Government admits no assessment of burden facing landlords

Reply to the comment left by David at 30/07/2026 – 15:13
What’s happening at the moment in Westminster is that a bunch of champagne socialists who’ve been sitting around the bar for hours drinking moet have just tried to order the caviar, foie gras and lobster thermidor. The people in the kitchen who cooked the meal only get to eat pasta and what they don’t know yet is that the champagne socialists are about to ask the cooks to put their credit card on the table and pay not only for the huge bar bill but also for everybody’s meal. But the credit card is going to bounce and the restaurant is about to run into cash flow problems….as so many do. But why would any labour MP know that? Most have never run a business.

We all knew that they were never going to build 1.5 million new homes, but whatever happened to the discussions about their first priority being to grow the economy? Whatever happened to understanding that you need to grow the economy in order to be able to pay for the defence budget and commitments to NATO?

This article is framed more dramatic than it is. It’s standard practice to publicise single assessment from different areas and not combined. Rightly or wrongly this is normal.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 30/07/2026 – 11:19
Money claims online isn’t expensive and what you pay gets added to what the ex tenant owes. Add an attachment of earnings order so everyone where they work know they steal from the tax payer and they also have to pay you monthly for 5 years. You might not get it all back but will probably cover running cost lost during eviction and getting that cheque every month is very satisfying.
Oh and the CGI will make their life harder and more expensive, they’ll wish for a s21 and won’t find private rental again.

