Councils given power to penalise landlords for unenforceable tenancy clauses

Badger

And historically I agree it’s hard to know exactly why any sensible LL would not want the initial agreed contract terms to continue when it becomes periodic. Unless there was a reason they only wanted those terms to be in place for the start of the tenancy. Remember it’s a contract negotiated with the tenant. So for example as part of those negotiations a tenant might have been willing to accept 2months notice in first 12 months but wanted 1 month notice thereafter.

A second example would be some LLs who allowed letting agents to ‘renew’ tenancies with new agreements every 12 months at extra cost instead of letting the tenancies simply become periodic. It could be they wanted the renewed 12 month commitment from tenants and tenants also wanted the same extra security from a new tenancy. It certainly happened (even if sometimes
they were simply mis sold it by letting agents who didn’t tell them of the option to let tenancies become periodic automatically).

So two examples at least one of which (2nd) I’d guess will have happened.

Reply to the comment left by Badger at 10/01/2026 – 18:08
(Pedantically) A third example would be LLs and tenants who agreed at start that at the end of the fixed period the tenancy would end with no possibility of an extension of any sort.

Why are landlords pandering to the diktats of a government hell bent on stripping them of their assets and the product of decades of work.

Worse still, landlords are left carrying all the capital risk, all the occupational risk, and all the moral hazard, while the government siphons off the benefits through regulation, taxation, and control. Until now landlords were businesses – businesses that were free to offer their goods and services on terms they judge commercially viable, and let the market decide.

When did it become acceptable to conscript landlords as unpaid council housing officers, enforcing social policy at their own expense.

To add to it, landlords are now expected to declare their income to government four times a year, so the state can take more and get its hands on the money earlier, tightening the noose on cash flow while assuming none of the risk.

For years, landlord representative bodies have appeased government intrusion, mistaking concession for survival. That appeasement has brought us here: the stable door bolted shut, the match struck, with the landlords still inside.

The government trap was well designed with forethought. You cannot even leave a property empty without being punished with penal council tax rates. You cannot sell without accepting adjusted capital values to reflect the new regulatory and tax burdens — yet landlords are still expected to believe they are running independent businesses. If this is enterprise, it is enterprise in name only.

Most of this could have been avoided if we had a strong Association that spoke for landlords and a voice . They are
totally ignored by government and have become pointless at any level of lobbying.

No media profile, let them stick to flogging courses,now time for an Association with some balls.

£7000 fine for an admin error. When we landlords have all sold up, will we be getting an apology for this victimisation?

Reply to the comment left by Paul Bedford at 10/01/2026 – 20:56
No – because at the ballot box you:

1. voted for this;

2. failed to vote against it, or;

3. failed to encourage enough to vote against it with you.

Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 10/01/2026 – 19:07
The “government” have a team working out this plan from Section 24 to the RRA. Same team different government.
Landlords are not classed as a business by this government but as investors.
As I understand although their will be quarterly returns , the tax will still be taken as before.

Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 10/01/2026 – 22:38
1.What other option.
2.No option
3.We need someone like Jeremy Clarkson.

The core issue is that councils failed to manage their housing estates adequately. This failure led Thatcher to promote the Right to Buy, selling council houses at a discount to their open-market vacant-possession value, yet at a substantial premium to their true economic value when subject to lifetime (and successor) tenancies, repairing obligations, and regulated rents set far below market levels.

The model now being advanced relies on a framework of confiscatory regulation, enforced by former housing officers with clipboards policing the private rental sector. Councils face no downside: success is measured by the volume of fines issued, while any regulatory failure is attributed to private landlords rather than to the system itself.

Once sufficient political cover is in place, rent controls will follow, with rents set by the Rent Officer Service at so-called “affordable” levels. At that point, the ten million or so renters become a reliable electoral bloc, returning the same politicians to power with a landslide victory.

The NRLA are like a chocolate teapot when it comes to representing landlords (although they are a formidable money making machine for the ‘owners’) .. BUT they do produce legal watertight ASTs and the like.So I have to say I am still a member of the NRLA just for this reason.