New renter rights act is a bloody good thing!

But it takes 12 months now to go through the courts and evict.

So, sold it then? and whom do you suggest is more deserving of buying it - over a single mum on benefits who needs housing?

The idea that someone who can afford to buy a property is more deserving of it and its more kind of me to sell it to them than to let it house a single mother on benefits is frankly, utterly bizarre and actually, its not "kind spirited" at all.

I have zero control over who puts an offer on my house- someone rich could have bought it off me as a buy to let 🤣

I dont think you are kind spirited at all.

There is nothing wrong with the legislation, as such, its that the courts and rent appeals system is not fit for purpose.

LLs should have the means to evict bad tenants quickly/cheaply and easily... but forget about the "vile LL" for a moment, just imagine you re the owner of a house and living next to an anti social tenant (who is still paying the rent) but it will take 12/18months to evict?
The noise, disruption, cannot sell up.

I ve lived to such a tenant, no one will help you, not the council, police, its down to the LL, in my case, he couldn't care less, in the end, we sold, for around 25% below market price.

I don’t see the councils as winners. I see the length of housing wait lists growing and even greater lack of housing
Exactly, so the thought is that with s21 and fixed term abolished, tenants will stay in private rental and the waiting list will be more manageable.

It looks good for the councils on paper, but I agree that it's completely naive. A landlord who wants to rid of a tenant will find a way. It will just take longer. And with less private rentals, people who would have been fine with private renting will end up looking at social housing just because there isn't enough private rentals.

This is so flowed, it's almost laughable. The only action that would help is to reduce landlords taxable liability, at least for those who only own one property so they have a chance to make a profit, even if their costs increase.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner ”there are unintended consequences because they won’t listen and landlords are seen as a greedy vile group of people instead of people providing a service.”

But what is wrong with the legislation?

Minimum term of 12 months is hardly onerous to a landlord whose profitability depends on having long term tenancies (not that 12 months is long by any stretch).
Eviction is still possible.

I don’t think you can definitively say yes or no. Although there may be data which proves me wrong.

If I was buying as an individual and energy efficiency was important to me then I would take the EPC rating into account.

If I were a landlord, I’d want a C but whether that would justify a high price would be a judgement call.

@Passaggressfedup I don’t see the councils as winners. I see the length of housing wait lists growing and even greater lack of housing.

The government has not reformed housing builds and many development zones are still bogged down in planning. My local plan should be complete in 2027 when housing zones should be agreed. Housing starts are therefore very low. There’s nowhere near enough homes being built and no acceleration to get anywhere near government targets.

Landlords are selling and often undercutting on advertised prices to offload. This will suit some buyers of course but not renters. It’s like nearly every piece of government legislation, there are unintended consequences because they won’t listen and landlords are seen as a greedy vile group of people instead of people providing a service.

As there’s no other service provider of scale , because successive governments have bailed out of house building/homes to rent, the rental customer will pay higher rents and find rental property more difficult to get. No bidding wars, just high rents advertised.

I’m selling my properties (a family home and two apartments) because of this. I’m a good and responsive landlord - get everything fixed and well maintained. These were supplemented my income and were my pension pot so it was important for me to keep them in good condition.

It’s just not worth it now. I’ve had tennants cause tens of thousands of pounds of damage which took months to sort out in the past.

👍

Because fear of taking it any further, allowed most of these incidents to happen. The amount that got to enforcement and real complaints were already tiny through fear. At that point a small amount did still cause issues, but not huge numbers.

And although there was then a set period of protection for revenge eviction, it was tiny in terms of having a stable home to live in before they could just throw you out for the reason of "bye, but not because you reported me honest".

I don’t understand why for example a family were renting a home with black mould all over the walls but the landlord wouldn’t repair it -and now somehow that won’t happen. If LLs ignored the rules before what’s changed.

Not rented it out at all

You literally told me: "there are kinder spirited things you could have done with the house other than make money from it" - for renting out my dead nan's house. If that doesnt come across as morally superior, patronising and smug, I dont know what does 🤣😂

Also, you still have not answered my question - I rented it out to a single mum on benefits so please tell me, what could I have done with it that was more "kinder spirited" than that? You still havent answered.....

not if your looking for a place to rent.
loads of people are throwing in the towel which means less homes available.

Does a higher EPC increase the marketable value for a property?

Accidental landlord here ( yes they do exist). Used to live in my flat myself and bought at the top of the market and it's never recovered so not worth selling. I currently have a gteat tenant and while she's there i wont put the rent up and will make sure things gets fixed. When she moves out i'm done though. Had previous tenants that trashed the house and you never get your money back, insurance or not. Plus the stress of it all is a lot. The government needs a balance to encourage good landlords and this isn't it.

Whereas now he'd be safer to find an agency to run it for short term air bnb lets if there is enough demand in the area.

I am neither a tenant nor a landlord, but I can see that of course both sides need protection. What does need sorting out is that it takes so long to get bad/non paying tenants out, surely that needs addressing pronto. Also don't agree that as far as I understand, landlords now cannot refuse pets, which seems wrong to me.

And to add, the real kicker.
He put us through all of this just to turn our home into an Air BnB.

I’ve never been so angry in my life.
There are no words.

I rented of my property for 15 years (lived in it before) making together no profit at all! The main reason for that is that as a FT working person, I paid high taxes, so 40% alone went in the government pockets. By the time I paid the interests, maintenance, refurbishment between tenants, insurance, repairs etc...I had nothing left. I did it for just one reason: I paid it off through my hard earned employment pay, and now that I retired and am only working in self employment, I am finally able to get an income from it that is expected to make up for the lost employment income.

For 15 years it was only trouble and stress and no reward. Currently I have amazing tenants, but if they are replaced by difficult ones, I will sell (3 bed house in a sought after area, similar sell in weeks, so no concern there) and am confident I could invest and get at least as much return anyway!

They continue to pursue idealist principles as if believing it will somehow trump reality
Nothing about this new law is triggered by concerns for tenants. The government couldn't care less about them. They like landlords much better because landlords pay tax on their employment income AND property income. It's nothing to do with principles. It's all to do with easing social housing and pressure on the courts. All things that COST the government. They are doing nothing but shifting their shit into private landlords.

As for renters who think it's giving them security, I'm sorry to say that you are very naive. Landlords are so because they want tenants and any profit that comes with it. Landlords want to get rid of tenants only if they are experiencing issues with their tenants or they need the property back for personal reasons. The latter isn't affected. They can still give notice to move themselves or a family in. As for being forced to keep tenants they don't want? They will use the little power they still have. Sell or pretend to move back in. No council or other is going to take on large scales investigations to prove the owner hasn't really moved back in. They will pay council tax for 6 months and get new tenants in, charging them 25% more. It will be worth the risk. That's if they don't decide to sell as so many are already doing.

There is only one winner in this: councils!

Actually thinking about it, I wonder if this effects the rent protection companies? If tennants did move about a lot ( can not see anyone moving every few months) there's no charge to hold a deposit. But presumably a high admin cost to move frequently. Still in reality I can't see it

At no point did I say I was morally superior 😂😂

I know exactly how you feel.

We were moved area too, had to uproot all my children away from their school, friends and family and actually ended up losing my eldest child for most of the week as he’s opted to live with his nan mon-fri so he could stay at his school in our previous area.

It’s heartbreaking but it was the best thing to do for him, so I didn’t fight him on it and enjoy the time we have when he comes home (he’s 16).

It was the absolute worst experience of my life and I’ll never feel secure in my home ever again.

That won't be possible anymore.