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

It has not been thought through properly from all sides, and has backfired already. In my opinion.

Casdon

In Wales, the majority of new affordable housing is being built by housing associations, supported by government grants. More council houses are being built too. The target is 20,000 additional affordable homes by the end of 2026.
There will still be a shortfall, but that doesn’t mean that the initiative is wasted, and hopefully will continue under the next government here.
The housing market has been going badly for renters for many years, I don’t think there is a magic bullet, but in the longer term I think all these moves will be beneficial to renters and people who want to buy an affordable home.

That sounds like a move in the right direction but I agree, there isn't a single magic bullet.

fancythat

It has not been thought through properly from all sides, and has backfired already. In my opinion.

So what would the "proper thinking" have been fancythat?

It's all very well, all the criticism - typical, when Labour actually do something in the right direction, out come all the rubbishing, when any new law that benefits those really in need. I'm not saying it's perfect of course and really it depends on good success by doing what is necessary anyway, increasing the housing stock.

But I do agree with some level of rent control, for greedy individuals or big companies

I feel that a lot more thought could have been put into this because it seems heavily weighted on the Renters side. If anybody has watched the programme about Rogue Landlords and Nightmare Tenants they will understand.

It has to be fair to BOTH sides. There are some dreadful landlords out there and some dreadful tenants but it seems to me that the dreadful tenants always come out on top. I know several Landlords who have been left thousands of pounds in debt through unpaid rent and the tenants just walk away having not paid a penny. They then become another Landlord’s problem! A friend of us spent £15,000 in repairs to his property as it was really trashed and a similar amount in lost rent and solicitors fees.

From watching scores of these programmes it is clear that the majority of rogue landlords who expect tenants to live in very sub standard accommodation are from overseas and they pack as many people in as they can with dangerous electricity, mould, broken equipment and poor sanitation. It is shocking and should not be happening.

No landlord rents property for purely altruistic reasons. There may be an element of wanting to be a good landlord. However the bottom line is profit.

If no profit can be made, then like other businesses the owners sell up and seek another way to make a profit.

The profit may not be huge, but one assumes that the mortgage on the property can be paid. The asset will need maintenance, similar to all assets owned by businesses. The difference however is that most assets used in the process of making a profit depreciate in value over time, whereas property appreciates in value whilst making a profit. When this value is recognised at the point of sale then it is right that capital gains or cooperation tax is applied.

I would argue that this is one area where the tax system can be used to tax wealth at a higher level than now, or at least reduce the reliefs that can be obtained to limit the tax burden.

Allsorts

Downside, rental properties have been sold and so there are less on the market.

Who has bought them?

fancythat

It has not been thought through properly from all sides, and has backfired already. In my opinion.

People keep saying it (and posts) have not been thought through, but aren't saying why. Can anyone explain, please?

I am not a landlord, so better if someone else replies rather than me.

But, as seems to have happened, many landlords have already stopped having tenants, then the delicate balance between renters and landlords seems to have tipped too far towards renters.

In an ideal world, that wouldnt happen.
But I think I have seen several posts and maybe threads on here in say the last 6 months, where landlord posters have complained a lot about the changes, with several of the landlord posters even actually doing something about the situation.

fancythat

I am not a landlord, so better if someone else replies rather than me.

But, as seems to have happened, many landlords have already stopped having tenants, then the delicate balance between renters and landlords seems to have tipped too far towards renters.

In an ideal world, that wouldnt happen.
But I think I have seen several posts and maybe threads on here in say the last 6 months, where landlord posters have complained a lot about the changes, with several of the landlord posters even actually doing something about the situation.

Thanks for replying. Are you talking about landlords selling up because they are worried about not being able to have bidding wars, or put the rent up more than annually and evict tenants without good reason? I would say that it's for the best that they sell, but I might be missing something.

If a lot of the less scrupulous ones sell, and legislation continues to crack down on sharp practice then renters will get a better deal, there will be more homes available for people to buy (so prices may steady or even drop) and good landlords will prosper. Isn't that a win/win situation?

