Small landlords selling off isn't a great news after all

This is inaccurate and dangerous advice. The reforms haven't come through. If a tenant challenges a rent formally increase ATM they are at substantial risk of being evicted through Section 21.

I do agree that many use Section 21 for legitimate reasons, it's slightly easier - although you do still have to go to court to regain possession of they don't leave at the end.

However, research shows from i.e. Citizens Advice that making a formal request for repair raises the chance of being issued an eviction notices. Section 21 is used for this.

There's been similar surveys by i.e. Shelter.

Of course no landlord is going to reply to a survey that they evicted someone because they requested repair, especially if it was safety related.

In reality in current market it's much easier to get a new tenant within i.e. a week than make repairs especially if they are complex i.e. rising damp or new boiler. It often makes financial sense not to repair and get a new tenant.

Of course I'm not saying all landlords are like that. But I'm shocked by some accidental landlords I know who I thought were decent people, but then when tenants legitimately wanted repairs were awful.

Just logically if a landlord is decent, tenants will stick around - so many people's experience of the rental market is the worse sort of landlord. The decent landlord should campaign for better reforms.

It doesn’t happen over and over again. Because S21 is ‘no fault’ - a misnomer if ever there was one - there is no official data on why they are issued. But data collected by landlord groups indicate that they are mainly used in the event of rent arrears and/or antisocial behaviour where the recommended route - Section 8 - fails because of court backlogs. It would be more accurate to call them ‘no reason given’ evictions.

No sensible landlord throws out a good tenant at will. It makes no business sense.

R.e. Section 21 - no fault evictions. Would you be okay if you worked somewhere for 5 years, complained about unsafe working conditions, were sacked with no reason and that was perfectly legal?

This happens over and over again in housing. And many tenants are too afraid to report or request repairs because they might just be evicted, they don't know how the landlord will react. This even extends to illegal behaviour like entering the property with no notice.

I do agree there's issues with tax treatment of mortgages. The main reason many are selling up though is the era of low interest rates is over and you can get 4 per cent no risk in a bank account.

There are also some that don't want to have to do any sort of admin..I know someone who is moaning that the shift is too far to tenants rights...turns out what they mean is they would have to pay a couple of hundred for a gas safety certificate and EPC. And get £1400 a month in rent. No mortgage.

The sale of houses under right to buy isn't responsible for the entire housing shortage

Nobody's suggesting it is, @Winter2020, since issues rarely have only one root cause, but if government had somehow managed to magic up 2 million extra homes I'm pretty sure they'd have trumpeted it from here to kingdom come

So it's interesting that they still have no intention of addressing the 2 million which have been lost by making sure there are no more

According to shelter:

Rent increases and bidding wars

Currently, a private landlord can increase the rent by agreement with the tenant, through a rent review clause or by serving a section 13 notice once a year.
Under the proposed new rules, landlords will only be able increase rent through a section 13 notice. Rent review clauses in tenancy agreements will have no effect. Landlords using a section 13 notice will need to give a tenant two months' notice of any increase, rather than one month.
Tenants will continue to have the right to challenge the section 13 notice in the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal can currently set an even higher rent than proposed by the landlord. After the Act comes into force, the Tribunal will only be able to set a figure the same or lower than the section 13 proposed rent, and the change won't be backdated.
The government plans to restrict landlords from requesting more than one month's rent in advance when signing up to tenancies.

For any tenants reading, you can challenge any rent increase and won’t have to pay it until the tribunal rules on it. Depending on if there’s a backlog this could buy you extra time at the old rate, as it won’t be backdated.

You can write what you like in a tenancy agreement but if it is not agreement with the law, it is toothless.

My late parent was in care after a devastating stroke, for most of the tenancy. There's a long story behind the mismanagement of the property which I won't bore you with. But my parent was incapable of managing it, and I wasn't allowed any involvement.

I'm just the lucky one picking up the pieces now.

