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

Grantanow

I read today in the DT that it took 201 days for a landlord to evict a nonpaying tenant through the courts beford the RRA and that after the RRA it would take 341 days. Is this fair?

No, of course not. There should also be legislation to protect LLS from bad tenants. But protecting tenants doesn't preclude that, and we have to start somewhere.

I read today in the DT that it took 201 days for a landlord to evict a nonpaying tenant through the courts beford the RRA and that after the RRA it would take 341 days. Is this fair?

There are plenty of nightmare tenants as well that have had so many chances and drive their good LL’s up the wall.The larger enterprises will be able to weather these kinds of renters and the slum LL’s will apply strong arm tactics to them but it’s the small LL’s who suffer.
If things go too much the way of renters then small LL’s won’t bother and will sell up, leading to property shortages.It’s all a delicate balance really.

There are lots of posts saying that this will lead to a shortage of rental properties, but nobody has explained why landlords who are already doing the things in the act will sell up. What is so unreasonable about any of the things being brought into law?

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.

Oreo

There are lots of measures which taken by theirselves sound very good but you have to consider all the outcomes first.
This particular one could well have the knock on effect of all the reasonable LL’s who own one or two houses thinking it’s not worth their while and selling up, leaving only LL’s who have huge rental portfolios and slum LL’s in the market.
As in all businesses if demand outstrips supply then prices will go up and there will be too many people chasing after too few rentals.

For one reason or other, I don't have an issue with huge rental portfolios in themselves (as long as they're not slum landlords and pay their taxes). Many of the huge rental portfolios in the UK are actually housing associations (former council departments), operating as non-profits. Owners of rental portfolios tend to know the law and keep their properties in a decent condition with all the statutory checks. Small landlords can be variable. I know somebody who has an absolute gem of a landlord - she repays that by keeping the property in immaculate condition. On the other hand, I've known some landlords who treat their tenants like scum and try to cut every corner going by not carrying out checks and thinking that worn out carpets are fine and delaying doing repairs. They don't treat the rental as a business, so don't think long term and are just interested in collecting their rent.

ArthurAskey

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

Who do you think will buy the properties?

There are lots of measures which taken by theirselves sound very good but you have to consider all the outcomes first.
This particular one could well have the knock on effect of all the reasonable LL’s who own one or two houses thinking it’s not worth their while and selling up, leaving only LL’s who have huge rental portfolios and slum LL’s in the market.
As in all businesses if demand outstrips supply then prices will go up and there will be too many people chasing after too few rentals.

LemonJam, A professional landlord, who knows what he or she is doing would have factored all of that into the cost when they buy leasehold flats. Sometimes they can pick up real bargains. The problem is that when people see these bargains and don't really understand the market and why they're so cheap.

fancythat

A big if.

Everything is a 'big if' though. The government said in the manifesto that they would protect tenants, and there is no reason (that I know of) to assume that they won't continue to do so. I hope they do, which is not the same as hoping that LLs are not treated fairly too.

I’m an ex LL , we had a rental property for 12 years and had 2 lovely tenants who really looked after the house . Then we had the tenants from hell. Fine for the first year and then they stopped the dd . The dh was SE and wasn’t working . We agreed they could pay in instalments, and gave them a lot of leeway as they had young children and we felt sorry for them. Giving them time invalidated our insurance. Eventually they agreed to leave.
The house and garden was a total mess and they left loads of stuff . we spent 2 weeks clearing out their stuff and had to get a skip. By then we’d had enough and decided to sell. And sold to first time buyers . So yes one less rental property but one couple now on the property ladder .
We gave our AC money for a deposit from the equity . Both were renting in London where rents are crazy high , and had been renting for 12-15 years .
DS bought last year and DD is looking .
So I can see both sides of the situation. And I’m very interested in how it’s going to pan out .

A big if.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.