Lets hope the sharp practices of ex sacked Homelessness Minister, who didn't understand her brief, thought it was her job to actually make people homeless and ejected her own tenants, to list a higher rent and Labour MP with the filthy 15 or so flats are not representative of the 40 odd other Labour MPs who are Landlords. A few who like Jas Athwal have multiple properties.

A total of 85 MPs are Landlords, Labour 44, Tories 28, LibDems 8, a few missing there, but they won't be among the Greens, because it's their intention to do away with private Landlords.

Whitewavemark2

No landlord rents property for purely altruistic reasons. There may be an element of wanting to be a good landlord. However the bottom line is profit.

If no profit can be made, then like other businesses the owners sell up and seek another way to make a profit.

The profit may not be huge, but one assumes that the mortgage on the property can be paid. The asset will need maintenance, similar to all assets owned by businesses. The difference however is that most assets used in the process of making a profit depreciate in value over time, whereas property appreciates in value whilst making a profit. When this value is recognised at the point of sale then it is right that capital gains or cooperation tax is applied.

I would argue that this is one area where the tax system can be used to tax wealth at a higher level than now, or at least reduce the reliefs that can be obtained to limit the tax burden.

Indeed.

Landlords are not a charity. Rentals should be at a fair price, be maintained well, mortgage and fees paid. There should be some small profit. Nobody would put money in a business and not expect profit.

Assuming LL has invested money, they should be able to at least match the rate of return on assets that could be achieved merely saving.

Our rentals are not a charitable endeavor, we are good LLs. We are not being given 'free money' - we have costs as any business.

I agree that LLs are not running charities, and also with everything else in your first paragraph. I can also see that the hassle involved needs to be compensated for, or why would people bother?

But the investment is in the property, as well as in the rent, so 'market rent' makes no sense. If an area is one of rising prices the LL is making money from owning the property, so there is no need to put up rentals to match. Yes, it might cost more to buy in town A than town B, but houses in town A are rising in value more than in town B, so charging the same rent for both still makes a profit for the LL in town A. It's just that a higher percentage of that profit is in the house value than in the rent.

House prices can fall. And sometimes do.
That needs to be factored in as well.

Other things.
In a more expensive town, repair costs can be higher.

A garden may need to be better looked after.

If a lot of the less scrupulous ones sell, and legislation continues to crack down on sharp practice then renters will get a better deal, there will be more homes available for people to buy (so prices may steady or even drop) and good landlords will prosper. Isn't that a win/win situation?

As someone said upthread, properties are getting snapped up by the likes of Blackrock and investment companies.
Cant see that being good for renters, in say 10-20 years' time.

M0nica

Many landlords are saying that they are going to selltheir proeprties. One had seven that they had put on the market. All the tenants having vacated before the new Act came in.

There are lots of stories of people desperately hunting accommodation and unable to find it. It is said that in the future the rented sector will be dominated by big property companies. Will this necessarily be a good thing?

Will this actbe good for some tenants but disastrou for many others and make it moredifficult for our children and grandchildren to find rented property?

I have just one property with a very happy tenant, an elderly man who is at least in his 80's. I believe that I'm a good landlord, I've only put the rent up once in the six years since he's been there and my managing agent is on the ball with any problems.
I'd rather have a good tenant who pays slightly lower rent regularly than one who pays a little more but causes far more more difficulty.
I've decided to sell when he eventually leaves because if I get a bad tenant I'll get no rent, or a trashed flat, and have to wait for ages to get him evicted. That's one more nice flat not available to rent from a fair landlord like myself.
There are at least four other landlords in the building who have either sold or intend to do so.

Doodledog

I agree that LLs are not running charities, and also with everything else in your first paragraph. I can also see that the hassle involved needs to be compensated for, or why would people bother?

But the investment is in the property, as well as in the rent, so 'market rent' makes no sense. If an area is one of rising prices the LL is making money from owning the property, so there is no need to put up rentals to match. Yes, it might cost more to buy in town A than town B, but houses in town A are rising in value more than in town B, so charging the same rent for both still makes a profit for the LL in town A. It's just that a higher percentage of that profit is in the house value than in the rent.

My property has actually gone up very little in value since I bought it in 2012, so I rely on the rent for my return.

