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

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

Goldieoldie15

Very enthusiastic responses here. Anybody realises how damaging it will prove to be to the tenants? And no the landlords do not get money for “nothing”. They have invested and as any investor expect a return on that.

Having an opinion is your right Goldieoldie15 but in a discussion it really helps if you can back it with some facts. Please explain why it will prove to be "damaging to the tenants". Otherwise you are just another person shouting to protect either themselves or those close to them. Without facts all you will do is gather those who already agree; you will not change anyone's mind.

I think you’re right Lilyflower 👍🏻
I see several things being done with good intentions but not seeing the bigger picture from this government.One is hiking up NI for employees from the employers, higher minimum wages and changes to zero hours contracts….all leading to fewer jobs especially for younger people.

In amongst all the proverbs you seem to be repeating the idea that good landlords will sell, but not saying why.

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

Good intentions butter no parsnips.

A law brought in to protect tenants against landlords is full of good intentions. But loosening tenants’ rights decades ago created a booming rental sector with plenty of choice for the renter because landlords no longer feared being unable to evict nightmare tenants.

Giving bad tenants a green light will cause - is causing - a stampede out of the rental sector by landlords resulting in a shortage of properties to rent.

Fewer properties mean competition and higher rents. It is a market and market rules reign regardless of good intentions. Higher rents and less choice will ensue.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Forget old wisdom at your peril. What is will always trump what ought to be.

Much of the Renters' Rights Act is based on existing Scottish Law where it has been tried, tested and is being further developed. The many assumptions made by posters here were made when the Scottish Act was being developed. In reality key problems turned out to be the lack of enforcement of the Act and policing of Landlord contraventions (LA's don't have the finance/staff/motivation to pursue complaints effectively), and tenants' lack of knowledge of their rights and how to progress complaints.

Local authorities in England are similarly under prepared and underfunded so policing the Act effectively is unlikely. Liverpool seems to have it's act together.

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.

The quote below is from an article published in 2024, the link is to that article.

In England, many of the reforms proposed in the English Renters’ Rights Bill, which had its first reading in Parliament on 11 September, mirror those that took place in Scotland. These new findings provide vital learnings for policymakers in England – especially at this critical time.

share.google/VIljNiGnkOAfXw8ne

Very enthusiastic responses here. Anybody realises how damaging it will prove to be to the tenants? And no the landlords do not get money for “nothing”. They have invested and as any investor expect a return on that.

As I understand it they (LL) can insist on tenements purchasing household insurance specifying accidental damage done by pets and a larger than normal damage deposit

Sorry, Cossy, but you are wrong. You cannot insist on insurance and you are not allowed to charge a larger deposit. There is a 5 week rental cap on deposits and whilst you can suggest insurance, you can't make the tenants pay for it. We have had flea ridden houses and dreadfully smelly carpets from tenants who also owed rent so there was no deposit left.

We have mainly had good, long standing tenants and I have nothing against the Landlords' Act in principle. I do think there is a misunderstanding about how much it costs to rent your house out. Insurance is expensive for tenants on benefits and there is no rent guarantee either. In order to provide a quick service for boiler breakdowns, pipe damage, electrical problems, etc, we have to pay for insurance too. Tenants will often call the insurance company to come out to fix something without referring to us and then the insurance premiums leap up. Add in all the legal certificates you have to provide, the ongoing maintenance, agents fees, trying to get older properties up to standard with insulation, etc and it soon eats into any profit.
I don't mind the removal of Section 21 in principle either. If you have a bad tenant or one who doesn't pay the rent, you can still get them out. However, I think in return for the loss of Section 21, Landlords should be able to go to Court and have the evictions done very swiftly. I read today that a tenant who hadn't paid their rent was subject to an order by the Court to leave but it would be 11 months before the Bailiff could get around to it. Meanwhile, the tenants who are usually resentful of a Landlord evicting them, have the property tied up and the Landlord is severely out of pocket with all the expenses still pouring in. By all means, protect good tenants but also protect good Landlords.

Abcdefg

I follow a great landlord, he says good landlords have nothing to fear and would be doing this already.

That's how I see it.

The only people who would suffer are those who are not doing the things in the RRA as a matter of decency. Those who are have nothing to fear from the Act, as far as I can see.

