Labour’s tenants’ rights bill

Before assured shorthold tenancies existed we had protected tenancies. There were no S21 notices as the tenancies were not granted for a limited period. I worked as a homeless officer then, ( yes I'm that old!). I dealt with very few people who were homeless as a result of being evicted in the private sector. It was mostly accepted that tenants stayed, if they wished, for life.
As soon as assured shortholds became normal, people who had previously never thought about being landlords started to buy properties. A big plus for them was that they could issue a S21 and the courts could not refuse possession.
I don't see it as a bad thing that tenants have greater security of tenure. It ensures that tenants can actually make plans for their life and the landlord knows he has a tenant who wants to stay.
I agree that courts should be set up to deal speedily with possession orders if the tenant has broken a condition of their tenancy. But if they weren't dealing with S21 notices, and there was greater stability in the private sector that should help.

See my comment above - leasehold restrictions will still be good reason to refuse a pet

I’m a landlord (Boo! Hiss! 😉) with a few one bed flats that are let out to young professionals at an age /stage of life where they don’t want or can’t buy a property. They typically stay for one or two years, look after the place pretty well and all is good. It’s this market that will suffer most if/when landlords sell up.

I’m considering my options after nearly 10 years in the game as the income/profit returns are shocking compared to other investment vehicles and the capital growth isn’t great in areas that have been flooded with new build developments.

A word on pets - there isn’t a right to have a pet - there is an obligation on the landlord not to unreasonably refuse a request for a pet. A reasonable refusal could be to do with the suitability of the property or other restrictions typical in leaseholds. There may be other reasons landlords rely on (unavailability of insurance for example) which unless litigated means that pet owners can still expect to be turned down in favour of other applicants.

The pet thing is an issue. I used to rent out my flat after I had to move for work. The deeds on my flat say that pets (apart from a hamster, goldfish) are not allowed, and if I break these I risk a huge fine and potentially can lose my flat. So any rule which saud I had to allow pets would mean that I couldnt rent my flat out, and it would have sat empty, which isn't helpful for either myself or tenants looking to rent.

Last Sunday, nearly 1,000 people arrived in small boats. Those people all need to be housed somewhere. It's not impossible to imagine a government programme of house-buying to accommodate them. It already exists in some areas: housing associations look to buy back the same houses that were sold under the right-to-buy when they go up for sale. That's not going to depress house prices even if landlords are selling 'in their droves'.

So the bill just makes it more difficult for private renters to find accommodation and more difficult for them to move when they need to.

Good intentions maybe, but doesn't address the problem.

I think it’s up to the landlords to decide whether a pet is allowed , not the tenant. In instragram, there’s loads of pictures of rooms whereby the puppy has ripped up skirting boards, destroyed carpets etc. . My dog has scratched our doirs and ruined the grass in the garden. Yes, you do get wear and tear in a house, but this is accelerated wear and tear.

I also think that if it’s harder evict people, then that would discourage landlords. The eviction process has to be overhauled, but to the benefit of both parties.

But it's a bit of a circular argument, isn't it? The sold properties won't disappear into thin air. They will either be bought by people who are ready to buy a house to live in or they will be bought by larger organisations who will put them back into rental market.
You say not all of those people who rent are able to buy, which is true. But that, surely, also means there won't be many people to sell the properties to.. ergo, the properties will either remain empty (unlikely), become holiday lets (very small proportion) or landlords will have no options but put them back up as rentals.
The argument about LLs selling up or putting rents up didn't play out as everyone expected when the last round of changes was introduced (no agency fees for renters and limits on deposits). I feel, the rental market isn't going to collapse this time round either.

@Catza I believe that selling a property is an acceptable reason to issue an eviction notice. I really hope it is.

It's a really difficult balance. I agree that the new laws will reduce the amount of rental stock. But I don't know what the answer is other than an absolutely massive social housing building programme. Is that likely to happen?

Surely the issue is landlords selling up before it comes in and the issue will be reduction of supply

It won't bring prices down , there's a shortage of property and has been for years .
Also not everyone renting is in a position to buy .
I think this act is very short sighted to impose it before there's enough housing to go around .

But if no-eviction rules were in place, you wouldn't be in this position. We were evicted last year because we refused to accept 65% increase in rent. Under new law this would be illegal.

Over quite a long period there has been a shift in rental properties away from social housing and into private hands. This has been exacerbated/caused by things like right to buy and property being seen as a safe investment (ie pushed by successive government policies). If private landlords sell up en masse those currently renting will not magically all find themselves with a deposit for a mortgage and able to buy however low prices drop. Neither is there the social housing availability to house all those renting. It's a shit show.

I think there needs to be a HUGE overhaul of the private rental market, with more rights for both tenants and landlords.

Tenants should be able to have pets, and no fault evictions need to be axed - people need to have a chance to have a home rather than risk eviction after just 6 months.

But Landlords also need far more rights when it comes to tenants that don't pay rent or trash the property. Tenants need to be held accountable for their actions.

And what about people reliant on disability benefits? Will mortgage companies accept this as income? Can housing benefit be used to pay a mortgage?

My DCs both rent. They are in graduate jobs in cities they don’t plan to stay in long-term. They aren’t in a position to buy and don’t want to buy yet. Rental properties are needed!
I also don’t fully agree about the ‘right’ to own a pet. If a landlord has a small flat he rents out, he doesn’t want for example 2 large dogs (especially if puppies that chew) living there. It wouldn’t be good for the property, the neighbours or the dogs. I know property owners can do what they like regarding pets, but an owner would normally buy somewhere suitable and not be stuck renting whatever they can.

I just got evicted due to the new laws coming in with my landlords being unable to cope with the costs.
I’ve just rang local estate agents, only 1 potential property in an entire town.

It's the whole supply and demand thing and is not going to end well.

If governments want to drive out private landlords (which is essentially what they're achieving), that's fine per se but not before making sure there is enough alternative stock.

It only partially solves the problem. Owner occupied households tend to be much smaller than rented households. Think about places where you have lots of young grads in house shares - you might have 4 or 5 people in that home, who wouldn't buy together. So the landlord sells, that houses one other family or maybe one of the renters if mum & dad give them a hand with the deposit. But you still have 4 people who will be looking for somewhere to live.

Look at what's happened to rents in Scotland over the last 2 years. The government brought in much stronger regulation and restricted the ability to raise rents, as a consequence both individual and institutional investors have been leaving the market/not investing in new stock, and as a consequence annual rental increases are still around 8% after a couple of years of 12-15% increases. It's the region with the fastest growing rent for new lets of anywhere in the UK.