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 have a flat that isn’t selling I plan to move soon to go to stay with parents before my child starts school. My flat will sit empty. If there was no renters rights act I would rent it out giving someone a home and giving me much needed income that would help me rent my own flat in a new area. But I just can’t take the risk. With all the landlord taxes I’d have to pay and I’d have to pay for London storage prices too for my own furniture it becomes pointless.
I don’t want someone’s stinky dog or cat in my flat, yuck. I also don’t want anyone struggling financially as they are much more likely to default on payments and it takes 6 months to get rid of them minimum if they’re not paying, basically stealing from me. I will only put it on air bnb as that has great safety nets and insurance and the renters don’t get any rights. I would love to offer someone a short term home and would be very clear it’s short term, which would be great for someone trying to buy etc, but I can’t rent out the whole property with this new act it’s too scary.

Is it possible to let a property for a much lower rent but have the tenants responsible for upkeep/maintenance? Is there a place for this in the market? There must be some tenants out there willing to take some responsibility in exchange for a smaller rent.
Obviously those who want maintenance included would have to pay premium rents

Lots of landlords have interest only mortgages. If the rent charged doesn't cover this then of course the LL is subsidising the tenant.

All businesses operate on the idea that revenue cover operating costs otherwise the business will go bust. I don't think you understand this at all.

People who have already amassed a deposit. People who aren't establishing a career and who need the flexibility to move area without buying and selling a home first.

Where are people who don't fit mould going to live when the rental pool shrinks again?

It’s not about entitlement at all, but you can’t charge £1500 a month for a house that others in the area are renting for £1000-1100 as it would never rent out; so if the BTL mortgage goes up and the landlord is not having this covered by the rent then they are subsidising it.
I’m guessing that many landlords subsidise their tennants with hikes in interest rates because they don’t want to make families homeless and recognise good longstanding tennants. Plus they look at it over a longer period of time and understand it will hopefully even out and still be a good investment.

Even before this act, my friend has an hmo and someone hasn’t paid rent for almost a year, a court has ordered him to leave (but not pay his back rent!) and he’s still there! They literally can’t remove him there’s another process they have to go to before they can hire bailiffs and more cost for them. He’s stolen thousands from her family as that’s their income/ managing the hmos is her job.

Yes, they can’t afford to be landlords now; this is why so many are selling up and the rents on existing properties are sky high. Less of a probable for those having their rent paid by universal credit but a huge problem for renters who are paying it all themselves

Lots of commercial leases shift the responsibility for maintenance on to the tenant and it can be incredibly painful for unlucky tenants who happen to be renting a property when a major repair is needed. Imagine renting a house for a year and being on the hook for a new roof

Quite. You can't just punish or heavily regulate private landlords out of the market and assume tenants will magically be fine.

Without a huge increase in total housing supply (especially affordable/social options), tenants who can't buy will compete for fewer rentals at higher prices, or fall into the safety net — which is already strained.

Some on here seem to think that the properties should be bought by councils/housing associations or that we should build far more social homes. That's possible in theory, but very expensive and slow in practice (planning, funding, construction limits).

Making renting unattractive just reduces supply further and hurts the very people who need it most.

There are only two solutions to this:

1. Build more homes (increase the supply). But this is also slow and bad for the environment. Or
2. Reduce the population (reduce the demand). But this would mean heavy curbs on immigration and an increase in deportations, which many people won't tolerate.

There is no third solution. If we don't do 1 or 2, or both, homelessness will sky rocket. And it will be caused by people voting for left wing parties (ie the people who say they are most bothered by homelessness).

Exactly, it is a long term investment. The value is not just the monthly cost, they are investing long term in property. God forbid they pay for some of it themselves

For a typical mortgaged buy-to-let in the UK these days, many landlords see net cash profit after tax of £200–£600 per month per property in decent scenarios, but quite a few are closer to break-even or small losses once everything is accounted for (especially if using a letting agent).

What do you think op about this angle op?

It takes a special kind of scumbag to behave like this. I'd like them sent to prison myself.

But then again, it is an investment, and all asset classes carry risks in return for reward. Bad tenants, damage to the property, empty properties etc. are similar risks that an investor in shares would face, dividends reduced or not paid, companies have bad management or are screwed over by other companies.

I have sympathy with the investor, but no more than someone who invests their life savings in a share that does badly through no fault of the business.

Many areas are seeing falling house prices and interest rates at record highs. Many landlords could take out the money they have invested in a BTL and put the money in a bank account with zero hassle and risk and earn more.

Why is it?
OP is just pointing out why the Renters Bill is good for tenants. Good landlords shouldn't be worried as they will already do those things anyway

I don't think it's me that's not understanding. If they have an interest only mortgage that rent doesn't cover, then they can't afford to be landlords. If the rent was only just covering the mortgage, then it wasn't a good business and was always high risk.

There's also the element of property being a long term investment for the future, and if they can't afford that investment themselves then one could argue the renters are subsidising the mortgage in order to help the landlords with their investment.

No one HAS to be a landlord. If renters having rights makes it unaffordable for a landlord then they shouldn't be a landlord. Can't blame tenants for their bad business/investment.

There is so much naivety here.

"Landlords can't turn down benefit claimants."

We marketed one of our 1 beds last month and had 17 viewings, 4 of which were on benefits.

Who do you think won the property?

This!

This law was brought in by the previous Tory government. It is now being implemented by a Labour government.

Thanks for letting me know.

That and now the obligation to increase EPC ratings to a C, beyond the average home rating across the country of D.

Amassing a deposit for a rental isn’t exactly hard for most people. I think you’re being hysterical.

Correct.

The two worst governments in history were the previous Tory one and the current Labour one.

They were also two of the three biggest spending governments (along with the previous Labour government) in UK history outside of the 1940s.

There's nothing wrong with it at all. The poster is making the point that it's a choice you make. If you inherit a property you can choose to rent it out or sell it. You're not forced to do either and so the phrase "accidental landlord" is nonsense. No one was saying it's immoral or bad.

So you knew your first line "another simplistic law by labour" was wrong then?