Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

New renter rights act is a bloody good thing!

438 replies

Pineapplewhip · Yesterday 06:24

Naturally landlords have some justifiable concerns/questions but those that are up in arms about the whole thing are completely bloody immoral. The slum landlords have spoilt it for the good ones and the decent landlords should blame them and not the government for protecting people.

If you arent aware of the actual points of the bill - I've listed them below. I cant see how any reasonable person can disagree that it's just enforcing the most basic human decency and regulation.

  • End to no fault evictions: landlords can only evict renters if they want to sell, move in themselves, move their family into the property or there are serious rent arrears. They have to prove they are selling too - they cant just say they are!
  • Rent can only rise once a year, any rise above market rate can be disputed fairly and 2 months notice is given.
  • Landlords can't refuse you for having children or being on benefits (if you prove that benefits/finances make the property affordable). This isnt about being on full benefits either. Many single parents need benefits to top up income.
  • Landlord ombudsman - tennants can raise fair disputes and repair issues for free online and landlords cannot just ignore it/grey rock. Repeat offenders will be visable in the database. Landlords legally must act on the complaints.
  • Faster action must be taken on damp and mould. Basic human rights! No more shitty emails from a middle man letting agent just blaming the tennant for not opening a window - when actually (for example) a house needs its brickwork repointing.

The only legitimate thing I have empathy for is the concern that it will be more of a process to evict non paying tennants as it will need to go through a court. However - this is why landlord insurance exists!!

Please ask yourself - if your child was renting - wouldn't you want them protected like this?

OP posts:
Lugol · Yesterday 06:27

Just another landlord bashing thread.

Pineapplewhip · Yesterday 06:29

Lugol · Yesterday 06:27

Just another landlord bashing thread.

These posts can often turn into that - but if you disagree, why dont you take the time to say why? Let's see the other side's opinion.

OP posts:
TeenagersAngst · Yesterday 06:31

There was already plenty of regulation of the PRS that is woefully enforced meaning good landlords who comply have a harder time and bad landlords carry on regardless.

Bad landlords will carry on regardless of the RRA as well.

If the government really wanted to help tenants, they would leave the private sector alone and focus on building social housing. The private sector would then operate on its own merits and either fail or succeed.

The worst of all worlds is the system we have - an over-regulated private sector.

Lugol · Yesterday 06:36

Pineapplewhip · Yesterday 06:29

These posts can often turn into that - but if you disagree, why dont you take the time to say why? Let's see the other side's opinion.

I sold my two rentals after being stung by renters moving in, paying the first month and then not paying a penny again until I had to go to court to get them evicted.
Two separate unconnected tenants. The stress, costs and misery just isn't worth it.
Obviously not all tenants are like that. Same as all landlords aren't shit.
But on these threads all you get is hate.
It's easy to paint landlords as draconian Scrooge Mcducks sat in a room counting their dosh but when there aren't any more private landlords and you're renting off the banks who will (with the collusion of whatever shitty government we have) absolutely rinse you, you'll miss them.

I hope you get the info you want for your article.

NeelyOHara · Yesterday 06:43

Just as many shitty tenants as landlords, even more so imo. All they’ve done is made it so that only wealthy people will be considered worth the risk renting to. I have just gotten a tenant who has paid 6 months upfront, it’s made things less stressful for us both and I won’t rent it out again unless the person can do that.

ProudAmberTurtle · Yesterday 06:44

I'm afraid it's another simplistic law by Labour that appeals to a certain type of voter but is actually bad for the economy.

Turning everything into rolling periodic tenancies sounds great on paper for "tenant security," but in reality:

  • Landlords can no longer easily get their property back when they need to sell or move family in. The new Section 8 grounds are supposed to help, but we all know how slow and clogged the courts already are. Good landlords are already talking about selling up or just leaving properties empty rather than risk being stuck with a nightmare tenant for months (or years).
  • Fewer properties coming onto the market means even less choice and higher rents for everyone. We're already seeing this in searches – decent family homes are like gold dust.
  • Tenants can give two months' notice and walk away whenever, but landlords have to jump through hoops. What about landlords who end up with rent arrears, damage, or anti-social behaviour? Sorting that through the courts will be a nightmare.

This is a classic virtue-signalling "rights for renters" while completely ignoring basic economics and the fact that the private rental sector relies on willing landlords. Many accidental landlords (people with one inherited or buy-to-let property) are going to exit, shrinking supply when we already have a massive shortage.

