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

Primrose53

As usual, Labour has not thought this through.
If most of the 3million private landlords decide to throw in the towel, then these tenants will lose their homes and that will cause a shortage of properties and even higher rents. How does that benefit anybody?

I am considering what to do about a small property we rent out. My friend has 2 rental properties and she is the same. I have a very good tenant - a single professional female with no kids and no pets. I already have too much stress in my life with an ill husband and son otherwise I might have sold it earlier.

We have been really lucky with carefully vetted tenants who appreciate the fact that they are getting a pristine property at an affordable rent in a nice location. However, many LLs end up with tenants who don’t pay, who live like pigs and wreck the place and annoy the neighbours. It will now take much longer to get rid of them so who does that help either? Certainly not the LL and neighbours.

Nothing new about providing tenants with an information sheet either. It was the case that all tenants had to be given a Tenants Rights booklet for many years. My tenants always received one from us and signed to say they had received it. My tenant has been in 2 years and never had a rent increase. The previous tenants were in 13 years and only ever had one increase. Not all LLs are money grabbers and appreciate good tenants.

What Labour should have done is got on and built more social housing. This is just a daft idea. I will be interested to see what other LLs on here think.

I am in much the same situation. I have one rental property that a single, professional woman moved into 19 years ago. She looks after the property very well, and pays the rent on time. I have just increased the rent for only the second time during her tenancy. As you say, not all landlords are money-grabbers. I pay tax on the rent received, and capital gains tax will be payable when the property is sold, and obviously I am responsible for maintenance and repairs etc. I have taken legal advice, but I can't see that the new tenancy laws will make much difference.

Xx excuse typos!

Whitewavemark2

Well all the landlords whilst having their mortgage paid for them by renting the property will now be in for a nice little nest egg from an asset that has increased in value most years.

The extra property for sale may well help to reduce property prices and so help first time buyers.

Win win all around I think.

The downside will possibly be less property to rent. So it is now up to Labour to ensure councils have the ability to build more social housing.

Most landlords need mortgages to buy their rental property in the first place. If they did not have the property they would not have the mortgage.

The main thing making it difficult for first time buyers is getting together the deposit and money needed for buying cost, so unless prices fell by 50% or more, any drop in property prices will not help them. Meaning that a scarcity of rental property will drive rents up making saving for deposits more difficult.

So far Labour has done nothing to aid the building of Social Housing, which seems to have been farmed out to housing associations who need to borrow money on commercial markets to build their properties - and who, as landlords, are affected by the new legislation.

I agree that there should be more social housing built, but it should come with no right to buy.
I’m sure I’ve read today that there will still be a right to buy.
I’ll try to find the link.

Letting a rental property is a business, not a charity,

The level of mis-understanding on here is frightening.

they will just have to out on their big pants and suck it up.
(no more) high rents to pay someone else's mortgage or give them what is effectively free money.
How will it lead to a shortage of properties? The properties will still exist even if they are sold. They are not going to be demolished

As usual, not thought through.

Surely, to protect both tenants and LL, either LL or their employed managing agents should know t properties very regularly.

My daughter wasn’t allocated halls, even in her first year, she stayed in her Ini town for four years in total, each rented property came with its own issues (including some of her flat mates)

Luckygirl3

One of my AC and spouse rent out 3 properties, and they are excellent landlords. Their tenants have always been very happy with how they care for the properties and the fair dealings.

Tenants laws are always a bit of a balancing act because we need rental properties available and the legislation must be careful to protect tenants without putting off small landlords/ladies from continuing to rent out properties.

I think this new legislation gets things about right.

The bit about pets might be problematical for some. I know my family have had some problems with pets doing damage, especially to carpets, and also annoying the neighbours.

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

I can imagine pets being more problematic, yes. But (genuinely don't know) is it any different as regards pets in private properties who are potentially dangerous/annoying behaviour.

