants evicted in their hundreds of thousands.

The majority of landlords are good and reliable people who charge a fair rent.

There is of course an undercourse of exploititive criminal landlords, who treat their tenants badly and give the sector a bad name, and tenants need to be protected from them.

As for hundreds and thousands of Section 21 evictions, whaat nnsense, unless you are talking about the last 100 years.

According to Shelter there were, 11,400 Section 21 evictions in 2024. allowing that a signficant number of them will have had a reasonable cause behind it , the number of injustified uses of this Section will be seen to be a fraction of the fugure you uote.

Emotive talk and grossly inflated figures only muddy the waters and make good causes hard to support because of the inaccuracies they promulgate that can so easily be used against a good cause.

It's stating the bleedin' obvious but this whole issue is summarised in the title NO FAULT evictions.
Way too many good, non arrears, non damaging tenants cruelly turfed out of their homes due to no fault of their own.

No point in landlords bewailing the new legislation, they've brought it on themselves with the callous, endemic use of section 21 - unlike the no fault tenants evicted in their hundreds of thousands.

I see several things being done with good intentions but not seeing the bigger picture from this government

I think that is true of left wingers as a whole.

I think I might ask my tenant if she is interested in buying our property and if she doesn’t I will sell it in a year or so.

She has a very well paid, professional job with no dependents and tells me she loves living there so you never know. Unless she doesn’t have enough for a deposit on mortgage. We’ll see.

As to ongoing reform in Scotland, tenants are likely to be given first option to buy if their house is marketed, that seems fairly reasonable, however it could be that rent paid will be taken into account to reduce the purchase price to the tenant, possibly unreasonable from a landlord's pov.

That is definitely the time I will leave the market. I already try to keep rents to a minimum and see no reason why my investment should be targeted because of decisions Governments made years ago which I had no control over.