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?

I rented an old dilapidated farmhouse with overgrown gardens/orchard and rats everywhere (including in the attic) due to raising birds for the shoot in barns adjacent to the property. Over 8 years with the help of John Deere we transformed it into an idyllic country retreat (if you ignored the state of the house). So much so that the landlord wanted an extra £600 a month. We were ready buying but due to fixed term contracts could not exchange and complete due to complexities of the vendor by the exact date.

We were served a section 21 notice. The landlord is a Lord of the manor that owns the whole estate. Horribly stressful time. Totally unnecessary. We were told the new tenants would be turning up with their removal vans on the day our fixed term contact ended (even though we completed a week later) and we would be evicted. Had to spend hours on the phone to shelter to find out this was an empty threat. Exemplary tenants for 8 years. This is why things need to change. The system doesn’t protect landlords from being screwed over by bad tenants (insurance) but allows them to screw over good tenants.

Right now though, what do we do? There simply isn't enough social housing, nor could we build it at a rate which would make much of a real terms dent in the problem.

The deposit scheme is a fine idea - I’m just not sure it would help many single income households. I couldn’t get a mortgage for an open market property on my salary even if I had a deposit. I probably could with shared ownership but there just aren’t enough of those available.

I also don’t really agree with the idea that tenants are uniquely being “underwritten” by landlords. A lot of private renters could get mortgages if they had access to a deposit and affordable housing stock.

And realistically, tenants are also underwriting landlords to an extent. Many landlords rely on rental income to cover mortgages and maintain multiple properties and at the end of it they usually retain appreciating assets that tenants have effectively helped pay for over many years.

I’m not suggesting anything, but I don’t agree that private renting is fine. I think for a lot of people it’s not fine at all, and I don’t believe that the new laws will fix everything.

@HobGobblynne - portfolio landlord holding multiple properties in a limited company and being able to portfolio finance and deduct costs = can still rent out for profit, with the right sort of property aimed at particular tenants and has probably had a strategy of some sort and acquired certain types of houses that work in their area (eg family on benefits but long term/student housing/flats for young professionals etc).

Individual landlord with a couple of properties paying higher tax rates and still having a mortgage and not much equity in the property = with these higher interest rates, cannot make it work, has to sell etc. is fleeing the market. It includes individuals stuck in negative equity, moved area to have a baby, stuck in unsellable cladded houses etc - come on, these landlords whether we call them accidental or not, they are not responsible for other “individuals”. And now with the fact you cannot deduct interest costs, you have to upgrade to EPC C, of course they are going.

You personally who can pay absolutely deserves the Government to provide you with an opportunity to buy via right to buy and deposit guarantee. If they can guarantee deposits for dodgy Middle Eastern banks up to 85k or more, they can guarantee for tenants who have paid for years surely as well. If it needed income protection insurance, so be it. But it makes no sense for the State to constantly top people’s housing up when they can find other solutions. I am talking here about the reliable tenants who just won’t be underwritten by financial companies, but could be underwritten by the State at not much risk to the state.

So people think that there shouldnt be small Landlords...

But also think the small Landlords shpuldnt sell up.

What are they supposed to do then?

What corporate landlords are buying or building in villages?

My DS let out his house for 2 years when he was asked by his employer to work in a different country for 2 years.
(This was some time ago, and he has returned to the UK, and resumed living in his house)
As far as I understand it, this type of short term contract will no longer be allowed (in advance).
My understanding is that, in this scenario, you possibly can give the tenant notice as you intend to live in the house yourself, but I'm not sure how long this would take, as I have not studied the new Act..
The difference being that you definitely cannot let out for a specific period of time.

I think small landlords should exist - as long as they can afford to run the rental as a business. And appreciate that it has risk and reward.

If I had a choice, I'd rather rent from a large corporation that owned lots of houses. I know not everyone agrees but it's just my opinion based on my experiences of being a private tenant. But that doesn't mean I think smaller landlords don't have a right to exist.

It started off with small things and the agents issued warnings then when things progressed we gave them notice.
Good to know there’s still routes - I was just taking the initial post at face value when it said you can’t evict for any other reason than selling or wanting to move in. Obviously if we were still landlords I’d be a bit more up on the rules than I am currently!

Well no, it's not a win win. He finds being a landlord very stressful and never wanted to do it in the first place and still doesn't want to do it now.

Selling at a 300k loss for a London apartment isn't a serious choice, you can't even pretend that it is.

I never said that at all. I said every tenant for ten years caused mould and other serious damage in my house
, and due to continued financial loss and mental stress from the abuse from tenants I decided to sell the house last year. I never evicted anyone. I had two tenants default on rent and do a runner and leave me dealing with their fabricated meter readings which EDF who have been incorrectly billing me for for over 12 months and threatening me with third party debt collectors and court despite the fact the bill belongs to my ex tenants. I’m still not free of the tenant abuse. Never even had time to breathe to evict. If only I had.

sell now at a 300k loss, or wait and sell at a bigger loss...

Or rent until the the mortgage is paid off, the amount he'd get from ab auction gives him his deposit back. No loss.

It's really not rocket science.

None, not big enough for the Corporates & at best, any housing is very small scale, with 30% at affordable, we a housing development that is boarded up and remains part built, due to disputes with the council over cuts in the afford part of the development.

When i was growing up, there was a council housing estate in our village, maybe 30 houses and few flats, ALL sold off and not a single one replaced as a Council house.

So if you have to rent, the only option is private rent, usually a self employed tradesman who has 1 property as their pension.

Labour don't seem have a clue that rural areas needed rented property too.

The tenant isn't trapped, they can leave anytime. It's better for those workers.

Those are the only automatic grounds, with proof needed, and the house then is prohibited from being rented out for 12 months when used.

There are no real issues evicting for any legitimate reason under the new system. And section 21 already required court before, it was just automatic once you got to court. Landlord propoganda before was about scaring tenants into leaving just from being told, under various threats like bad references. Now it's about anything they can come up with to pretend it's a major problem.

No they are not subsidising the bloody Tennant.

Thats not how it works.

The fundamentals have changed completely. 20 years ago small time landlording made sense: all you needed was a reasonable deposit, could deduct interest costs and there was an expectation property prices would rise.

Since then, you can’t deduct interest rate costs fully, property values flat in some areas and going down for eg flats, lots of extra regulation etc and a dip right now, interest rates no longer at historic lows..

Now the risk is such that you have to calculate paying the mortgage in full for up to 18 months and have thousands of property damage potentially vs a just paid off asset 30 years down the line. But even then who is going to want the damage and non payment risk as a pensioner? It’s a quantifiable risk. Even if a tenant pays off just 50 per cent off a mortgage over 30 years, again someone who enters now needs to compare it to investing via shares in property companies via an ISA. It’s pretty clear to me what makes more sense as a higher rate taxpayer.
A lot of tenants on here seem to want ex landlords to invest in large property companies instead anyway?

I rented it out to a single mum on benefits but please- do educate me in kindness and how I could have better served the community than help a mum who was on her own.....

Seeing as you clearly think you're so morally superior to everyone I'd love to hear about your acts of kindness and how you have forgone an income out of sheer selflessness....