Profile incomplete
0:05 AM, 29th February 2024, About 3 months ago 15
Text Size
The government is proposing changes to the Renters (Reform) Bill in a bid to head off a backbench rebellion of its MPS, the BBC reports.
The Bill, which will see Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions abolished, could see a major makeover.
According to the BBC, ministers have been consulting with Conservative MPs who are critical of the bill and have circulated draft amendments that would see some of the Bill’s controversial aspects being watered down. These amendments apparently include:
The chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA), Ben Beadle, said: “We have long accepted that the Government has a mandate to end the use of fixed term tenancies and no-fault repossessions.
“Our focus has, and continues to be, on developing a replacement system that is fair and workable for tenants and responsible landlords. This need not be a zero-sum game between the two.”
He added: “The NRLA has consistently campaigned for the Bill to balance the protections promised to tenants and the legitimate business needs of landlords to enable them to continue to provide rented homes.
“If the Government is considering amendments that would provide for assurances to landlords with a six-month minimum term and ensure confidence for all in the court process, then that balance would be struck.”
Michael Gove has recently expressed the government’s commitment to banning Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions before the next election, however, the proposed changes reflect the pressure it faces from within its own party.
The Renters’ Reform Bill, introduced last year, has faced opposition from around 50 Conservative MPs, including those who are landlords.
They argue that the bill could discourage landlords from renting out properties, ultimately reducing the number of available rental homes.
One Conservative MP told the BBC that ‘agreement seems to have been reached on nearly all points’ regarding the amendments.
Critics say the proposed changes could significantly impact the Bill’s effectiveness in protecting tenants in England.
The chief executive of Generation Rent, Ben Twomey, said: “It is unacceptable for tenants to be treated as an afterthought around reforms which we were told would help us.
“We will not stand by while the new law to protect and empower renters is transformed into a Landlord’s Bill of Rights.
“If the government really is going to water down the Bill even further, England’s 12 million private renters deserve to know why.”
He added: “In particular, weakening licensing schemes could compromise the safety of renters.
“These schemes give councils some of the strongest powers to tackle criminal landlords and sub-standard, dangerous homes. The plan to trap tenants in properties for six months, making it much more difficult for them to leave sub-standard or mis-sold homes, is another measure that undermines tenant welfare.”
Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader and shadow housing secretary accused the government of ‘yet another betrayal of renters’, and this was ‘yet another example of Rishi Sunak’s weakness which means he always puts party before country’.
She also called for a government statement to be made, claiming the news had emerged in an ‘underhand way’.
Labour has promised to ban no-fault evictions if it wins the next general election.
A spokesperson for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said: “Our landmark Renters (Reform) Bill will deliver a fairer private rented sector for both tenants and landlords. It will abolish section 21 evictions – giving people more security in their homes and empowering them to challenge poor practices.
“We continue to meet regularly with a range of groups, representing all those in the private rented sector.”
Previous Article
England sees £141bn drop in home sales valueNext Article
Expert warns of landlord exodus amid Section 21 ban
PAUL BARTLETT
16:51 PM, 29th February 2024, About 3 months ago
Ben Beadle, said: “We have long accepted that the Government has a mandate to end the use of fixed term tenancies and no-[stated]fault repossessions."
.
No, we haven't Ben!
You have bought into the false narrative from activists that not stating a reason for repossession means that there isn't one or more. That's only reducing the burden of proof for the convenience of the court and small convenience of the tenant and landlord.
It has never meant that there is no reason so a mistake to buy into that falsehood. A huge public relations mistake.
.
Government decides the base rate every three weeks yet only allows a Section 13 every 12 months to keep the revenue and costs in balance thus a huge risk for the landlord. Planning ahead only goes so far and there is no certainty that tenants can pay the higher rent that the government has caused. Not being able to remove tenants unable to pay the costs will be a recipe for large arrears and Section 8 notice with six months delay to vacant possession. Likely that the Money Claim and CCJ will have no practical benefit either.
So replacement of an early exit with good references by a hard exit with toxic references is no improvement and nothing to be proud of. Councils will have no obligation to house the voluntarily homeless (didn't pay) and landlords will be big losers of time and money.
Madness!
GlanACC
17:00 PM, 29th February 2024, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by PAUL BARTLETT at 29/02/2024 - 16:51
The CCJ will have a benefit, but to other landlords and credit providers. It identifies people who you want to avoid. I ALWAYS give a CCJ BUT only for the minumum amount of £300 as it only costs £35.00 to do. If you have no home of getting the rent arrears then it is still worth registering the CCJ
david boughton
19:52 PM, 29th February 2024, About 3 months ago
Come to Kent ....it's funny how our council can find 12 houses then 20 flats plus multiple other places for our migrant friends ....when our own people are homeless on the cold streets .....something is broken .....
Landlord
20:04 PM, 29th February 2024, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 29/02/2024 - 17:00I agree, I claim the minimum £300 for a ccj on mcol for an egregious tenant
because I know I'm not getting the money back. The ccj is the point. We keep all communications to back up our claim. This is one of the few ways we can defend our selves.
GlanACC
14:38 PM, 2nd March 2024, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Steve Shepherd at 02/03/2024 - 14:17
As a fully paid up NIMBY, I objected when they extended our estate. Basically because we just don't have infrastructure to support it. Roads are ok but both of our doctors surgeries are rammed and you cant get an appointment now, as for dentists .. ALSO, I object to afffordable housing (that is the governments job), if built as part of a housing estate who pays for it - not the builders I can tell you its the rest of the higher priced properties that subsidise it.