New renter rights act is a bloody good thing!

[Pineapplewhip]

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?

Hear, hear!

I have a house in an area that has very few rentals available for families. There isnt one 3 or 4 bed property in the market at all right now in a town of 10k people. Ive just checked. Its also an area where people are crying out for a family sized rentalproperty. There are around a hundred houses up for sale though. I had the pick of tenants. I have good ones. I rent my house that I own and rent in a different area myself. So i am a landlord and a tenant.
The government is killing the rental market. Prices are through the roof with demand outstretching supply.

A bad landlord will continue to be a bad landlord. I am sure they can find a family member to say they are moving in to satisfy the new clause.
Putting rents up once a year.. no big change for anyone there, but rents will be higher now to account for these things and the tax and extra costs.
As a landlord, I will sell as soon as my lovely tenants move out.. maybr this will be in a year or two but I wont rent it again.
As a tenant, I think nothing changes except rents go up for me and a lot less choice

This is why I always prefer to rent from someone who owns several flats. The emotional and overly financial attachment it is not there. Not so picky and deliver on repairs promptly.

Sorry landlords, but you don't get damp problems that cause you thousands of pounds to fix because your tenants don't open the windows. The fact anyone claims this makes them look like one of the terrible landlords this act is about
This a perfect example of what is likely to become a real problem. I was faced with this has a landlord. Lived in the property for 10 years. No mould. One tenant family, no mould. Then one moved and suddenly, mould everywhere. Before I knew it, it was all my fault, their child had severe asthma because of me and the environment welfare of whatever they were called, we're involved.

When I visited, I was horrified. Mould on doors walls, ceiling. All the windows were closed, the rooms were cramped with furniture, no place for air to circulate...and best, clothes drying on the radiator, in a very small room, window closed...they were using a condensed dryer despite a hole for a fan extractor.

The damage was serious but deemed all my fault. Thank God, they got into dodgy business and had to leave very quickly. The house was cleaned, damaged sorted, redecorated. No need to do any treatment for mould as the house was deemed normal. New tenants have been there over 10 years...no one bit of damp or mould....

It's all good to say that a section 8 can be used for damage, but proving the damage is caused by the tenants is another, especially when they don't have to let you in the property. And then the costs and stress of trying to evidence it...the court has the power to make the tenants responsible for the costs, but if they don't have the money to pay, you still get nothing.

Being a landlord has become much more of a financial risk than a financial investment. Not worth it when the government expects them to become social landlords. They fell to be good social landlords but think those who pay taxes for the privilege should do it....total delusion that the next government will pay for!

@Bulbsbulbsbulbs Never let to friends or family! My aunt did this and was owed thousands. @Pineapplewhip I think the new renters right act will make a landlord feel more nervous about who they let their property to.

My buy to let was on the market since early Feb, it's now rented. I had a lady who put themselves forward who was being evicted before the Renters Right Act come into force. This prospective tenant was on Universal Credit, had a CCJ and had current rent arrears. It was a flat out no. My Landlord Rent guarantee insurance prohibits renting my property to anyone with adverse credit including a historic or current CCJ. The prospective tenant also had a dog and offered to pay 3 months in advance.

Although you think this is great for tenants, if a tenant has adverse credit, a large pet (I know you can't give this as a reason to refusal, but many do) then they will really struggle to find a property now as landlords know that it will be impossible to evict them and there is no insurance to cover them.

I was more than happy to let the house sit empty for 2 months and pay all the associated bills then take on a risky tenant. I suspect many landlords would think the same.

We have been reluctant landlords for a few years as we’ve struggled to sell a flat that one of us had before we moved in together.

We do everything by the book and actually only break even renting it out. Which makes the LL bashing particularly frustrating.

The new rules were so off putting and concerning for us that the property is now sitting empty until we can finally sell and we won’t rent it out again. It’s a shame because I know there’s huge demand for rentals in the area.

It’s no good putting all these new protections in place for tenants if you can do the same for good landlords.

I have no skin in the game here as I am neither a landlord or a renter. I own one property with a mortgage and live there. However, I am helping my mother buy a leasehold flat, to be closer to family, and what I have noticed is that there are a huge amount of 2 bed rental flats on the market where she is looking, and wider local area. I am really shocked at how much is on the market (and possibly bigger/smaller flats, but I wouldn't know as she is only looking at 2 beds). And every single agent is saying that it is either people that own BTLs or people that have inherited flats that they were renting out putting them on the market becasue of the changes. We started looking in January and the phrase I have heard most is "they have decided to just cut their losses and want to get their money out because of the upcoming changes". So if I was involved in housing policy, I would be very concerned about the law of unintended consequences and I can only see that, at least in the medium term, there will be a lot less private rental stock on the market for awhile.

