Profile incomplete
0:04 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago 50
Text Size
A Conservative commentator says that the Renters (Reform) Bill can best be described as a ‘wholesale and fundamental invasion’ into the principle of private property.
Tim Briggs goes on to say that the Bill ‘will demonise landlords – and bankrupt councils’.
Writing on Conservative Woman, he says that the Bill ‘insinuates that all tenants are victims, and all landlords are villains’.
He adds: “It forces the cold, dead hand of the State into the mostly harmonious mutual dependency of landlords and their 4.6 million tenants, infantilising the parties into dumb, bad-faith spectators in their own private relationship.”
He goes on to praise a group of Tory MPs as a ‘white knights’ who are trying rebalance ‘the relationship between oppressor landlords and oppressed tenants’.
Mr Briggs adds: “Astonishing that only one landlord representative was asked to give evidence to the Bill’s scrutiny committee, while handfuls of left-wing tenant groups were invited.
“In National Residential Landlord Association (NRLA) webinars and podcasts before Christmas, I criticised the Bill as one of the worst pieces of housing legislation, with no redeeming features.
“Landlords seeking to increase rent will require government involvement. Landlords must accept tenants with pets in any property.”
Mr Briggs points out that the abolition of Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions will hurt the supply of rented homes since ‘landlords cannot get back their properties without the tenant agreeing to leave’.
He says: “What is difficult to understand is that the Government must know that this Renters (Reform) Bill is the disease of which it purports to be the cure because, like all bad law, it makes a bad situation for tenants worse.
“The Government hints that it knows this, yet it still wants to proceed, apparently having abandoned making good law that benefits everyone for the appearance of helping different interest groups.”
He also raises issues with the government believing that a landlord’s property belongs to a tenant – and ignoring the rule of law when doing so.
Mr Briggs says the Bill should be scrapped and writes: “Landlords are leaving the private rented sector in droves.
“If Section 21 notices are abolished, I do not think it is controversial for me to suggest that more landlords will sell up, increasing rents for the rented properties left behind. “Meanwhile left-wing politicians tout the idea of rent levels controlled by politicians, which has never worked anywhere in the world, would make a bad situation worse, and always has to be abandoned.
“This is why abolishing Section 21 Notices will also bankrupt local authorities.
“For the last decade, there are a number of exponential costs that local authorities have been struggling to get under control.
“If Section 21 Notices are abolished, landlords have another option – to lease a property to a company that allows the property to be used for temporary accommodation by the council.”
And that, he says, will see councils having to rent properties at a higher cost to house homeless families because there are no homes to rent – leading to a huge bill for taxpayers.
Bristol Landlord
4:42 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
Tim Briggs is spot on except he shouldn’t be astonished that only one landlord representative was asked to give evidence to the Bill’s scrutiny committee, while handfuls of left-wing tenant groups were invited.
The reason being the decision has already been made that the RRB will be pushed through.
Also a very interesting comment that the Govt hints it knows the RRB will make things worse for tenants, Yes they certainly do know this but they don’t care because the objective is to drive out as many private landlords as possible in order to give the PRS over to the corporate landlords.
Cider Drinker
5:13 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
Again, Section 21 is referred to as ‘no fault’ when Section 8 has a number of no fault Grounds for eviction.
The NRLA is not a representative of landlords. They represent themselves. Besides, there are (were) 2.2 million private landlords in the U.K. . The NRLA have only 100,000 members. So, around 5% of landlords were not represented.
The objective (of the RRB) is not to drive private landlords out. That is merely the result. The clear objective is damage limitation for a failing government. The Conservatives need to secure as many seats as possible as they head toward oblivion. They haven’t time to fill the House of Lords through resignation honours lists.
JB
9:51 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
Tim Briggs, I totally agree with you 110%
moneymanager
9:59 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 14/03/2024 - 05:13
95 percent I think?
Beaver
10:19 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
On:
“If Section 21 Notices are abolished, landlords have another option – to lease a property to a company that allows the property to be used for temporary accommodation by the council.”
I think this hints at another problem this bill might create. Years ago I leased a property to a company that was not then mortgaged to a company under a 'license to occupy'. I subsequently needed to mortgage the property and could not get a buy-to-let mortgage except for an assured shorthold tenancy; the lender wouldn't permit a 'license to occupy'.
It's not just landlords who need to know they are going to get their properties back; lenders also need to know they can get their money back, if necessary.
So if this bill results in tenants 'owning' properties they do not own, lenders will not lend. And that would have the effect of decreasing investment in the housing market.
Both landlords and lenders need to know that they can get their properties back. For those accidental landlords letting out their homes for temporary periods whilst they have to be away, if they can't get them back when they need to then they just won't let them out. If lenders don't know they can get their money back then they just won't lend. And governments can't fix that; when governments give money to businesses in financial services these businesses just trouser the money.
Clint
10:33 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 14/03/2024 - 09:59
Well actually 100% are not represented. Perhaps the 5% who are members should collectively resign as members as, they are not represented.
Cider Drinker
10:46 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 14/03/2024 - 09:59
Yes, it was early.
I should have said 95% of landlords are not members of NRLA.
Robert
10:52 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by Bristol Landlord at 14/03/2024 - 04:42I think we now know for sure that the objective is to drive out as many private landlords as possible. The explanatory notes to the CGT reduction in the budget made it clear it was done to encourage landlords to sell to FTBs. So its reasonable to assume the same underlying ideology applies to the RRB.
Clint
11:05 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by Robert at 14/03/2024 - 10:52
I don't think the objective is to drive out the landlords. I just think that the Renters Reform Bill is drafted by a bunch of idiots who have no clue as to what they are doing and will not be around to clear the mess they will have created if it all goes through.
Rerktyne
11:33 AM, 14th March 2024, About a month ago
The tories are as stupid as Labour. I already left the AST sector as it already is : today! There is no way I would be a “normal” landlord; not now! I will be ecstatic when it all goes arse about face! If landlords can afford it they should just go on strike: leave places empty: reduce supply: drive the govt nuts: reduce income from landlord taxes…..
Joyland!