Why is the government punishing landlords with long enforced voids?

Just count yourself lucky you were not in a double council tax for empty property area.

Most councils no longer offer zero tax on empty property and won’t even give a single occupancy discount. My council offers a whole week’s grace before imposing Council Tax.

It’s crazy. Assuming I have a failed attempt to sell (at below market value) a family with 2 children will have to remain in a Council funded B&B while they gaze at my empty 3-bedroom flat which I won’t be allowed to let them live in. Well done, Labour,

Yes buffoonery, in my area there are 202 three bed properties for sale but only 1 available for rent. Any legislation that ensures desperately needed rental.property is not available for rental for even one minute longer necessary is itself criminal. This legislation will keep property on the market that would otherwise be rented. Councils face higher B&B costs for tenants waiting for unsold property to be released to the rental market after a year unsold and rents will rise further due to pressures on the already chronic shortage.

Why was this clause put in?

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 27/10/2025 – 09:45
The answer to “why was this clause put in” is that originally the Renters Rights Bill was supposed to be a Rental Reform Bill, with reciprocal rights for landlords and tenants. But labour got in with a large majority. And as a labour government with a large majority, pressure from left-wingers and unions and a different agenda started to mess with it, the RRB changed.

Because the extreme left-wingers in the labour party have little or no experience of business, markets or economics, and also because in some cases they are actually deceitful, the Renters Rights Bill started to evolve into a stick to beat landlords with, because that’s what extreme left-wingers want.

The labour MPs who are landlords don’t seem to survive in ministerial positions very long and my guess would be that even though they are probably unable to say so and keep their jobs, even they know that some parts of the Renters Rights Bill are not only stupid, but vindictive. Parts of the RRB are just an attack on landlords and free markets…nothing to do with what’s sustainable or good for tenant choice.

But what the stupid, vindictive, incompetent and ignorant left-wingers in the labour party (and now the Greens) fail to acknowledge is that when they use the RRB to have a go at landlords, it’s actually tenants that suffer. They probably don’t care because they actually don’t want free markets to succeed. They are dishonest.

Before it ever sees the light of day, the Competition and Markets Authority ought to take another look at the Renters Rights Bill and point out the bits that are bad for competition, and therefore bad for tenants.

https://share.google/F1myvRGhfl88TFtUe

Maybe there should be a system where people in positions of decision making and paid to do good stuff, but actually harm the public interest are called out and prevented from causing further damage.

Matthew Pennycook claims this bill will help 11 million tenants. The results already are higher rents and fewer rental properties. What are his evidenced success criteria that he has in mind? and if he hasn’t any other than bluster, maybe he should give up his post?

.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 27/10/2025 – 14:43
The market research in your link says:

“…that landlords are…being put off by Stamp Duty increases and the threat of National Insurance being levied on rental income in the Autumn Budget, as well as mortgage costs that are still nearly double pre-mini-Budget levels….Nearly a third (29%) said rising mortgage rates were affecting plans to expand their portfolios, and nearly one in five (17%) were considering reducing the size of their portfolios.”

The reason why mortgage rates are biting is because landlords are not able to offset finance costs against rents. George Osborne introduced the policy and it will have had the effect of increasing rents…but it’s really biting now. The Renters Rights Bill is just piling more stupidity on top of previous stupidity.

Of course it’s stupid for landlords to be forced to keep properties empty for 12 months.

Possibly it is to stop landlords using the ‘wishing to sell’ ground to evict tenant, then either re-letting property for much higher rent or to another tenant.
If there was a disagreeable tenant in property that landlord wished to evict he could issue S21, but that wiil no longer be an option, if tenant has not breached TA what other ground could be used?

As a landlord you don’t have much to do with your tenant who has the right to live in peace. As a landlord you have the right to charge market rent which has risen thanks to the RRB.

I had a tenant who complained about a big rent rise as I’d been allowing a cheap rent for years. She took me to the rent tribunal who set the rent even higher. It took nearly a year for the tribunal court process which is down to the government but the court ruled she had to pay the rent from the date it was uplifted.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 28/10/2025 – 14:45
A lot of small portfolio landlords have been holding rents down for years. It is government policy that is pushing them up. Because the Renters Rights Bill stops a landlord from accepting more than the advertised rent it means that landlords and their agents have no choice but to advertise high and come down if they need to. Advertising high rents will drive up market rents.

But that’s what happens when the country votes for a left-wing government that believes it has the right to interfere in a market but isn’t actually competent enough to understand the consequences of what it is doing, or just doesn’t care.

The 12 month rule is there to discourage you from having the cheek to stop being a landlord and sell up.

“Are you confident enough that you will find a buyer and therefore can afford to evict your tenants and lose rent? If not, just stay as a landlord and let us tell you what to do!”

Next step: once a council knows where all the rental properties are, they will announce a new planning designation, preventing you from selling to anyone except another landlord, preferably at a knock-down price to the council itself or a trade union looking to move on from their failed investment in hotel and office development. The idea would be to force the retention of a large stock of rental housing, and say stuff the property rights of landlords.