Pineapplewhip · Yesterday 06:45

Lugol · Yesterday 06:36

I sold my two rentals after being stung by renters moving in, paying the first month and then not paying a penny again until I had to go to court to get them evicted.
Two separate unconnected tenants. The stress, costs and misery just isn't worth it.
Obviously not all tenants are like that. Same as all landlords aren't shit.
But on these threads all you get is hate.
It's easy to paint landlords as draconian Scrooge Mcducks sat in a room counting their dosh but when there aren't any more private landlords and you're renting off the banks who will (with the collusion of whatever shitty government we have) absolutely rinse you, you'll miss them.

I hope you get the info you want for your article.

Edited

Did you not have landlord insurance to protect you? This is what i am assuming would protect a landlord - but not being a landlord myself I dont know about the cost/limits etc... so wanted to ask.

I agree I think people will sell up and the market will miss these rentals - but maybe after a time the next wave of "landlords to be" will just accept this is the norm and actually be responsible. I don't see the buy to let method of investment disappearing.

OP posts:
SuperSharpShooter · Yesterday 06:46

As a long term renters OP I agree.
All those accidental/BTL LL's will actually have to do some work for a return on their investment 🤷

Pineapplewhip · Yesterday 06:47

NeelyOHara · Yesterday 06:43

Just as many shitty tenants as landlords, even more so imo. All they’ve done is made it so that only wealthy people will be considered worth the risk renting to. I have just gotten a tenant who has paid 6 months upfront, it’s made things less stressful for us both and I won’t rent it out again unless the person can do that.

You won't be renting it out again then because its now capped at 1 month in advance.

OP posts:
Mydogisagentleman · Yesterday 06:54

We're landlords deliberately. Have had the same tenants for 8 and 6 years.
We fix what needs fixing, maintain the property to a high standard and are currently subsidising one set of tenants as their rent doesn't cover the mortgage or maintenance charges.
Friends got a section 21 a couple of days ago.

Along with 5 other households on their estate owned by the same person.
Our friends can move into our house for a couple of months. DH has moved to Spain for the year and we have 3 spare bedrooms.

Agix · Yesterday 06:55

ProudAmberTurtle · Yesterday 06:44

I'm afraid it's another simplistic law by Labour that appeals to a certain type of voter but is actually bad for the economy.

Turning everything into rolling periodic tenancies sounds great on paper for "tenant security," but in reality:

  • Landlords can no longer easily get their property back when they need to sell or move family in. The new Section 8 grounds are supposed to help, but we all know how slow and clogged the courts already are. Good landlords are already talking about selling up or just leaving properties empty rather than risk being stuck with a nightmare tenant for months (or years).
  • Fewer properties coming onto the market means even less choice and higher rents for everyone. We're already seeing this in searches – decent family homes are like gold dust.
  • Tenants can give two months' notice and walk away whenever, but landlords have to jump through hoops. What about landlords who end up with rent arrears, damage, or anti-social behaviour? Sorting that through the courts will be a nightmare.

This is a classic virtue-signalling "rights for renters" while completely ignoring basic economics and the fact that the private rental sector relies on willing landlords. Many accidental landlords (people with one inherited or buy-to-let property) are going to exit, shrinking supply when we already have a massive shortage.

Landlords SHOULDN'T be able to "easily get their property back". That's someone's home. They have jobs likely in the area, kids going to school, all their mail going there, that address registered with their banks and energy providers. Landlords shouldn't be able to turf them out on a whim, that's the whole point.

The fact that you think they should be able to is part of the problem.

That is someone's home. The centrepoint of how they are building their lives.

Landlords not being able to easily chuck someone out SHOULD be the sacrifice landlords have to make for the privilege of keeping multiple properties and profiting off of it.

And if with thet comes not being able to chuck out disrepesectful tenants easily either, that's just another risk. Because you are dealing in homes, not mere bricks and mortar.

PleaseStopEatingMyStuff · Yesterday 06:56

Heading for a catastrophe if all the good small landlords sell up. And they will as i already know 2 who are.

SuperSharpShooter · Yesterday 06:58

Oh, and there really is no such thing as an 'accidental' LL.
It's a financial choice/business decision.

ShermanMcCoy · Yesterday 07:00

Yawn.

More LL bashing.

zzzzzz.

greenappletasty · Yesterday 07:01

Short sighted OP and naive. Unless you’re been a landlord you have no idea what reality is like. I’ve rented privately for 15 years before I bought and I’ve been a landlord too.

