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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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?

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.

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.