Lords clash over Renters’ Rights Bill in committee stage

Well done Baroness Scott, who i have encountered before and seems to be one person who is genuinely concerned about all matters , rather than those only concerned about their political future.
Where does Baroness Taylor get her information from that the private sector offers the poorest quality housing.
As for the Lib Dems we know where they stand and have zero interest in private landlords.

Reply to the comment left by David at 23/04/2025 – 10:10I have little doubt that BaronessTaylor is correct in her assertion that the PRS offers the poorest quality housing.
It is a fact that private landlords own a disproportionate percentage of older housing stock. Housing that was built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was not designed for modern living. The properties would not have had bathrooms and toilets would have been outside. The bathtub in front of the fire was perfect for allowing steam to clear up the chimney. Now, modern families will have showers which create copious amounts of steam and, with properties overly insulated (which is often poorly installed), the steam cannot escape and the resultant condensation leads to inevitable mould problems.
The homes weren’t built with the needs of 21st century motorists, often have no gardens. Bedrooms were for sleeping in, not gaming.
So yes, I believe that the PRS has a higher percentage of poor housing. Not because it’s held in the PRS but because it’s old and not fit for the 21st century. It ought to be demolished and replaced with more suitable housing, built to modern standards, for modern families. The RRB will won’t fix the poor housing. It will just be moved to the owner-occupied sector.

It is a simple matter of supply and demand.
As we are already 17 million housing houses short this bill will force smaller landlords to sell up as is already happening .
Larger players like the Lloyds Bank subsidiary,Legal and General and new entrants set up by private equity firms will go for the better heeled tenants who are working .
Landlords remaining will move into better less troublesome assets like gold,silver and cryptocurrency mining( the 1st 2 are Robert Kyosaki’s recommendation),whiskey ( a wasting asset which does not attract capital gains tax and produces 8% to 14% returns) or they will invest in property overseas where landlords are not seen as pariah.
For example Garland Texas where non paying tenants are viewed as deadbeats and after 2 months or so can be removed at gunpoint by the sheriff.
Poor tenants and benefit recipients and the disabled after benefit cuts will be caught out by enhanced credit checks and rendered homeless adding to the 2 million already in this position.
To bring in legislation like this when we are 17 million houses short,when we are overpopulated to the tune of 50 million people over our optimum population size of 35 million and when courts are overloaded is irresponsible.
To do so when all UK councils are 80% overmanned and many are bankrupt is criminal maladministration the consequences of which will be very severe .

Baroness Thornhill clearly has no idea, the abolition of S21*is far from the most important points which in reality are the compulsory periodic tenancy which introduces volatility and destroys cashflow management and the prohibition of rent in advance which renders many tenants too risky to accept, even well heeled but with no UK history or unfunded foreign students, why should we have to adopt that risk Baroness?

If landlords who have bought a property are required lay out thousands of pounds to achieve EPC level C, why are owners who bought an identical property NOT required to also lay out money to achieve EPC level C? This is two-tier Keir all over again.

They suggest landlords did not all leave after section 24 was introduced. I did not sell up BUT I quit a 6 figure salary and dropped from paying a HUGE amount in tax, to NOTHING.

Keep going you stupid naïve government folks.

Why are the powers-that-be so hung up on Section 21? Realistically, unless you plan to sell a property, one tenant removed by S21 (for what may well be rent arrears as this is a ‘kinder’ way to do this rather than S8) will be replaced by another, so the sum of rented houses is not affected at all, just the balance is changed.
And another fact which I have never seen aired is that there is a sizeable number of people who may not want, or may never be in a position, to buy a house. We have a modest portfolio, all our tenants are long-term, and many of them are single parents or older people who would not be in a position to save up a deposit and service a mortgage. We take all the risks by committing to a mortgage, and they reap all the benefits of good landlords who deal with maintenance problems immediately. New boiler needed at £3,000? Installed by our regular plumber who gives us good service because we provide him with lots of work! What on earth is wrong with this symbiotic relationship? We are sickened by the current attitude to landlords and I am afraid we are looking to exit, leaving all our good tenants behind.

The abolition of Section 21 is a Trojan Horse. Plenty of the grounds under Section 8 are ‘no fault’ of the tenant.

Abolition of Section 21 will allow Local Authorities to identify tenants that have made themselves voluntarily homeless. It will not protect tenants one iota.

“… Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, claims the Renters’ Rights Bill will help landlords with rogue tenants.” – How?

Well I am sure as hell not crying wolf. I’ve provided brand new houses. Fixed rents for many years. But I’m leaving, selling them all. I appreciate what it means for the tenants but I have to also look after me. This government has been the final nail in my rental portfolio. Hey ho.