I was a landlord. I bought a house and the market crashed. If I had sold I would have lost money so I rented it out. I had over a decade of the most horrendous tenants and it showed me the very worst in people. Every single tenant trashed the house. Every single tenant disputed the deposit after trashing the house. Here’s just a small sample: left dog regularly overnight alone so it pissed, howled and barked. It took 6 months to get rid of the smell of piss and I had to take up an entire hard floor costing me over £5k in damages. Used a saw to cut off half a kitchen cupboard. Left so much shit in that house at end of tenancy that I had to order a skip. Ignored my repeat warnings not to remove the hair blocker from the shower, then flooded the entire lounge ceiling bringing it down and lied trying to pin it on the neighbouring house. The drain man I was made to pay for confirmed the pipes were blocked with copious amounts of hair yet tenant still demanded I pay it. Set fire to lounge carpet but refused to replace. Drilled 40 plus bolts into brand new painted bedroom walls and attached fitted cupboards. Cost me £1000s to repair. One tenancy change over I opened the oven door to find I was looking at the foundations of my house. They’d refused to clean the oven once and it was that bad the bottom of it had fallen out - when I said I needed to keep some of the deposit they screamed and shouted claiming it was fair wear and tear. Ripped out bathroom ceiling lights, smashed toilet pan, never ever weeded gardens, never ever handed back the house in the same pristine and clean state they got it, refused to pay for professional cleans at changeover despite it being in the contract, smashed ceiling light shades, defaulted on rent many times.

I had 5 tenants over a decade and they were all horrendous and entitled.

And as for mould and damp. I spent thousands because of their refusal and thick as mince attitude to old Victorian houses. I told each and every one repeatedly, “This is a Victorian house. It is designed to BREATHE. That means you must open windows every single day, no matter the season. You must not dry clothes on radiators. You must open the window every single time you shower.”

But no. Every single tenant refused to do this then complained repeatedly about the damp and mould spores forming on the walls everywhere. I even paid £900 for a specialist damp surveyor who presented them with a report saying this is not rising damp, or atmy other kind of damp. It is condensation caused by the inhabitants who are not treating the house as it needs to be treated. But they never listened. I’d lived in the house for nine years before I rented it out and never had any damp at all because I opened windows every day. It’s not rocket science. The damp inspector said most of his work was due to stupid tenants.

I could go on. I never made any profit and made a loss every year for a decade. Tenants have NO IDEA the costs of being responsible for the upkeep of a house. They have no idea that stress and time lost putting right their abuse of the property.

I did not increase rent once in ten years.

selling that house was the best thing I ever did. And it was in an area crying out for rental properties. Of which now there are hardly any and the demand is greater than ever.

The new bill has driven thousands of great landlords out and you will all be even more stuffed than you already are.

NeelyOHara · Yesterday 07:01

Pineapplewhip · Yesterday 06:47

You won't be renting it out again then because its now capped at 1 month in advance.

I’ll sell it once they move out then, - it’s more hassle than it’s worth to me at that point as it’s my old flat. I am an accidental landlord, you know, those people who don’t exist 😂💅.

RightAngleRita · Yesterday 07:01

Agix · Yesterday 06:55

Landlords SHOULDN'T be able to "easily get their property back". That's someone's home. They have jobs likely in the area, kids going to school, all their mail going there, that address registered with their banks and energy providers. Landlords shouldn't be able to turf them out on a whim, that's the whole point.

The fact that you think they should be able to is part of the problem.

That is someone's home. The centrepoint of how they are building their lives.

Landlords not being able to easily chuck someone out SHOULD be the sacrifice landlords have to make for the privilege of keeping multiple properties and profiting off of it.

And if with thet comes not being able to chuck out disrepesectful tenants easily either, that's just another risk. Because you are dealing in homes, not mere bricks and mortar.

Quite. Imagine leasing a car and the leasing company could just take it back for no reason. And losing your car has far less impact on your life than losing your home.

OneTimeThingToday · Yesterday 07:02

No bidding wars.... landlords wil advertise a higher rent and take the best offer. That will include looking at benefits, family size and pets. Corporate landlords will be worse fir this

Massive increase in S21 recently (probably loads today). Rents going up as less properties available. People screwed as their old landlord didnt do rent increases, so they are paying far below market rate.

Harder to evict anti social tenants

Its a good thing overall... but lots of consequences.

