Landlords response to Labour proposal

[Stellaris22]

Surely it’s becoming increasingly difficult to defend landlords.

In response to proposals to make renting fairer and better for tenants landlords have responded with typical ‘we’ll increase rents’.

Yes there are good and bad tenants just as there are good and bad landlords. LLs need to stop the saviour attitude of thinking they’re helping people who can’t afford to buy. They can’t afford to buy because of their high rents!

Good to see Labour (hopefully) tackling the private rental sector.

LLs need to stop the saviour attitude of thinking they’re helping people who can’t afford to buy
LL run a business, though. Their position is that if the Gov imposes costly measures this will be balances by an increase to the price customers have to pay.
No different from energy companies putting prices up when commodities prices went up, or supermarkets charging us more for European products that are now taxed more since Brexit.

It is speculation that the removal of Section 21 will result in a rash of notices as landlord realise that this is the last time that it would be possible to get possession easily.
Many LL will be letting to a tenant at under market rents because it is easier to keep a good tenant than churn to find one paying the market rate. With the last opportunity on the horizon they will issue the papers then let at the increased rent.
A Section 8 action for non payment of rent can take many months, cost many £100s all while the tenant is in the property laughing.

If the property was at market value and the tenant passed affordability tests with EA and signed the contract then failed to pay rent on time causing over 2 months rent arrears a section 8 would be given. If tenants circumstances changed eg they lost their job and became unable to keep up rent payments then I suppose a council might re-home them but if they just spent their money on other things like holidays and had no change in circumstances from when they passed affordability test I can't see why council would need to re-home them.

Failed to do something like pay the rent.

Thats rubbish, my grandmother died in 1996, leaving her home to me but in an unbreakable trust giving my mother the right to income for life, the trust prevents the house being sold in my mothers lifetime.

As none of us live nearby to live, and having two sets of top solicitors agree it simply has to be let out or stand empty - there I am, an accidental landlord, didn't ask for it, just got to do it.

I comply fully with the legal requirements and have a great relationship with excellent tenants, these have been with me 20 years, and I trust many more to come.

I believe it's called the law of unintended consequences

Given that Labour are allowing the continued sell-off of social housing it'll doubtless appeal to remove the burden on local authorities by banning Section 21, but as you suggest other problems it'll create are being forgotten - or more likely just not thought about by those whose only interest in landlord bashing

Never mind though; in time they'll probably consider making Section 8 impossible to enforce too, and expect landlords to house people for free

Did they not have a deposit left against damage?
Sadly, as they failed to pay the last month of rent, no it didn't. Even then the damage all together came at twice the deposit sum.

I'm not sure being able to exit a tenancy after just two months is the answer for tenants where a property is found to have problems not initially evident.

Moving house is really expensive whether renting or buying. It would be much better for tenants if the focus was instead more on ensuring landlords fulfil their obligations in terms of maintenance and repairs.

There are good landlords out there, they already are doing what these proposals say eg my landlord (post divorce) understood the situation and didn't ask for a guarantor or even references, when we bought, the incoming tenant (we saw them at the viewing was a lovely young lady (her dad was willing to act as guarantor) fleeing domestic violence on benefits and the landlord said yes despite 4 others wanting the property, he said he wanted a good long term tenant and he really liked her can do attitude, both myself and the agent also said to the landlord how nice she and her toddler were. She is still his tenant 4 years on (small town) and her son is in my friends class (who is a teacher). Good landlords don't discriminate

Thanks. Will have to see how it goes. If it’s too much hassle we will just sell (or try to!).

So you said it yourself.

Either let it out or stand empty.

You have a choice and control over the matter. You may not like the alternative, but you do have choices. And accidents don't happen by choice.

You are a landlord because you choose to be one.

No one can be forced to become a landlord or becomes one by accident.

It's not a choice in that posters example though is it? Leaving it empty would cause all sorts of issues for the property.

Absolutely it is a choice.

Some properties are left empty for decades.

Some are maintained and some are not. With all the consequences that go along with that.

but what is the use in leaving an empty property which could be used for a nice family.

The main problem isn't landlords, in a sense, renting out a property for someone to live is morally neutral, whats the difference between that or renting out your car or your shed. However, shelter is a human right and the problem is that the vast majority of tenants are renting because they can't afford to buy. therefore rent fluctuations (which would occur naturally over time in any market) impact them particularly hard, as well as the precarity (which can be improved by legislating for longer term contracts). The fact people can't buy or live in social housing is a problem of the state, not necessarily landlords.

What should be the priority is building more social and affordable housing. Not a landlord, in fact Dh and I (as well as an elderly gentleman on the ground floor) are the only owner occupiers in our block, DH is the only director of our residents management company who lives in the development. I would dearly love more owner occupiers in our block but I think the decline in owner occupiers has more to do with the decline of the middle income middle class in London. In the past, a young graduate could buy a 2 bed flat like mine or even a couple on modest income i.e. secretary and legal executive like DH's parents. now it is £400k it would take years of saving for a young couple by which time they are thinking about babies and hence many young couples now prefer to buy in the Home Counties. or they move to the north or can only rent (hence the landlords who cater to this demand). Graduate salaries are stagnant and people couple up much later, and hence there are fewer and fewer people every year who can buy the flats that are then snapped up by landlords.

DH and i are different as we married in our early 20s and had saved a deposit in our 20s (also had fertility problems which meant the deposit wasn't eroded) and have family locally so went for the flat (however very few people nowadays settle down this early)

They’re more likely to become second or third homes for the well off.
Most tenants would buy if they could. Unfortunately, they are forced to rent and the rents are too high with wages too low/stagnating to be able to save a deposit fast enough to outpace the mushrooming cost to buy.

We have a small rental. We don’t have private pensions and can’t get life insurance for my husband . We don’t make much money on it. We decorate annually, fix things if they break, go round any time of the day or night if there’s an issue, we pretty much leave our tenant to it. It’s her home. We are good landlords but once this tenant leaves we will sell it. It was supposed to provide for our disabled child once we were gone but it’s not worth the hassle. I know a few others that will be selling up too.

sorry who is going to buy a 2 bed flat in tottenham or harrow as a second home?!

Or a 2 bed terraced house in Slough?! those are the flats which are typical rentals these days.

What is more likely is that it is a young couple who buys the house or someone who has spent the past 5 years living in his or her childhood bedroom and saved up a deposit of £60k ready to pounce now the time has come.

Unfortunately this would not lead to a supply crunch in rental sector. Young couple likely to be living in a 1 bed or studio or even parents home now moving to 2 bed flat, single living at home is also part of what we term as 'hidden households'. the new empty nesters would probably not downsize either.

I’m sceptical about this. But I leave it to any lawyers on here who practise in the field of trusts to comment with expertise.

why is that relevant? I have never been asked any medical questions to get house insurance.

@Rummly IANAL but I suspect the terms could be complied with by selling the house and investing the capital to provide an income for the mother.

@BellaBlythe I have never had to take out life cover to get a mortgage?

OP found a very sensible solution. An empty property attracts double council tax if left empty for over a year and it doubles again if over 2 years.

What I meant was that I’m sceptical that the property can be prevented from sale by a trust instrument. But it’s not my field.

An accidental landlord is someone who unexpectedly becomes a property owner with the responsibility of renting it out, either because they have come into possession of a property that was already leased, or there arose a sudden need to find tenants.

Previous experience (London) has shown that private landlords giving up being landlords, doesn't result in cheaper homes for buyers.. Foreign investors, happy to leave properties empty, just buy them.🤷‍♀️