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?

A couple of thoughts- If landlords are forced to have insurance against tenants that don't pay/damage the property, and if the risk increases due to the change in regulations making it harder and slower to evict bad tenants, therefor increasing the cost of the insurance, who do you think will pay for this? It will be added to rent, because so many small private landlords are already running close to the wire/ at a loss. This increases rent for everyone- the tenants that cause the issue won't carry the cost, because they will continue to not pay their rent/damage property, so it will be the 'good tenants' who pay their rent on time and look after their property who really take the hit. As a good tenant will you be happy to effectively subsidising the bad ones? There's no doubt that the changes to regulation have caused a huge exodus of good small private landlords, which has led to a reduction in rental accomodation available- you only have to look on rightmove to see that where there might have been 10-20 nice properties available there are now 1 or 2 pretty shite looking ones, the result is that it's going to be alomost impossible for people starting their career or moving from 1 area to another to rent. This is going to impact social mobility, career progression and those in jobs who move around. Is that net progress? Could improvements have been made in other ways? Could an annual inspection to check the condition of the property that protects landlords and tennants been more beneficial? There's no doubt it's decimated the private rental sector and I'm not sure who that benefits....

🤣, well casual misogyny aside, I think people who are starting out in life are the least likely to have a deposit, the most likely to need to rent and the least likely for a landlord to now take a risk on.

I think that’s exactly what they’re all doing, especially with flats that are crashing in value

No point having renters rights if there isn't anywhere to rent.

Twenty years ago you could have rented a garden shed if you wanted to. Now you can't get anywhere, it's a joke. All this law does is get landlords to leave the market. I'd rather have a damp bathroom and dodgy plumbing over being homeless.

Being a landlord is fine. Keep the place well and in-line with safety and health laws. If you're the tenant keep the place well, remember it's someone else's properly. Don't trash it.

When I rent my studio flat the agents fees, right to rent fees, inventory fees (rent guarantee) the first two months rent is lost to fees. fees are not on a sliding scale so my friends house covers her fees in month one.

Now the tenant can chose to give notice in month three on the periodic basis of the new act and move out two months later, then I’ll have to start all over again. (Hopefully with not too many maintenance costs). There’s potentially not much money to be made in private rentals if you lose your tenants every five months.

lots of LL’s selling up near me, five houses on my estate that were family rentals with tenants some over ten years all losing their homes due to LL’s selling because of the new act.

i worked hard in my life to get where I am today, the rental and my own home with DH, the rental income allows me to work part time due to life limiting illnesses which otherwise I’d probably claim benefits for (just so ya all know before I get flamed for being a LL).

IMO the government should have set up a better process for evictions to protect both the tenant and the LL.

tenants that are asked to end the tenancy are told to stay put by the council and drag it out through the courts, why, because the council have no home for them. So LL potentially gets no money unless has a rent guarantee is in place (another expensive that’s put on the tenants rent). And on and on it goes.

@glitterpaperchain well presumably people who can afford to buy them. I literally said in my post I am talking about renters who are NOT in a position to buy

So if a home is so key then just buy one or get one provided for by the state fgs.

Buying a home to rent out to others is a commercial enterprise, not a charity.

The tenant wants a secure affordable and well maintained home. The landlord wants to make a profit from the property with as little inconvenience/work as possible. The potential for conflict between these two positions is huge. When the state steps in to lend its weight to either side there will be much ruffling of feathers amongst the side that feels the other has an advantage.
Unfortunately when the side believing itself disadvantaged is also the side with the greater overall power (the landlord, the employer) they typically find work arounds to push back and regain their advantage.
They avoid contracting with those they percieve as high risk and well protected in the first place. They don't employ the disabled person. They find a way to offer the property only to working people. So in reality a different set of problems can occur for those the state seeks to protect.
I'm not sure anything short of the provision of ample social housing is going to ever put paid to the exploitation of tenants by private landlords. But, we will see.

@coulditbeme2323 exactly. I have answered many questions about this through work this week.

No you cannot 'turn down' benefit claimants. Can you choose somebody else who isn't on benefits? Of course you can. It's becoming clear that some benefit claimants think these new laws mean they HAVE to be allowed the property if they want it, it simply doesn't work that way

There is IMO no such thing as an ‘accidental’ landlord. Surely the decision to rent a property is invariably made because it makes financial sense, or did so at the time.

Nobody wakes up one morning to find tenants in their property and thinks, ‘How the hell did that happen?’

One thing I do think necessary, is much stronger action against the sort of slumlords who cram tenants in, leave mould, damp and dodgy electrics not fixed, and I dare say, often demanding rent in cash and not declaring it. In fact I suspect that failure to declare rental income is rife, and not just among slumlords. If you have no mortgage, don’t use a letting agent, and don’t live in an area where you have to register as a LL, there is literally nobody you need to inform about a rental.
The self assessment tax form asks only how many properties, it doesn’t even ask for addresses. The system is IMO incredibly lax.

I say all this s a LL myself.

But who can afford to buy them? Currently we have so many renters because people are unable to buy.

So if the market is flooded by landlords selling up, prices go down, more renters can afford to become homeowners. Win win

Thankfully

I am a LL and I fully support the majority of the changes, especially the removal of section 21 and allowing pets. I don’t like the removal of AST as my tenants would prefer a 24 month tenancy to give them security. My tenants are lovely, if I won the lottery I would give them the house.

@fundamentallyauthentic read it properly. The poster is responding to a previous post about a deposit for BUYING, not renting. If you think amassing a deposit to buy is easy, you're deluded

I hadn't even realised that that poster had misunderstood my point! I was scratching my head about how anyone might think getting a house deposit together was so easy.

It's Labour's law. It's simplistic. And it's terrible.

They're not implementing it because they had to - they chose to take it on (and make it slightly worse) and have championed themselves for implementing it.

I agree with the OP but, unfortunately, the upshot will be that landlords sell their properties making the rental market even harder particularly for those on benefits, with kids or pets as there’ll be more competition for properties. Will weed out some of the more unscrupulous landlords hopefully.

Yes, sorry for not reading properly. But in some cases (i.e flats in certain parts of the country), it is damn easy to save a deposit).

On second thoughts…nobody wants to buy flats.

Flats have always been risky. For homebuyers and any landlord who doesn't own the building.

OP, 2 comments: to evict non-paying tenants you have always had to go through Courts, it’s not something new. And a landlord insurance only covers first 3 months of rent not being paid. To go through court and bailiffs takes much longer than 3 months.

Did you do regular inspections?
Every three months would have stopped them getting so bad surely?

I agree as all my children rent, I do too. Damp is a tricky one however. I used to let a lovely airy flat which for at least 8 years hadn’t had a whiff of damp. Suddenly had a message from letting agent with terrible photos - the new-ish tenants had pulled their furniture out to reveal damp on the walls and sides of furniture that faced the walls. They had a new baby but they admitted they hadn’t had the heating on much. Letting agent was sure it was their fault but advised us to get an independent survey. We got the tenants to choose who to go with, we had to pay. The company also did remedial work, I was slightly sceptical but went with it. The report was very detailed and completely exonerated the property itself. In fact it said it had the right balance of air-flow and heating. The tenants then handed in their notice, then asked to buy it! We had all the remedial work done and redecorated, fine ever since.

Not everyone wants to buy or is ready to settle on an area. Of my three children renting, none would want to buy yet even if they could. I rent and I couldn’t afford to buy in the area I’ve chosen.

Landlords should absolutely have insurance - this isn't a new thing from the RRA, it's always been good practice. Insurance is a business expense that needs to be factored in.