Why Matthew Pennycook is wrong about the Renters’ Rights Act?

Contrary to what housing minister Matthew Pennycook says, all landlords have more to worry about under his Renters’ Rights Act, and here is why I think so.

In times gone by, it was recognised that social renters found it difficult to cover all costs, so the government ensured they were protected and rent was paid directly to a landlord to keep the roof over their head.

Successive governments have removed this assurance and also reduced rents payable for social tenants. (By keeping LHA benefits flat while workers got rises).

Under section 21, the evidence shows that one in 200 tenancies was subject to a no-fault bailiff eviction, around 0.5%.

However, now, 41% of all social tenancies in some regions were in arrears for less than 13 weeks, and a smaller portion (4%) were in arrears for 13 weeks or more. Whilst this is true of social tenants, the number of private tenants in arrears is not far behind.

This means there are eight times as many people at risk of Section 8 eviction as were being forced out by bailiffs when Section 21 was available.

Essentially, under the Renters’ Rights Act, it’s unlikely evictions will decrease as Section 21 were likely to be because of unpaid rent, they just didn’t ask the question.

A landlord has no control over whether the tenant chooses to pay rent, they can only react. The Renters’ Rights Act ensures the landlord is subject to more cost, delays and stress.

All landlords could find themselves with a non-paying tenant, and all landlords have something to worry about.

What does the Property118 community think?

Thanks,

Paul