Homelessness minister quits over tenant rent hike allegations

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 08/08/2025 – 11:48
Elements of the government’s proposed legislation are draconian and landlord-hating as you say.

The government has already refused to publish the results of its Legislative Impact Test:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/labour-urged-publish-renters-rights-impact-assessment/

If the Renters Reform Bill goes ahead in its present form lots of landlords will be unable to get their properties back for a year if they rent to the wrong tenants anyway. What that means is that if the RRB goes ahead a much greater proportion of tenants is going to be too high-risk to house in the PRS: So more people are going to be made homeless by the RRB. Ms Ali probably knows that…because she’s a landlord.

And if someone like Ms Ali tries and fails to sell her property, she won’t be able to use that property to house anybody else for 12 months either.

How stupid and ridiculous is that?

Reply to the comment left by at 08/08/2025 – 10:24
“Is it that bad?”

Yes, it would be illegal under the RRB.

It highlights the utter stupidity of this legislation.

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 08/08/2025 – 12:17I think that depends on what she said to them. According to the article she didn’t serve notice, which means she wouldn’t have breached the clauses on not re-letting the property. If she said she would not be renewing the tenancy as suggested, then she might be guilty of trying to manipulate them into leaving when there was no legal requirement for them to go. However, if she simply said that she’s selling and would serve notice in due course but they can stay in the meantime, then she hasn’t breached any current or proposed legislation.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 08/08/2025 – 11:26
Yes, agreed. Hypocrites are who are in government but don’t understand the landlords are in business and it is their property and allowed to give notice to tenants to leave the property.
All the expenses that landlords have are not paid by the government, charities, media. None of them a right to interfere. Charging double council tax when it becomes empty is another preposterous idea.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 08/08/2025 – 11:48
when it could be housing someone instead of standing empty

Reply to the comment left by Tiger at 08/08/2025 – 12:37
I think you forgot self-employed people there. If you are self-employed and in business you can deduct your finance costs.

https://www.gov.uk/expenses-if-youre-self-employed/legal-financial#:~:text=You%20can%20claim%20for%20business,hire%20purchase%20interest

You can’t offset your finance costs if you earn more than £50K gross from property. Your net income from that £50K gross might actually be 0.

The government has dropped the threshold for having to make returns under Making Tax Digital….this is the threshold above which you have to make submissions of self-employed income and income from property. The threshold was £50K last year, it is £30K this year, and it is dropping to £20K next year.

If you are self-employed or you receive part of your income from property then the government is out to get you.

But the real victims of the RRB will be tenants.

Reply to the comment left by Tiger at 08/08/2025 – 12:37
living conditions legislation is one thing but to dictate what you can and can’t do with someone’s own property is another.

Having just watched that news report again it is not being correctly explained just to show ‘landlords’ in a poor light as usual. If the people putting this kind of thing together know nothing about this business they should shut up or talk to someone that does before putting things like this out. its just convenient to angle and put things so it adds to a current trend as usual, they love it.
Why doesn’t the Government build their own housing stock and put their very, apparently, able employees to run them if they think everyone else does such a bad job. I know tenants who live in housing society properties for many years which are damp and far from being in good order for years despite complaints by the tenants.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 08/08/2025 – 12:29
I think that’s right. As far as I can tell she did nothing illegal.

She may even have done something smart. If, because she’s a landlord, she now realises what a disaster the RRB is going to be (particularly for tenants) then she’s probably realised that she needs to drop the poisoned chalice rather than let Kier Starmer, Angela Rayner or someone else blame her for the mess later on.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 08/08/2025 – 11:26
I agree, I don’t see a problem here. The landlord let the tenants know she’s looking to sell and gave them four months’ notice that she wouldn’t be renewing their tenancy. She even offered a rolling contract, ensuring the property was still in use. The property was initially marketed at one price and then reduced to sell. The reality is that you don’t want a rental property sitting empty for six or more months while you wait for a sale.

If the landlord had offered the tenants a new contract just under £4k, would the optics have been any better? Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, rent increases would be subject to market appraisal, and in this case, the market rate is £4k.

While “hypocrisy” is a bit strong, it’s more accurate to say that these policies don’t account for the genuine realities small landlords face, including changes in circumstances/priorities.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 08/08/2025 – 13:33
why doesn’t this get reported on ‘The News’ for once??