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?

If that were the case then we'd have seen a fall in house prices as we lost 23% of our rental stock since 2019. But he haven't. Rents have increased, mortgages have increased. The 1.5million homes that Labour is going to build over their term might help...<tumbleweed>

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!

I know I'm being lazy and could check this out, but are these really the only grounds for eviction? Can landlords not evict for damaging the property or failure to look after it properly, or breaching tenancy conditions like no pets, or being a total neighbourhood nuisance, or anything like that?

No break clause been here 6 months. They cleverly masked the issues and outright lied about the damp problem and the leak.

We've done everything reasonable but on discussing with people in our building there are clear structural issues with the property that can't be easily or cheaply addressed and a mix of responsibilities between the landlord and freeholder so for instance, despite reporting a leaking roof in December it's still not sorted so every time it rains we have to put a bucket down as water comes through our ceiling light fittings (which they've done the bare minimum about and got an electrician to make it 'safe'.

Yes we've raised it as an environmental health issue with the council but that can take months of time and energy and all we want warm dry home.

I have my notice already written to hit send first thing tomorrow when the bill comes in.

Sorry, no idea why the fonts came out like that, and the Edit function still doesn't correct it.

The problem is we need to decide what kind of rental system we want.

The legal system will be similar to continental Europe where tenants have a huge amount of rights and a landlord basically cannot kick anyone out. But my family in Europe who rent are also completely responsible for the property. My uncle in Madrid, who rents, has just installed AC and bought a new fridge, completely at his own expense! Anything that breaks is his responsibility unless fundamentally structural.

In the UK, we want landlords to have no rights AND provide absolutely everything, fix light fixtures, buy washing machines, paint over, all of it.

It's not workable. Landlords need to get something out of it. I say this as someone who has had to rent at various points in my life. Renting is a good thing. It provides flexibility. Nobody wins if there is nowhere to rent anymore.

The end to “no fault evictions” can be a bit of an issue
I have a friend she owns a small modern 3 bed semi and she rented it to a family of 2 adults, 2 children and agreed (way before this new legislation) they could have their dog there.
They are very nice people and pay on time every month, but they don’t keep the house nice, she goes every 6 months with agents and it’s absolutely filthy, extremely cluttered inside and outside with all sorts of stuff. Overgrown garden and hedges, the back patio looks like a graveyard for travel systems and kids toys and inside there is marks on worktops, (used as an ironing board!) fridge freezer door has a massive dent In it and
since renting the property they have gone on to have 2 more children which means it’s massively overcrowded.
she has spoken to them and said they really need to declutter and the neighbours have been complaining to her about the garden situation and potential rat infestations etc etc with all the clutter.
She had the boiler serviced which is in the kitchen and the engineer got there took a phot of the cluttered kitchen and said he couldn’t work there as too much stuff about - sent phot to the letting agents and they had to reschedule this with them there which cost my friend more money.

She is in a really difficult situation and they have said they can’t afford to rent a bigger house. I mean, well don’t have 2 more kids then!!!!!!!!

It is situations like this which kind of fall thru the gaps with this new legislation. This house is my friends pension pot, she said she is very close to selling it because of how these people are. Why anyone would want 4 kids in a small 3 bed semi (3rd bedroom think cot size or office) is beyond me!

My friend kept her Mothers house after she died and rented it out. Had a great tenant and she was a good landlord, lovely small 2 bed cottage with wonderful views across hills. Had a brilliant tenant who stayed for 7 years, they moved out to buy their own property. She decided not to risk another tenant when the changes were first mooted. So now it sits empty, yes she is lucky to not have to sell it, it’s now used as her holiday home and let out to only close friends as a holiday let. We have rented it twice.

Landlords should have control over their property.

It’s increasing evictions and homelessness:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/08/landlords-no-fault-evictions-tenants-renters-rights-bill-law

In my London borough, homeless people are being sent all over the country, causing massive disruption to them and their children. 🤷‍♀️

point 2 is why my parents have lost their home in Ireland so not so great

Hard agree. DC has moved abroad for work for a few years, so don't want to sell. Their 3 bedrm house would be perfect for a family, but they don't want to chance getting bad tenants. House is sitting empty.

I'm acknowledging both sides and asking for a discussion and inviting comments to challenge my perception... or do you have to be an expert in the field of property law to start a thread?

I wonder how any of it will be enforced tbh. As pp have said the good landlords are punished and will likely stop renting and the shit ones will just carry on...No one has answered how it will be enforced, ie you are evicted because selling, have to leave 12 months before re-renting, who is going to be checking this and getting any 'fines' paid?

Why do people write this so much? Someone disagreeing with your point of view and trying to have a discussion, is not 'bashing', its simply having an adult debate. If you don't like that, the option is available to not click on the thread.

Can someone please answer me this very simple question (I am on both sides of the fence, as a renter but also work for one of the accreditation schemes for agents and landlords)

If all the private landlords sell up, WHERE are all the tenants going to live? There is no social housing, and not everyone has the means to be able to buy.

WHERE WILL THEY LIVE?

This is a question nobody, least of all the government, seem to have thought about or want to answer!

If interest rates and monthly payments have gone up on BTL mortgages and the market rent doesn’t hit that amount then they ARE indeed subsidising their tenants!!!!!!!!! How are they not????

you can’t charge another £2-300 a month if it’s way over the market rent even if mortgages have gone up

Take a look at what’s happening in Scotland- similar reforms were introduced years ago with the outcomes of a mass exodus of LL from the rental market, increasing rents for tenants & an ever-decreasing private rental housing supply.

be careful what you wish for…..

Can someone answer me this. What's the profit margin landlords receive after tax?

Is there any data?

But you don't HAVE to be a landlord. So bad tenants is not the same as bad landlords. People HAVE to have somewhere to live.

Exactly, that’s about to happen here. Fewer rental properties, increased rents and more pressure on social housing.

Zzzzz.

You're not SUBSIDISING tenants because their rent doesn't cover YOUR mortgage! They're still paying a huge chunk of what is a permanent financial asset for the landlord. If a landlord can't cover their own mortgage through rent then they can't afford to be landlords, good god the entitlement

In your hypothetical situation, who have they sold their houses to?

Realistically no one ever knows the effects of legislation until after it is implemented. It can often have unintended consequences, create loopholes or have knock on effects. It’s why there are often impact assessments afterwards.

You can say you think this bill is likely to be a good thing or a bad thing. No one can really say though until it has come into effect.

I tend to be fiscally quite right wing, but I break from that world view a bit with the housing market.

As an investment professional, I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet with the attitudes of some landlords. They just don't seem to recognise what a buy to let is.

As a rule, any investment vehicle delivers a return from income and/or growth. I.e. a share, you'd receive a dividend and hope that the share price increases. A property is similar in that you'll get rent and also hope that the value increases over time.

The problem is that gearing (borrowing to invest) is seen as a higher risk strategy, i.e. the general consensus is that you'd need your head examined to borrow £200,000 to invest in, I don't know, Tesco shares or whatever. But people routinely do this with BTL.

But the problem I have with landlords is that they somehow think they should be immune from investment risk. Their income should always be paid, ever increasing, there should be little or no costs involved, and gains and income should somehow be taxed favourably taxed in a manner that no investment, geared or otherwise would be. Common views seem to be that residential property as an asset class for an investor, should be uniquely protected and favourable terms established.

Ah but on the other hand, there are some seriously unscrupulous tenants out there that just wilfully abuse someone's property. Seem to think paying rent is optional, cause damage and so on.

In conclusion, by and large I think these protections are a good thing, so long as they allow a quick turfing out when rent isn't paid and damage is being caused.