Labour MP, Jas Athwal, let out mouldy ant infested flats, which his tenants were rather circumspect in revealing too much about when talking to reporters, or to reveal their names when that came to light, for fear of eviction. "Terribly sorry" said he, allegedly he'd no idea As a landlord it's your business to know what state your property is in. As a previous landlord with a managing/letting agent, you pay them to inspect and to advise on the state of the property and what's required as to safety certificates and maintenance .Or you make it your business to do that yourself and make damn sure you do it properly when you are responsible for other people's safety and well being. How strange all of that seemed to pass him by. Lets hope he can meet his own party's requirements.

I know that landlords can be pieces of work. When our son was in his second year at university in a shared house, the landlord took it upon himself, without asking or consulting in any way, to move builders and bulldozers in to extend the back so he could maximise the living space for more students to live there. To my son and his fellow housemates amazement, they woke up early one morning to builders traipsing through the house telling them this work would be going on for quite a while. It took a solicitor's letter with the threat of an injunction for it to stop. So two examples of really bad landlords who unfortunately besmirch the rest.

Talking of students, I'm just wondering how the minimum three year lease would work, most wouldn't want that. First year on campus, maybe two years in rented accommodation, but not always, often they switch their rented places after a year.

In principal I do agree, that tenants need more protection especially from those sorts of landlords.

As a landlord, I accepted, as I'm sure many other landlords do, it is incumbent on them to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair. If there was an issue with our flat we made sure that was fixed asap. However, what we didn't know with our last two tenants, before we sold, our two bedroomed flat, the two tenants had been subletting it to several other people. A flat ideally suitable to accommodate 2 people, had six people living there and that was evident in the wear and tear particularly in the shower/bathroom. We were tipped off about it from a neighbour below, so they probably weren't surprised when their annual lease expired we didn't renew it. Eventually when they moved out, we found mail addressed to people other than them. Our pretty useless letting agents with a shrug, told us allegedly that's not unusual. So it seem the tenant can break the terms of the lease and pretty much get away with it, even though in three years we only raised the rent once. All in all, not wanting that sort of experience again, and knowing this new legislation was coming down the line on balance we decided to sell. Anyway, we're out of it now, most of the articles I've been reading are suggesting it's going to be more problematic for the single property landlord and I've no regrets about selling. That's not to say that I don't want tenants to have a better and more secure home, but really the answer is not to rely on private lettings, but to build more houses.

My sister owns 4 properties to rent, keeps them reasonable, and has good long term tenants, this doesn't bother her, as she looks after the properties well via a good company who takes care of the maintenance. She supports the laws. Social Justice aware. It's Norfolk way however, not in the heated stew of the South West.

One of my AC and spouse rent out 3 properties, and they are excellent landlords. Their tenants have always been very happy with how they care for the properties and the fair dealings.

Tenants laws are always a bit of a balancing act because we need rental properties available and the legislation must be careful to protect tenants without putting off small landlords/ladies from continuing to rent out properties.

I think this new legislation gets things about right.

The bit about pets might be problematical for some. I know my family have had some problems with pets doing damage, especially to carpets, and also annoying the neighbours.

DollyRocker

35% of landlords have sold up. Big corporations are buying up rental properties. What could possibly go wrong ....?

Why do you think they sold?

And would big corporations be buying the houses if they felt that adhering to the new legislation would affect their profits? Surely that fact alone shows that all that will happen is that sharp practice will be curtailed.

DollyRocker

35% of landlords have sold up. Big corporations are buying up rental properties. What could possibly go wrong ....?

May we have some backing and further information on this?
Sold up since when? Examples of corporations buying up, for given the cost of rents, its still a very good earner for a small or medium investor who makes money this way.

Ie my previous flat was bought up by a couple who had got money from an inheritance, and it was their nest egg. That wasn't so long ago, and it's common. Buy to rent.

35% of landlords have sold up. Big corporations are buying up rental properties. What could possibly go wrong ....?

But why would 'most of the 3 million private landlords throw in the towel' unless they were going to be impacted by the new legislation, which they won't be if they are behaving decently.

