Appalled Landlord

Registered with
Thursday 31st October 2013

Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 949

Appalled Landlord

18:02 PM, 20th May 2019
About 9 hours ago

Should landlords have the right to refuse DSS tenants?

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 20/05/2019 - 17:29

Not only did Shelter not attack the social sector, it joined forces with the housing associations’ trade body, the NHF, to attack the PRS.

Joe Speye is a commentator on social housing He is no friend of the PRS, but he wrote
“Shelter and the National Housing Federation are engaging in deliberate known deceit in their combined campaign over NO DSS in the private rented sector – A campaign that is so superficial it shames them both.”


“The National Housing Federation and Shelter are being deceitful and wholly disingenuous in seeking to blame only the private landlord and their twitter postings and the articles show this PRS only blame game of errant known deception.” Read More

Appalled Landlord

16:04 PM, 7th May 2019
About 2 weeks ago

IEA paper - Tax measures that discriminate against private rented housing

Reply to the comment left by Frederick Morrow-Ahmed at 07/05/2019 - 13:55
Why have you posted fallacious propaganda from David Kingman and the house price crash trolls under an article about a report which, on page 14, explains why it is a fallacy?

What’s your game?... Read More

Appalled Landlord

13:26 PM, 7th May 2019
About 2 weeks ago

The End of Section 21 - YOUR questions answered in this lunchtime webinar

Dr Smith thinks the consultation on how to abolish S 21 will be wide ranging and open. That does not mean anything. Abolition of S 21 was announced without any consultation with the industry, which thought it was being asked about 3-year tenancies, because the organisation that calls itself Generation Rent demanded it.

George Osborne announced Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 without any consultation with the industry, and without any justification.

The government could just announce it was going to impose whatever Generation Rent demands, again. The so-called Conservative government has sprung a surprise twice. What’s to stop it doing so again?

He said “The government is alive to risks posed by ending S 21 and want to make sure those risks don’t come to pass. It wants landlords to continue to let to tenants of all types.” Of course it does! But that is not going to stop it surprising us again. That sounded to me like government propaganda.

He was dismissive of landlords’ aversion to using Section 8: “In over 75% of Section 8 cases the tenant doesn’t show up in court.”

He was dismissive of landlords’ concerns about tenants’ behaviour: “Tenants damaging properties are isolated cases, they are not the routine”.

He says May’s replacement might not carry on with this policy in the same way He thinks some of the candidates for leader of the Tories wouldn’t. But why not, if the purpose is to get votes?

He claims it won’t be immediately retrospective. “Section 21 will not be stolen from existing tenancies some time in 2020 I don’t see that happening at all”. Why not? The whole purpose is to win back votes from middle-class tenants. And Section 24 was retroactive, affecting properties that had been bought before it was announced.

In reply to a question about tenants frustrating Section 8 by paying arrears of on the steps of the court he said “The government would say you’ve got your money, what are you complaining about?”

He claims an insight into government thinking “There is no particular appetite from what I have seen so far within government for more radical rent control in terms of linking rents to RPI or anything else, but it’s certainly something I’m keeping a close eye on.”

Dr Smith is the Policy Director of the RLA. His main job is as a partner in a firm of solicitors specialising in landlord and tenant law, particularly in the residential sector.

He is not a landlord, and he came across as a detached adviser. His approach in the webinar was to play down landlords’ fears - which is in the interest of the government, to avoid disturbing the market. He is very experienced in landlord and tenant law, but is he perhaps too detached to be the right man to represent landlords over attacks on them by the government in relation to their right to recover their private property, and the right to deduct legitimate business costs?... Read More

Appalled Landlord

12:51 PM, 4th May 2019
About 2 weeks ago

NLA - Save Section 21 postcard campaign

Shelter ran a parallel survey, which presumably attracted contributions from its supporters and its clientele of disgruntled tenants. Its involvement was described in paragraph 49 of the government’s response:

“Shelter ran a survey containing 14 questions which closely mirrored the questions we asked in the Government survey. This helped to increase the number of tenants who provided a response, so we can be sure we are understanding and reflecting the views of both tenants and landlords on this issue. We have included supplementary information from their questions where applicable within this document, and we have clearly stated when information has come from Shelter’s survey. A list of the questions in Shelter’s survey is available at Annex A.”

Both surveys asked how long a tenancy should be fixed for: 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, No limit set and Other.

The questions were posed differently:

MHCLG Q16: How long do you think an initial fixed term tenancy agreement should last (not considering any break clauses or notice periods)? Please explain

Shelter Q5: In an ideal world, how long would you like your rental agreement to last? Assume you can give notice at any time when you would like to leave. Please elaborate. 

Paragraph 153 of the government response to the consultation reads “Tenants preferred an initial tenancy length of three years or longer. 24% chose 3 years, 17% chose 5 years and 22% preferred no limit set – preferences which were supported by tenants who responded to the Shelter survey, where 23% selected 3 years (819 tenants), 27% picked 5 years (967 tenants) and 35% favoured no limit set (1,244 tenants).”

Only 22% of tenants replying direct, and 35% of tenants replying via Shelter, preferred no limit set. This means that the overwhelming majority of tenants who took part in the surveys preferred not to have unlimited tenancies.

Also, 90% of landlords, 91% of letting agents, and 76% of “other” respondents also preferred not to have unlimited tenancies. In total, 86% of respondents to the MHCLG survey did not want unlimited tenancies. Brokenshire’s conclusion? Repeal section 21, create lifetime tenancies and, fingers crossed, we might get a few votes from renters.... Read More

Appalled Landlord

16:59 PM, 3rd May 2019
About 2 weeks ago

NLA - Save Section 21 postcard campaign

Some lawyers think that a change in the law will be good for lawyers, but not for tenants:

“We note the aim of the government is to improve stability and certainty for tenants in the private rented sector. However, it seems that the section 21 process is not the cause of that uncertainty—it is only a symptom of the current housing market. As such, amending the process for evictions is unlikely to significantly improve the situation for tenants but may instead have a knock on impact on the availability of properties to rent and the rent that properties are available for.” Read More