What happens to the flats sitting waiting to be bought as presumably once the landlord has proven they are on the market and they intend to sell they can't rent to new tenants? Speaking to the tenants in one of the flats my mother was looking at, they are elderly and had lived there for 9 years (flat had been inherited by the owners) and are devastated to have to leave and are going into sheltered accomodation as can't face the uncertainty.

On the other hand, I am actually currently renting various student hovels held by slum landlords for my children at universities in the UK and that is an absolute scandalous racket and definietly need serious overhaul. You pay ridiculous amounts of money for rooms in disgusting, unsafe houses that arent maintained and have landlords who own the entire street and then try and take their deposit off them for a small mark on a filthy carpet covered in paint and fag burns. And they make you pay from June to July 'to secure it over the summer' even though the kids only live there from September to May. What will these new rules do for the Student Rentals market/scam?

"I don't see the buy to let method of investment disappearing."

I really, from a dispassionate point of view because I don't care, do not see how you come to this conclusion.

I know a few financial advisors (and my mother is asking around as she is downsizing) and all I have heard for the past 6m is various shades of negativity along the lines of - the bottom has fallen out of the BTL market - becasue of the economic climate, yes, but 'final nail in the coffin' being the new renters rights act. Not that it exists but that it has 'gone too far'.

What am I missing that makes you think anyone (other than large corporate entities maybe?) would be considerng BTL as an investment strategy at the moment?

Aha - we havent had a LL bashing thread for a while...!!

We have had a tenant in our for about 10 years now - they will remain there until our kids move in. Never raised the rent - we like the tenant so lucky in that respect - central london.

Before tho - we has tenant convert the front room to another bedroom and sublet, then they refused to move out, then finally, they decided to totally trash the place because we called the police etc - so yes, you get some very twattish landlords, but you get absolutely cunts as tenants too.

If it were really easy and quick to go through the court process for non payment of rent or to get a tenant out immediately if someone wants to sell their own property, then none of the legislation changes would actually be a problem. The bottleneck is in the court system. There really needs to be a straightforward and quick process to evict on the grounds in the act or no banks will be financing going forward and that probably also includes portfolio financing for corporate landlords.
So unless the Governments sorts that out, there is going to be a problem housing lots of people.

I am a Financial Adviser. I council against them for several reasons. Illiquidity, tenancy risk, gearing/interest rates, hassle.

I do qualify that though, people who can pick up a bargain and renovate/maintain fairly cheaply, i.e. people in, or with relatives in the trades, maybe there is a buck to be made, but I would never recommend it.

It most definitely is not a way to make a lot of money/quit your job/have a viable business etc.

I like the security of it however as a single woman. And I am very lucky to have friends in the trades as my parents are also landlords.

Unrelated to this thread. I can see a lot of landlords selling up, and many people who may have gone into it now not doing. This is not good news for tenants nor for the economy.

I don't see the buy to let method of investment disappearing

Neither do I, @Pineapplewhip, but the danger is that most of the market could end up in the hands of huge conglomerates who've got the bandwidth to cope with the occasional tosser

As so many of us have said there are bad landlords just as there are bad tenants, but ood luck expecting much response to tenants' issues if the above take over completely

I think a lot of the 'accidental' landlords will stop, and the ones left will be in the business on a larger scale to make the risks/rewards a better balance.
Some of these landlords will do everything by the book, and some won't, just as they dont now.

I sold my property last year, as I didn't want the risk some of these rules now mean. Most I was already doing, but complicating the eviction process wasnt appealing for me.

I had one nightmare tenant that was really hard to get rid off, and under these new rules it would have been even worse.
She paid on time but poor care to property, antisocial behaviour to neighbours etc, always just staying the right side of the law.

I understand its the tenant's home, and they should have certain assurity etc, but what about the nightmare tenant's? Gives them more powers

As with most things, the good guys who were already playing fair will be penalised, and the rogue landlords will carry on as they were. Just less housing stock available, driving up prices

This was my mould experience as a landlord with 5 different tenants. Once the house was empty for 6 months, after I cleaned the mould off. No mould. Every time a tenant moved in and closed all windows, covered all air bricks, shut all trickle vents, dried clothes on radiators - mould was back. But they blamed me every single time. I sold in the end. I could not hack their stupidity any longer. And they were wrecking the very bones of what was a beautiful house.

Surely the leasing company can take it back if you stop paying for it? Plus there is a charge at the end for damage or excess mileage, and if you want to keep the car at the end of the contract you have to buy it!

