Labour MP questions landlord role in tackling tenant anti-social behaviour

I live 70 miles from my rentals. I have zero responsibility for any tenants behaviour and a reference is just a snap shot in time. If the APT states what is acceptable and what is not and they signed it, then how is the LL in anyway responsible for what they do?
The RRA now makes it impossible to evict unless the T has been already prosecuted for the ASBO (and how would you know and evidence this yourself GDPR etc) OR you BELIEVE have enough warranted evidence to pass the unknown threshold dictated by the judge (which is determined however they see fit at the time).
This is a pass the buck situation. The councils want to make the LL liable – the only thing the LL can do is remind everyone in the loop that its all about personal responsibility and the buck stops ultimately (and legally )with the person committing the ASBO – the tenant.

A suggestion to reduce the risk which we can consider using? Interview the potential tenant in their existing home to discuss the details of the tenancy , or drive past it to see how it is treated. Do they cut the grass for example? Do they follow bin protocols? Is any rubish left outside? Condition of fences (have they trashed a panel as a sort cut to the house) all useful indicators

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 18:33
Whilst I sympathise with you, a well-drafted tenancy will include provisions about not causing nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. It is not necessary for tenant to have been convicted of ASB. However, the problem remains that using s8 the landlord needs to adduce evidence. The best evidence is from the victim of the ASB. Problem is many people are too scared to do so especially if (a) the antisocial person is told who they are, (b) the antisocial person is nasty and willing to use verbal and physical violence (c) the victim has to wait weeks or months for the case to get to court (ASB cases are supposed to be accelerated but even if it takes only a quarter as long to get to court as for other s8 cases – about 27 weeks on average – that is still 7 weeks on average) and (d) there is no guarantee the miscreant will be evicted. Even if he/she is ordered to leave their parting shot may be to harm the victim or damage the victim’s house, car or other property. The victim may also be concerned they will see them later in the same town.
Isn’t it ironic that having done their best to stop tenants being evicted a Labour MP expects landlords to evict? Perhaps Mr Naismith thinks that the landlord writing a letter telling the tenant how naughty he is and would he please stop his ASB will work. If that’s all it takes then a visit from the Council or the police should be even more effective.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 11:57
I have a tenant in this exact position and legally my hands are tied. I have had a major conversation with her about this. Even the Police have stated unless she pursues a formal complaint against the person involved then there is nothing they can do. She is now looking to move out. I will be still left stuck with the idiot and even less chance of getting him out now.
Literally a case of waiting until he does something which can be caught on camera and it is repeated or a pattern is established or there is property damage etc incurred. Without this I have no way of exceeding anything that could even be regarded as meeting a min ‘threshold’ to prove ASBO that a judge will accept.
All power lies with the one making everyone else’s life a misery.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 11/06/2026 – 17:48
once the tenant vacates could you become resident long enough to make the complaint to the police or the council to issue an abatement notice.

Reply to the comment left by David at 11/06/2026 – 18:07
You write: “once the tenant vacates could you become resident long enough to make the complaint”.

Most landlords are not in a position to “become resident” in one of their rental properties, if for no other reason that that it would breach their BTL mortgage conditions and if not genuine “residence” will be seen as a shamn.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 22/06/2026 – 12:42
Even if you did become resident for a short period you would be charged double council tax as it would be considered a second home. The joys of being a PRS landlord.

Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 24/06/2026 – 10:24
Which might be cheaper than having constant complaints from your future tenants.As Ian says though if it’s a BTL mortgage you “shouldn’t” be living in the property yourself.I said “shouldn’t”.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 22/06/2026 – 12:42
This might be true depending upon the circumstances although it is potentially possible to move family members back in to a property even if it is mortgaged under a buy to let mortgage. This is with a regulated buy to let mortgage which is a slightly different product to a normal, unregulated buy to let mortgage. With a regulated buy to let mortgage the affordability criteria are based on income, not on the rental value of the property being mortgaged.

This isn’t going to apply to the larger landlords, but the majority of landlords are small portfolio landlords and many are accidental landlords who are going to find it increasingly risky to rent their properties out under the provisions of the Renters Rights Act, especially if there’s a possibility they might need them back within 12 months, or need them to house family members. For them, putting family members back in may be their best option. Noting Maluka’s comment about paying council tax twice, this is true, and of course if you had to remortgage to a regulated buy to let mortgage to enable family members to live in your property there are also the remortgaging costs and other fees to consider and factor in. But additional fees and council tax are probably still going to be better than being unable to get your property back when you need to.

Under the new post-Renters-Rights-Act regime your options as a landlord for removing a tenant are (1) tenant doesn’t pay the rent (2) you need to sell (3) you need to develop (4) you need to move family members back in. If the courts aren’t functioning it could still take you a long time to get your property back even if you meet the criteria for ‘automatic’ repossession, but repossession still isn’t automatic even under the above criteria and it still isn’t a done deal that the judge, magistrate or other presiding official at court is going to find in your favour and give you your property back when you NEED it. And this means that some landlords, or prospective landlords who are considering renting out a property will decide that it’s just not worth the risk any more. That’s not a healthy situation to be in when there’s a shortage of rental property.

Labour needs to make sure that it sorts the court system out. I can’t see any evidence that they’ve done it and given the state of the public finances, how much extra they need to spend on defence, how big the benefits bill is, the fact that we have record levels of taxation and borrowing at present, I can’t see that they’ve got the money to do it. And so the bottom line for landlords is that under the provisions of the Renters Rights Act they need to be far more careful than they ever were in screening potential tenants: Prospective tenants that you didn’t have to be overly concerned about before when no fault evictions were there as a back-stop are now just going to be too high risk to house. And because the Renters Rights Act bans discrimination and prevents you from withholding information on a property, more stringent criteria are going to have to be applied to ALL tenants and those costs are going to have to be passed on as higher rents because there is no other mechanism for recovering them.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 24/06/2026 – 11:55
Hang on a minute! You say: “it is potentially possible to move family members back in to a property even if it is mortgaged under a buy to let mortgage.”
Are you really saying landlords should be encouraging their family members to take up residence next door to a troublemaker just in order to be able to make a complaint?