It's only the ones who are doing things such as increasing rents illegally and/or evicting people in order to get more money who will notice the change, isn't it?

I agree that there should be more social housing built, but it should come with no right to buy.

Doodledog

If the legislation results in LLs who don't want to treat tenants fairly selling up, then that's good news. If their houses are bought by LLs who do want to play fairly, tenants will benefit, and if they are bought by people who want to live in them, then that's good news too.

I'm not sure what 'market rate' means in this context. If it means the maximum people will pay, then I think that needs regulation too, as accommodation is a necessity, and people will do without all sorts of other things in order to have it. Basic security shouldn't depend on the market.

‘Market rate’ in the area where we have our sole rental has absolutely soared during the past couple of years, and TBH in most cases I’m sure it’s just down to greed - because they can - and there will still be those prepared to pay - because suitable properties are not ten a penny and they have no choice.

Not so long ago £1600-1800 pcm was about the going rate for a nice 2 bed property - lately £2200 is not unusual and yesterday dh emailed me a ‘newly available’ he’d just found - for £2500!

Any developments near here must include social housing, usually managed by a recognised company. Anyone I know who has one is relieved to be in a situation with fair rents and security.

"Don’t most LLs now take out substantial insurance and damage deposit to help mitigate against additional costs?"

Yes, loads of options for Landlords - basic google brought them all up.

Nandalot

I am sorry, landlords but I don’t see the problem with the Act. It is no fault evictions that are being tackled, often used by landlords to evict a tenant and re let at a higher price. Those tenants with arrears, causing anti social behaviour and other valid reasons can still be evicted. Tenants can also be evicted if landlord wishes to live in the property or to sell it.

Exactly!

I am sorry, landlords but I don’t see the problem with the Act. It is no fault evictions that are being tackled, often used by landlords to evict a tenant and re let at a higher price. Those tenants with arrears, causing anti social behaviour and other valid reasons can still be evicted. Tenants can also be evicted if landlord wishes to live in the property or to sell it.

Whitewavemark2

Well all the landlords whilst having their mortgage paid for them by renting the property will now be in for a nice little nest egg from an asset that has increased in value most years.

The extra property for sale may well help to reduce property prices and so help first time buyers.

Win win all around I think.

The downside will possibly be less property to rent. So it is now up to Labour to ensure councils have the ability to build more social housing.

Hmmmm LL’s just don’t see it that way! If you speak to them they all seem to see their tenants as liabilities and not paying their mortgages!

What I really hated was when “buy to let” mortgages were readily available, properties bought up and then some let out via the council, often to benefit claimants (nothing wrong with being on benefits) so effectively the state, via housing benefit, was paying the bulk of the mortgage.

Sorry, rushing fingers, I mean, “decent tenants are in the majority

Around 12,000new social/council housing was built during Labour’s first year, some of this was funded by the outgoing government, it’s nowhere near enough but still more than has been built in the few years.

Yes we need more, I doubt any of us thought many LL’s would like the reviews, there are dreadful tenants and dreadful LLs around.

I guess the difference is when tenants were given “no fault evictions” they were often made homeless, the LLs still had somewhere secure to live.

I cannot think of anything worse than having to privately rent, I’m afraid those I know have had terrible experiences.

Decent tenants are in the minority, but I do feel for small, 1 or 2 property owners when they have their property wrecked by disgraceful tenants, who then also don’t pay their rent. Don’t most LLs now take out substantial insurance and damage deposit to help mitigate against additional costs?

Well all the landlords whilst having their mortgage paid for them by renting the property will now be in for a nice little nest egg from an asset that has increased in value most years.

The extra property for sale may well help to reduce property prices and so help first time buyers.

Win win all around I think.

The downside will possibly be less property to rent. So it is now up to Labour to ensure councils have the ability to build more social housing.

.Oh dear. It seems that whatever the Labour Party does there I are posters who are determined to dismiss the idea as no good .
Wonder why the Conservative party didn't build thousands of properties for social housing in their 14 year spell.