NoYouCantComeToTheWedding · Yesterday 07:02

ProudAmberTurtle · Yesterday 06:44

I'm afraid it's another simplistic law by Labour that appeals to a certain type of voter but is actually bad for the economy.

Turning everything into rolling periodic tenancies sounds great on paper for "tenant security," but in reality:

  • Landlords can no longer easily get their property back when they need to sell or move family in. The new Section 8 grounds are supposed to help, but we all know how slow and clogged the courts already are. Good landlords are already talking about selling up or just leaving properties empty rather than risk being stuck with a nightmare tenant for months (or years).
  • Fewer properties coming onto the market means even less choice and higher rents for everyone. We're already seeing this in searches – decent family homes are like gold dust.
  • Tenants can give two months' notice and walk away whenever, but landlords have to jump through hoops. What about landlords who end up with rent arrears, damage, or anti-social behaviour? Sorting that through the courts will be a nightmare.

This is a classic virtue-signalling "rights for renters" while completely ignoring basic economics and the fact that the private rental sector relies on willing landlords. Many accidental landlords (people with one inherited or buy-to-let property) are going to exit, shrinking supply when we already have a massive shortage.

Nobody is an "accidental landlord" it's always a choice they make. Was there a mysterious clause in their relative's will preventing them from selling the property? Of course not!

ThisOldThang · Yesterday 07:02

In reality only professionals with high incomes will be able to get rental properties. Why would a landlord take a risk on anybody else? Anybody with the slightest problem with their credit scores, hint of being on benefits or incomes below the national average (£35k per adult) won't even get a lookin.

We have a one bedroom flat that we rent out (Zone 2, London). It's a nicely renovated home that we lived in before buying our family home. There were so many applicants within the first 6 hours that we pulled the advert. The advertised rent was £1800 p/m and we had people desperately offering extra, cash payments, 6 months in advance, etc. We immediately binned all the applicants with an income of less than £60k. We could have gone higher, but wanted to give younger people a chance.

One other unforeseen consequence of this will be consistent and higher annual rent increases and higher starting rents. Landlords will need to make sure the rent is maximised when the flat is advertised and then increased every year by the maximum permitted to avoid it falling behind the market rate. That will result in higher average annual rent increases and become a feedback loop.

Donttellnoonenothing · Yesterday 07:04

Having been a landlord once, with an utterly shitty, revolting tenant, no I don’t agree. And yes, I did have landlords insurance and yes, it covered most of the cost (which was well in excess of £100k in unpaid rent, legal costs of eviction and costs to repair the damage she did to the property) but it didn’t pay me for the time or stress it took to resolve everything. I sold straight after and would never do it again. I was contacted by a different landlord two years later, to whom the tenant had done the exact same thing.

Steelworks · Yesterday 07:05

Discussed this with some landlords.

I agree that there were too many ‘no fault’ evictions but I think this has swung too far the other way. Maybe have a longer eviction notice period - three or six months notice? Maybe have a minimum fixed tenancy length of three years.

Only one rent rise a year is a good idea.

Also, if you can afford the property, how you get the money shouldn’t matter.

The result of this bill is that many landlords may sell up, so there will fewer properties around. Not sure that’s going to help anyone.

Passaggressfedup · Yesterday 07:07

You are very naive OP. This has nothing to do with protective tenants. This is about reducing pressure on social housing. Social housing fan cope, so let's turn private rental into social housing too, with harsh taxing for a bonus.

It sounds great for tenants but the reality is that an unhappy landlord will not stay unhappy just to make their tenants happy. They will just sell.

This change doesn't bother me as my tenants are great and rent is 25% below market rate. However if they go, which they are bound to do at some point, and I get shitty tenants, I'll move back in for whichever month's I need to. I'll be fine to do that, and I doubt any regulator will check I'm sleeping there every night!

puddingwisdom · Yesterday 07:10

NoYouCantComeToTheWedding · Yesterday 07:02

Nobody is an "accidental landlord" it's always a choice they make. Was there a mysterious clause in their relative's will preventing them from selling the property? Of course not!

Whats wrong with making a choice to rent out your property?

I inherited my nan's bungalow when she died and I was too attached to it to sell it so I rented it out.

Thats not an immoral decision 🙄 I dont know why people are acting like this is some evil choice to make

Lugol · Yesterday 07:11

SuperSharpShooter · Yesterday 06:46

As a long term renters OP I agree.
All those accidental/BTL LL's will actually have to do some work for a return on their investment 🤷

Or just keep their properties empty. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Swipe left for the next trending thread