There was this thread on mumsnet.
Not sure it was one I have previously read[actually thought it was a thread on this forum I had seen].

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5444232-renters-rights-bill-1-may-2026-good-or-disaster

It's unusual for a property not to have risen much in value since 2012.

When you sell, it will be a property available for anybody to buy - it could be a owner occupier or another landlord, but it will almost certainly be bought by someone - the property won't physically disappear.

It’s terrible news for renters. Landlords will sell up in record numbers reducing the supply of properties.

i hope all house owners who rent out properties sell them and dont bother anymore, its not worth the effort with fickle tenanats they cant get rid of, let the government or the do gooders house them

fancythat

There was this thread on mumsnet.
Not sure it was one I have previously read[actually thought it was a thread on this forum I had seen].

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5444232-renters-rights-bill-1-may-2026-good-or-disaster

Interesting thread thank you.

The majority opinion on there seems to be that The Renters Rights Bill is not a good thing for most of the reasons given on here.

"It's unusual for a property not to have risen much in value since 2012".

For freehold houses yes. For leasehold flats- not the case.

There is a big difference between the value of flats/apartments and houses and the value of flats has fallen over recent years, she a considerable amount.

This is what I have heard from a few landlords locally who have flats they rent out and they now want to leave the landlord market.

Their Monthly Service Management fees for flats increased on an annual basis far above inflation over recent years. Their costs for insurance had also risen above inflation following the Grenfell Tower disaster. They found out the ground rents cost periodically such that they now pay over £600 a year. When they have come to remortgage they are finding mortgage lenders are becoming increasingly reluctant, and in some cases won't lend against flats, where these costs outweigh a proportion of the flat's value. This will be the same for any young couple wishing to purchase a flat.

The previous Help to Buy scheme (2021- 2023) helped first time buyers purchase new builds and many purchased new build flats in our local area. What was then a young couple and now have children, they are unable to move to a house unless they can achieve a sale value of their flat of at least purchase price in order to repay their initial Help to Buy loan. The majority can't, so they are stuck.

Flats values have fallen nationally following Grenfell.

If you look at flats for sale in an area near me- they are taking much longer to sell, ( same across the UK), sellers have to reduce the price to achieve a sale, many, when you check previous sales on Rightmove, are currently up for sale for an amount below the amount the flat was purchased as a new build 5, 10 or even 20 ago. Some are virtually unsellable. There are a couple of flats being marketed for "cash buyers only" as mortgage as first time buyers had to pull out because their mortgage provider refused to lend against the flat once they found out about service costs, ground rent etc.

So if you are a landlord of a flat, you are highly unlikely to have made much capital gain and your costs likely exceed the amount of rent you can achieve. Hence why many landlords trying to pull out of flat rentals. If you need to remortgage, (following Truss fiasco), you may now have difficulties getting a new mortgage. If that is the case, unless you have the capital to repay the loan, you would be forced to hand over the flat to your current mortgage lender as the loan ends.

The Renters Rights Act is good for tenants and I am supportive. However, it would be good if the government can also address and reform the leasehold system. ground rent system and put better regulation in place for companies providing flat service contracts so the charge is fair, reasonable and transparent. This is needed for both first time buyers and landlords.

Plus if the flat is being sold by a landlord, for the duration of the marketing then purchase process) it is generally empty.

That is because under the new act you are not able sell, until a new tenant has been in residence for at least 12 months. Plus buyers most likely will want to purchase an empty property. Thus during the sales process (which with a lease sale and a slow market could easily take 12 months from start to finish, or even longer) no one is being housed at all in the flat and the landlord must pay all the usual service costs etc- plus double the usual amount of council tax.

fancythat

^If a lot of the less scrupulous ones sell, and legislation continues to crack down on sharp practice then renters will get a better deal, there will be more homes available for people to buy (so prices may steady or even drop) and good landlords will prosper. Isn't that a win/win situation?^

As someone said upthread, properties are getting snapped up by the likes of Blackrock and investment companies.
Cant see that being good for renters, in say 10-20 years' time.

But it will, if legislation keeps up and prevents exploitation.

A big if.