Yes, this. I’ve been a landlord for 10 years and have only ever increased the rent between tenants (of which I’ve thankfully not had too many across 2 properties, on avg people have stayed about 3 years). But I’ll be doing it annually now.

Also my tenants asked to change their rent payment date to align with payday on a new job. I have agreed similar in the past but this now requires drawing up a written agreement and frankly I don’t have the time. Until the new Act this could be agreed by email. But the bigger problem is that until the new Act, there was nothing stopping me just saying “no worries you can change from 1st to 5th, next month you’ll just need to pay 1st - 4th as a one off, plus 5th to 5th” (that ensures you’re a month paid in advance and not in arrears). But I can’t do that now, because I’m not legally allowed to take more than a month’s rent in advance. And, under the Act the tenancy (for rolling purposes) starts on the day the tenant pays their rent, not the day the lease says is the start date (within the month).

there’s lots of good protections for renters but some things are bizarre!

Landlord Insurance doesn't cover non payment of rent. It covers things like lost/stolen keys, accidental damage, damage caused by tenants, fire/storm damage etc. Landlords would also need to buy Rent Guarantee Insurance, which is usually capped at monthly rents under about £3.5k, which is fine for many standard small flats, but not great if you're renting out a whole house or a more up market property. And I'm sure that, like any insurance, as soon as you claim on it, your annual premium skyrockets.

It's not unreasonable to think people who are deliberate landlords (rather than those who fall into because, for example, they've inherited a property and are temporarily renting it out) should educate themselves about their responsibilities and obtain the correct insurance etc. I am sure many landlords already do this. But, I think it's naive to assume that a tightening of existing legal duties will make slum landlords stop being slum landlords. There is always someone desperate enough for housing that they'll put up with it and won't complain for fear of being made homeless.

So a key problem is not dodgy landlords and ineffectively enforced laws, it's a lack of adequate, affordable housing. There's no point putting these laws in in isolation, it needs to be a multi-pronged attack (increase availability of housing, greater affordable housing, improved job creation conditions so that people can actually afford basic living costs etc) to have a true positive impact.

And yes I’m afraid to say we were very selective with the most recent tenants, noting the Act was coming into force. I have taken a chance on good people in the past and touch wood they never let me down on the rent despite having CCJs, or being a single mum who was cash rich (from sale of family home but salary poor from working part time) - you can’t get insurance on those people so sorry to say that going forward, I’ll only be looking at high earners.

Anyone who is not a perfect tenant on paper is going to find life as a renter a lot tougher, and be at the mercy of the dodgy beds in sheds landlords who won’t comply with the old law any more than they will the new.

I am hearing things that suggest a loss of trust / respect between landlords and tenants.

At one time there might have been more of a sense of duty felt by both.

Now there’s very much a sense of “fuck you” on both sides.

“they don’t care about me at all”

“they are just there to rip me off”

Repairs / maintenance doesn’t happen.

Tenants feel they are paying too much relative to earnings, so pay as little as they can get away with.

I am neither a tenant nor a landlord but regulation that reinforces obligations on both sides is probably a good thing. And stiff penalties enforced for non-compliance.

Was just going to ask this!
Are people thinking this new law actually means they can see a property they want and legally the landlord HAS to give them it? Really?!

You can only get LL insurance on people who earn 2.5x the annual rent of the property and have no adverse credit.

which is why people used to offer to pay 3/6 months in advance.

not allowed anymore. I don’t know what those people who don’t quite earn 2.5x are meant to do now.

imagine a 2k flat in London (that’s really not even a fancy London flat, you’re talking zone 3, 2 bed). Anyway that’s 24k x 2.5 = £60k. probably doable for most couples on average wages, impossible on NMW.

I rented for 15 years in total (9 properties altogether) and only had one brief bad experience with a landlord. I think the focus should have been on creating a licensing system and rental ombudsman with real teeth to go after dodgy landlords who rent out sub-par properties, or rip-off their tenants. I don't see that here at all.
It doesn't help anyone if the stock of available properties to rent drops because landlords are afraid they won't be able to get their properties back if they want to - I can't think of any other kind of service contract where one party is tied-in for as long as the other party feels like it with no break clauses.
It's just not the case that everyone who rents would prefer to buy - people rent for all sorts of reasons, and a healthy market would be one where all renters have a range of properties to choose from and assurance that maintenance and standards will be at an acceptable level, with the threat of licenses to operate being removed if landlords fail to meet those standards.

@snowmichael now that makes a lot of sense- and indeed in Europe is quite common

Once the dust settles, the market rent will have to rise to meet the additional risk of letting out a property. The demand will have increased and supply decreased, debatable by how much. It’s simple economics that it will cost more to rent, I’d suspect by quite a substantial amount.