And thank you to those who have pointed out the fact that the LL's house is the tenant's home. Of course it is shabby behaviour to evict a family so that a student who doesn't like the available accommodation in her area can live there. I can't believe anyone could defend that.

Evicting a tenant who is trashing a house, or who is not paying rent, or is a nuisance to the neighbours is a different matter entirely, but those things are not 'no fault', so won't come under the RRA. Evicting a family who is paying on time (and in this case has done so for seven years) without good reason is unconscionable, and IMO anyone who can't see that shouldn't be a landlord.

I believe that under the act it will be legal to evict tenants so that you can live in your own property, which is unfortunate for the tenant, but reasonable. Circumstances change, and there are all sorts of reasons why someone might want to rent out a property temporarily, but that should be made clear to the tenant at the start, and it may well suit them - many need short-term rentals when getting work done to their own homes, or then they are between properties, for instance. Short-term leases are not bad things in themselves, so long as both sides are aware that they can be terminated at short notice. But being able to evict one tenant in order to install another is, IMO, exactly why the RRA was needed.

I follow a great landlord, he says good landlords have nothing to fear and would be doing this already.

I didn't agree with the LL's desire over on MN to evict the family of some 7 years standing, particularly as there were children.involved and they'd been ideal tenants. I didn't read the whole thread. He should have explained to the niece that they should both consider the difficulties that would present for the family and why he should prioritise their needs over hers.

fancythat

^It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed^

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
And perhaps this is why so many LLs have sold up.

It is the Landlord's property!

But it's also the family's home!

The End. For me.

twaddle

fancythat

It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
And perhaps this is why so many LLs have sold up.

It is the Landlord's property!

And the tenant's home!! The landlord's name is on the deeds, but it is still the tenant's home and he/she has the right to "quiet enjoyment" of the property for the duration of the tenancy. Unfortunately, some landlords forget that they are signing over certain rights to the property while a tenant lives there.

But the Landlord is not expected to get their property back again!

And there we have it.

The fundamentals.

And why I would never let out my property.

fancythat

^It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed^

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
And perhaps this is why so many LLs have sold up.

It is the Landlord's property!

And the tenant's home!! The landlord's name is on the deeds, but it is still the tenant's home and he/she has the right to "quiet enjoyment" of the property for the duration of the tenancy. Unfortunately, some landlords forget that they are signing over certain rights to the property while a tenant lives there.

It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
And perhaps this is why so many LLs have sold up.

It is the Landlord's property!

Doodledog post at 12.43

We are excellent landlords. Please enlighten me how we will prosper under this new legislation

Smileless2012

It was generally easier and quicker to evict a bad tenant using the No Fault section 21 than going through the often lengthy and costly process of going to court to evict them for being a bad tenant.

The removal of section 21 may well be why some LL's have or are considering selling their rental properties.

It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed.

I can understand a LL wanting to evict someone who is damaging their property, or is well behind with the rent, but living with the stress of having 'no fault' evictions hanging over you must be horrible when you have done everything right.

Finding a new home that is convenient for schools, work, social networks and so on must be very difficult - particularly with a young family - and to have to do so on the whim of a LL strikes me as very unreasonable.

Also, if increased mortgage costs are 'forcing' LLs to sell, that proves the point about rents paying others' mortgages and buying their assets.

When we started out (I married in 1980) it was much cheaper to rent than to buy, largely because of high interest rates on mortgages and the ready availability of council housing which made private rentals less prevalent than now, so rents were cheaper. Despite prices having rocketed in the 70s we managed to save a deposit in a couple of years, even in our early 20s at the start of our careers. We lived at home whilst saving, as was much more usual then, so didn't have rent coming out of our incomes before we married.

For my children the reverse has been true. Both paid very high rents, as their work meant they couldn't live at home, but as high deposits meant buying a house was further from reach than it was for our generation they had no choice but to do it into their 30s. Also, because there is almost no social housing left, the market for rented properties is a lot bigger than it used to be so LLs can charge what they like.

I repeat - I do think that LLs need protection too - but as has been repeated on this thread, they are running businesses and tenants are living in homes. Legislation has to take that difference into account, IMO.