Who was actually consulted?
Based on publicly available parliamentary records, committee minutes, and stakeholder submissions, the government primarily consulted:
• Large institutional investors (e.g., BlackRock, Legal & General, Grainger)
• Housing charities (Shelter, Crisis)
• Tenant advocacy groups
• Local authorities
• The NRLA (National Residential Landlords Association)
Small landlords — who provide around 45–50% of private rented homes — were NOT directly consulted in any structured, representative way.
The NRLA claims to represent small landlords, but many landlords argue (as I do) that:
• It has become a corporate-style organisation.
• It benefits financially from training, accreditation, and compliance courses. plus the other business in advertising, selling, lawyers, etc
• It has incentives to support complex regulation because it sells solutions to that regulation.
is a legitimate concern raised by many independent landlords.
• Often use offshore structures
• Optimise tax through fiscal paradises
• Are not rooted in local communities
• Do not provide the flexibility or personal service that small landlords do
• Do not have the loyalty of small landlords
• Do not get the service that small landlords do provide
Yet their lobbying power is enormous.
The unintended consequences.
Damage costs
• £3,000–£5,000 repairs and furniture replaced
• Months of lost rent
• Legal fees
• Court delays
The 2% problem
Most tenants (98%) are good.
But the law was designed around that 2% and encouraging to be dishonest and troublesome:
• The worst 2%
• The most problematic cases
• The most extreme media stories
And now everyone pays the price — including good tenants, who will face:
• Higher rents
• Much Stricter screening
• Fewer available properties
• Landlords exiting the market
• Less flexibility for tenants
The NRLA’s role
• Absorbed smaller landlord groups
• Became the “only” landlord association
• Expanded into business services
• Pushed for rapid implementation of the new law
• Sold expensive courses about compliance
• Offer over sort of service such as “Safe to rent” Advertising, shared business with lawyers and even selling properties
This aligns with what many landlords have observed:
• The NRLA is now only a commercial organisation, not a grassroots voice.
• It benefits financially from complex regulation.
• It often presents government policy as “balanced” even when landlords disagree.
The government made a massive structural change to the rental market:
• Without proper research
• Without balanced consultation
• Without understanding day-to-day realities
• Without listening to the people who actually provide homes
• But took the NRLA as the Association which is not!
• Also took the CEO’s of Crisis and
And the result is a system that:
• Punishes responsible landlords
• Rewards irresponsible tenants
• Encourages corporate takeover
• Damages housing supply
• Increases rents
• Reduces flexibility
• Creates legal chaos
I am writing to express serious concerns about the process and consequences surrounding the abolition of Section 21. As a small landlord who has invested significant personal capital into providing homes for tenants, I believe the policy was developed without balanced consultation, without adequate research, and without meaningful engagement with the people who supply a large proportion of the UK’s rental housing.
Lack of Proper Consultation with Small Landlords
Although government documents reference “landlord engagement,” the reality is that small landlords — who provide nearly half of all private rented homes — were not directly consulted. Instead, the consultation process relied heavily on:
• Large institutional investors
• Tenant advocacy organisations
• Housing charities
• Local authorities
• The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA)
The NRLA presents itself as the voice of small landlords, yet many of us feel it has evolved into a corporate-style organisation whose interests no longer align with independent landlords. It has absorbed smaller associations and now operates as a commercial entity offering high-priced accreditation courses and compliance training.
Disproportionate Influence of Large Corporate Investors
It is deeply concerning that major multinational investment firms were given significant influence over the policy direction. These companies:
• Are not rooted in local communities
• Often use offshore structures and fiscal paradises
• Can absorb legal costs and compliance burdens that small landlords cannot
• Stand to benefit from distressed property sales as small landlords exit the market
Policy Driven by Media Narratives Rather Than Evidence
The public debate around Section 21 was shaped by highly unfavourable media coverage portraying landlords as the primary cause of tenant insecurity. This narrative ignored:
• The 98% of tenants who have positive relationships with their landlords
• The fact that most landlords maintain properties to high standards
• The reality that the worst abuses often come from rogue operators, not typical landlords
New Rules Create Severe Practical and Financial Risks
The new framework introduces several serious issues:
A. Pets in unsuitable properties
Landlords are now effectively unable to refuse pets, even in small flats or HMOs. The prohibition on requiring pet insurance means landlords must absorb all risk and cost.
B. Damage and financial loss
A single problematic tenancy can result in:
• £3,000–£5,000 in repairs
• Two months of lost rent
• Legal fees and court delays
• Property degradation that affects future tenants
These costs fall entirely on landlords, while the small minority of irresponsible tenants face no meaningful consequences.
C. Impact on good tenants
Ironically, the 98% of responsible tenants will ultimately pay the price through:
• Higher rents
• Stricter screening
• Reduced availability of homes
• Landlords exiting the market
The Policy Outcome Is Not Balanced or Fair
The abolition of Section 21 was presented as “fair to both tenants and landlords.” In practice, it is:
• Unfair to small landlords
• Unfair to good tenants
• Highly favourable to large corporate investors
• Damaging to housing supply and affordability
What Needs to Change
I respectfully request that Parliament:
1. Reopen consultation specifically with small landlords.
2. Commission independent research into the real causes of tenancy insecurity.
3. Introduce balanced protections that address the 2% of problematic cases without harming the 98% of good tenants and landlords.
4. Review pet regulations to ensure suitability and shared responsibility.
5. Assess the impact of corporate influence on housing policy.
A fair and functional rental market requires balanced policy, evidence-based decision-making, and genuine consultation with all stakeholders — not just those with the largest financial influence.
