Council calls for ban on no-fault evictions amid housing crisis

Here is a true statement: Section 21 notices do not cause homelessness so abolishing section 21 notices will not abolish or even reduce homelessness,

And another:
Extending from eight to thirteen weeks the arrears before a landlord can seek possession for non-payment will benefit a few bad-payers. It will lead to landlords increasing rent to cover the cost of rent insurance or the self-insurance risk of default. Good payers will subsidise the bad.

Why is this so hard for MPs to understand?

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 20/09/2024 – 15:15
they would probably understand it if they took their fingers out of their ears or took 2 mins out from giving airtime to Shelter et al…

At the end of the day… none of this will be ‘their fault’, regardless, because the issue is only going to get worse not better.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 20/09/2024 – 15:15
Yes Ian exactly.
Just like UC causing more rent arrears, waiting 2 months plus, causes us to charge more next time.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 20/09/2024 – 15:15
also not just about the arrears Ian, it can be about covering potential property damage too (which exceeds the deposit amount)

I see tenants not bothering to read the details of the planned ‘pet request’ inclusion, and just getting them anyway, thinking that the legislation means it is ‘their right’ regardless.

The there are the (no doubt expanding) SL costs, the PRS ombudsman fee, the national database fee….

To comply with the ‘no bidding’ embargo I forsee accommodation being advertised as

‘3 bed house to rent at no more than £XXXX per month. All sensible offers will be considered as part of the application process. Full referencing including rental history and credit check will be undertaken and a home owning guarantor may be required’.

The PRS will shrink. To be clear, there will be fewer private rental properties.

Social Housing cannot replace the houses lost in the PRS.

Some of those private renters that lose their homes as the PRS shrinks will be in a position to buy their own homes.

Those unfortunate private renters that cannot afford to buy their own homes will be left to fight for Social Housing or will remain in temporary accommodation.

Starmer can try to build as many homes as chooses. The low paid won’t be able to buy them and landlords won’t buy them because the PRS is no longer attractive to investors. So, who will buy them?

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 20/09/2024 – 19:50
Starmer, Rayner, Pennycook are so short-sighted in their thinking focused only on clearing the way for BTR.
When they have succeeded in strangling the PRS do they think that the BTR shareholders will be happy if profits are adjusted downwards so that they can house people on low pay or on universal credit.

Something does not smell right and the people who will suffer will be the tenants many of whom will be in temporary accommodation for ever.

I

Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 20/09/2024 – 10:31
Good points made.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 20/09/2024 – 15:38
Here’s another true statement.

Landlords don’t mind selling up. It frees up their cash to spend on their retirement, takes away all of the stress of being a landlord and gives their children a hassle-free inheritance.

Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 20/09/2024 – 12:21
The Govt knows exactly how essential to landlords is the existence of Section 21, but eliminating S21 fits their agenda to drive out all independent landlords and replace us with corporate landlords.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 20/09/2024 – 19:50
I don’t believe Starmer has the slightest intention to build any homes, that was all hot air to help get elected. He will be throwing tenants and landlords alike under the bus in order to pander to the corporations.