It depends what is in the tenancy agreement though, whilst there is no legal limit (yet), some tenancy agreements may have clauses. Good practice is 10% max and no-one would think it acceptable to double rent on an existing tenant. Or to serve notice just to levy a huge rise. Your late parent mismanaged the rental, that’s not the tenant or agents fault.

Thank you for correcting me. I've clearly been misled by the (absolutely useless) letting agent managing my late parent's property.

There is currently no limit on rent increases in England. I have a feeling Wales and/or Scotland might have something like that, but I'm not sure and can't be bothered to Google.

The maximum spend hasn't yet been agreed. Some ideas have been suggested, including up to £15k per house, but nothing is yet concrete.

The sale of houses under right to buy isn't responsible for the entire housing shortage.

2 million houses were sold under right to buy since 1980 and the majority will still have someone living in them.

The population of the UK has increased by over 13 million people since 1980.

Amazing how many on this thread don't know the basics laws around letting. And yet claim to be good landlords...

Landlords can't put the rent up for their existing tenants by more than a certain amount (10%? I'm not sure). This isn't true, they can raise it up to the market values of new lets.

To those complaining about having to raise energy efficiency - the maximum you can have to spend is £3500.

The real reason many small landlord is selling is simple: money. House prices have probably peaked and rental yields are low. You can get about as much money with no effort.

The new rental laws are still very limited compared to other countries.

Landlords can't put the rent up for their existing tenants by more than a certain amount (10%? I'm not sure). But if they serve notice on their tenants and get new ones, they can price the rent as high as they like.

That's the downside of being a nice landlord and not putting the rent up for a decade. Suddenly you find yourself well out of whack with the present value (and maybe the property suddenly needs a lot spending on it), but you can't put the rent up as much as you need to.

A new landlord can't put the rent up massively for existing tenants either. Nothing would have been better for me than to sell the property to another landlord with the tenants in place, but no-one would touch it. My late parent hadn't put the rent up in 13 years, and it stood at half the present rental value. No landlord would buy it when it would take more than a decade to get anywhere near a satisfactory rental income.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/news_and_updates/what_to_expect_from_the_renters_rights_act

Out of interest, because I know nothing about this. But if they can get away with charging 30% more, why don’t you just increase your monthly charge to offset the new costs?

Its not ideal as rest costs are already deeply unfair, but surely its better to keep the flat and charge more, than sell and the tenant still has to pay more?

Can I ask what the additional rules are and what impact they have?

If the Tories hadn't sold off all the council houses at ridiculously low prices we wouldn't have such a huge welfare bill which is inflated by private landlords. How is that labours fault?

I agree with the first part, @Brotherbooth, in that the policy should never have been brought in to start with

However we've had several Labour governments since then, and they also carry responsibility for having done nothing to rescind it

Even housing associations want to rent at market rent rates, and they are even now setting up for profit companies to do so, obviously looking for their boards to become rich! We are soon going to be owned by a very few companies in this country!

I don't really know how many more times I can say what I mean... Read my previous comments.

Sadly I think you are right.

The only options are 100.% state housing or a mix of state and private.

Some private is inevitable because state bureaucracy is often too cumbersome to provide agile housing options for those who want or need them.

But socialists can’t bring themselves to accept reality.

I read your post with a raised eyebrow.

But yes, But it was the announcement by Lloyds Banking Group in August this year that most caught the eye. The Financial Times reported that the group, the UK’s biggest mortgage lender, was aiming to buy 50,000 homes by the end of the decade through its Citra Living brand.
https://www.reallymoving.com/blog/october-2021/what-does-banks-buying-properties-to-rent-out-mean-for-first-time-buyers

That's quite shocking.
But given the taxpayer is paying hand over fist for housing people to SERCO, you can see why other companies want to get involved.

That's a misnomer it's the lenders who judge you well their algorithms. Apparently the minuses are your outgoings. The computer doesn't like late credit card payments, direct debits for gym membership, streaming services, car payments, expensive phones, holidays etc.

The computer likes to see regular monthly funds set aside in savings accounts. It wants to see reliability on your part, living within your means.

So what’s a better alternative