There's a lot of supposition on this thread. Particularly as to the automatic rise in property prices. We recently sold a flat we had owned since 2014 there wasn't really any rise to speak of. Flats, even here in the south east are not necessarily a great investment often due to ever increasing management fees. My perception, maybe wrong, that possibly the majority of lettings are in flats and there is a downturn in the desirability of that type of property.

The company managing the block where we owned a flat recently levied charges of a couple of thousand in consecutive years over and above their twice yearly standard charges. First for internal fire doors, which were told were mandatory, secondly a contingency fund for roof repairs, although they later stated that those were to be carried out sometime in the future. We'd paid out the money for the fire doors a couple of years ago, they still hadn't put them in by the time we sold, our money just left lying in their bank account. There's nothing much the owner can do about these companies, we know at times they're turning us over in they can't always substantiate some of the items in their accounts, which amounts to money for old rope. Unless owner occupiers have the ability to oust them and manage the property themselves then they are stuck with them. Managing a block of flats takes time and effort. Continual liaising with the other owners in the block as to having a consensus as to what contractors to use and obtaining the best estimates. Understandably not everyone wants to take that on.

Then there are the letting agents. Mine charged 12 and half percent plus VAT, for that they do very little. Drew up the contract, organised safety certificates, placed the tenant's deposit in an approved investment scheme, organised an inspection and inventory of the flat. Most of the first month's rent forfeited to these services. After that they inspect the property once or twice. They have a panel of maintenance people who charge top dollar. Their plumbing arm were particularly useless and obtuse with it. When we had to have a new pump installed in the bathroom, when I asked for the spec. they actually told me they weren't prepared to divulge that information to me. The person who was paying the bill ffs! I'd never been told that by any plumber before, but then again we'd never used cowboys. These were so bloody useless, they had to come back and do the same job twice. Eventually we were of the opinion that they were setting up issues on purpose. So we got rid of them and found our own plumbers. So of course that kind of makes the letting agent redundant, in that we were organising what they should be doing and they made it ultra difficult for us to liaise with our tenants, thus hindering some essential work. However, although the tenants wanted the work done, they in turn weren't cooperative in letting us sort out the matter. They were super cagey about who came to the flat because they had 4 other people living there un-be-known to us, thus breaking the terms of the lease.

So people ask, why did you want to sell up? Most of the articles in the financial press seem to suggest it isn't really worth it for the single property Landlord and it was certainly getting that way. A perfect storm of dealing with uncooperative agents, tenants, management companies, their fees and the prospective legislation coming down the line. I'm not saying we didn't make money from the letting. In the end the return didn't justify the aggro. We've spread the money between ISAS and other investments, less return but minus the headaches.

I'm sure Blackrock and large companies buying into great swathes of the buy to let market, won't give a stuff about their tenants, we always tried to play fair as I believe many Landlords do.

Ilovecheese

How will it leadto a shortage of properties? The properties will still exist even if they are sold. They are not going tobe demolished

Absolutely. If all the private LLs decide to sell now, then the price of these types of property in high-rental areas will plummet, making them an attractive proposition for anyone looking to get into the buy-to-rent sector & happy to comply with the new rules.
And it might even be possible for couples to afford a mortgage on them (decreasing the rental pool, sure, but also decreasing the amount of people needing to rent).

It was generally easier and quicker to evict a bad tenant using the No Fault section 21 than going through the often lengthy and costly process of going to court to evict them for being a bad tenant.

The removal of section 21 may well be why some LL's have or are considering selling their rental properties.

I think irreversible damage has already been done.

I feel sorry for the good tenants who are now forced with higher rents.
And a lot less property choice.

From AI

UK landlords are selling properties at record levels, with 26% to 35% of landlords having sold or actively trying to sell, driven by high taxes, regulatory changes (Renters’ Rights Bill), and increased mortgage costs. Projections suggest over 220,000 rental properties could disappear in 2026, marking a significant, accelerated exodus from the market.
LandlordZONE
LandlordZONE
+4

Sleepyhead52

Ilovecheese

How will it leadto a shortage of properties? The properties will still exist even if they are sold. They are not going tobe demolished

They will exist but they may not exist in the rental market.

Quite.

Which answers twaddle's question too.