Persuasive Position Statement
Subject: The Abolition of Section 21 Has Been Driven by Corporate Influence, Not Evidence — Small Landlords Must Be Heard
Dear [Recipient],
I am writing as a small landlord who has invested personal savings, personal effort, and personal responsibility into providing homes for tenants. I am not a corporation. I am not a multinational investor. I am one of the thousands of individuals who keep the UK’s rental market functioning — and yet, throughout the process of abolishing Section 21, people like me were almost entirely excluded.
This policy was not built on balanced evidence. It was not built on genuine consultation. And it was certainly not built on an understanding of the realities faced by the landlords who actually house the majority of tenants in this country.
It was built on media pressure, corporate lobbying, and a deeply incomplete picture of the rental sector.
1. Small landlords were not consulted — and this is a democratic failure
The government repeatedly claims it “engaged with landlords.” In practice, it engaged with:
• Large institutional investors
• Tenant charities
• Housing organisations
• The NRLA
But not with the landlords who own one, two, or three properties — the landlords who provide nearly half of all private rented homes.
The NRLA, which is often presented as our representative voice, has become a commercial organisation selling accreditation courses, compliance training, and business services. It benefits financially from complex regulation. It absorbed smaller associations and now speaks as the “only” landlord body — but it does not speak for us.
Small landlords were not invited to the table. We were not asked what we experience. We were not asked what we need. We were not asked what the consequences would be.
2. Corporate investors were given influence that small landlords never received
It is no secret that multinational investment firms have been actively expanding into the UK housing market. They promise billions in investment, and they are welcomed with open arms.
But these companies:
• Use offshore structures and fiscal paradises
• Are not rooted in local communities
• Do not know their tenants
• Do not maintain properties with personal care
• Can absorb legal costs that would bankrupt a small landlord
The abolition of Section 21 — combined with new regulatory burdens — creates exactly the conditions these corporations need:
• Small landlords exit the market
• Property prices fall
• Multinationals buy in bulk
• Build to rent expands
• Housing becomes increasingly corporatised
It is the predictable result of a policy shaped by those who stand to profit most.
3. Media narratives replaced evidence
The public was told that landlords were the cause of tenant insecurity. The worst 2% of cases were treated as if they represented the entire sector.
But the truth is:
• 98% of tenants are responsible and respectful
• Most landlords maintain their properties to high standards
• Most landlords want long-term, stable tenancies
• Most landlords have never used Section 21 unfairly
Policy should be built on facts, not fear. On evidence, not emotion. On reality, not headlines.
4. The new rules create serious risks that fall entirely on landlords
Pets in unsuitable properties
Landlords are now effectively unable to refuse pets, even in small flats or HMOs. The prohibition on requiring pet insurance means all risk is transferred to the landlord.
Damage and financial loss
A single problematic tenancy can result in:
• £3,000–£5,000 in repairs
• Two months of lost rent
• Legal fees
• Court delays
• Property degradation that affects future tenants
These costs fall entirely on landlords. The small minority of irresponsible tenants face no meaningful consequences.
Good tenants will pay the price
The 98% of responsible tenants will face:
• Higher rents
• Stricter screening
• Reduced availability
• Landlords leaving the market
5. The policy is not fair, not balanced, and not sustainable
The abolition of Section 21 was presented as “fair to tenants and landlords.” In reality, it is:
• Unfair to small landlords
• Unfair to 98% of good tenants
• Highly favourable to corporate investors who can now buy properties on the cheap
• Damaging to housing supply
• Destabilising for communities
The policy protects the worst tenants, punishes the best landlords, and opens the door for multinational investors to reshape the housing market for their own benefit.
6. What must happen now
I respectfully urge Parliament to:
1. Reopen consultation specifically with small landlords.
2. Commission independent research into the real causes of tenancy insecurity.
3. Introduce balanced protections that target the 2% of problematic cases without harming the 98% of responsible tenants and landlords.
4. Reassess pet regulations to ensure suitability and shared responsibility.
5. Investigate the influence of corporate investors on housing policy.
Small landlords are essential to the UK’s housing system. We deserve to be heard. We deserve to be consulted. We deserve policies that reflect reality — not corporate interests.
Yours sincerely, Jesús Small Landlord and Housing Provider
1. We were invisible in the consultation — and it hurts
The government says it “engaged with landlords.” But it did not engage with me. It did not engage with the people who:
• Fix boilers at midnight
• Pay mortgages during void periods
• Sit with tenants through personal crises
• Clean properties after damage
• Try to keep rents fair
• Try to keep homes safe
We are the ones who know our tenants by name. We are the ones who answer the phone when something breaks. We are the ones who carry the financial risk personally.
Yet when the biggest change in decades was being designed, we were nowhere in the room.
Instead, the voices that shaped the policy were:
• Multinational investors
• Large corporate landlords
• Organisations with PR teams
• Media narratives
• The NRLA, which no longer represents the everyday landlord
• Shelter and Crisis Charities whose CEO’s income is a six figure number and judging by the predecessors have a place in the unelected changer awaiting for them.
It is painful to realise that the people who actually provide homes were treated as an afterthought.
2. Corporate investors were welcomed — small landlords were pushed aside
I watched with disbelief as powerful investment firms were invited to influence the future of the rental market. These companies speak of “billions in investment,” but they do not speak of:
• The families they house
• The communities they affect
• The tenants they never meet
• The damage they never personally repair
• The emotional weight of providing someone’s home
They operate from boardrooms. I operate from my kitchen table.
They use offshore structures. I use my own savings.
They can absorb losses. I cannot.
Yet their voices were amplified, while ours were muted.

Reply to the comment left by Jesus Diaz at 31/07/2026 – 10:14
I agree with everything you say, but for me, your final comments sum it up for small landlords.

They could have issued a simple consultation (they do for everything else they don’t intend actioning!), but they knew what the answers would have been.

Re ‘Government admits no assessment of burden facing landlords’ and tax.
I am seeking to sell a one bed flat as the finance ends next year and I doubt I would get re-finance with same lender due to my age and I want to get out anyway as I cannot go on fronting Section 24 and increased interest rates and rising cost of maintaining property. Other same flats are not selling and just sitting even with a big drop in price so I decided to offer mine at a break even price, not dissimilar to the others, to pay back the finance and just cover selling costs which would be ok except we don’t know yet what the CGT is going to be. Its been muted that it is going to rise to the same level as income tax which for landlords has already been set at 2% more than any one else pays (due to my age I do not pay NI but will be hit by the additional tax). So if CGT rises to this level with no account for inflation or indexation (I have owned this property for over 20 years) then I will make a thumping loss and do not know how it will be possible to pay this level of Capital Gains. How can it be right to call it a Gain, there is no gain it will result in a loss with CGT at 42%. In any case this was supposed to be part of my retirement income but the flats have not risen for a long while so been hardly worth it from that point of view, the first time buyer market is all but dead and because of the RRA rules you cannot sell within a 12 month period of a re-let so it would have to be to an investor which means the price will probably need to drop even more. It’s agony for some of us out here at the moment and if they do not attach indexation to a big rise in CGT I can’t see how it will get paid. They appear to have no considerations of what its like to balance a property business with finance deadlines with lenders, rises in interest rates, market conditions if wanting to sell none of which a landlord can do very much about, so many factors and no allowances for any of this. Capital Gains Tax has to be indexed or it is taxing on a paper profit not the real gain linked with inflation.

Reply to the comment left by DP at 10:37
I know it doesn’t help, but you’re not alone. My remaining BTL will be sold at a huge loss, and won’t cover the outstanding mortgage. It’s always paid it’s way, but simply a poor purchase at the wrong time and in the wrong place. At least I won’t be handing yet more money to this government.

Reply to the comment left by Mark W at 30/07/2026 – 20:43
Thank you so much for sharing your experience online here, it’s not just me that it benefits.

So how does the money claim online service differ from the bailiff service and in what way is it better?

Reply to the comment left by DP at 31/07/2026 – 10:37
I totally agree with you as most of us are in a similar situation.
It is very hurting to read the usual comments made by those who created this KNIGHTMARE. “LANDLORDS CASHING IN”

Reply to the comment left by Jesus Diaz at 31/07/2026 – 10:14
I agree with much of what you say although on the pet thing the law says that you can’t unreasonably refuse. But if they want to for example keep a St Bernard in a two bed flat with no garden you can refuse. If they keep chickens and they have a cockerel you can refuse.

In my experience tenants with lots of children do more damage and cost more than tenants with pets. So if you really want to minimise your risks you need to advertise very high and don’t consider coming down unless for example it’s a retired or professional couple with no children, savings and high personal income. And if they want a cat you might want to accept on the basis that they accept in writing that if the cat claws the carpets up or scratches the newel posts then they will pay. The cat will cost you less than the kids.