More than half of tenants will challenge rent rises

Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 28/05/2025 – 13:09
The people who haven’t had ten years of warning are the people who don’t qualify for social housing, or are so far back in the social housing queue that they are effectively not eligible anytime soon, and everybody else who needs to rent accommodation in the private sector.

All of those people will face a growing scarcity of housing and higher rents as a consequence of labour’s policies. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Angela Rayner or A-N-Other union stooge; Labour isn’t going to build 1.5 million homes. Driving choice out of the housing market hurts tenants.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 28/05/2025 – 14:28
You’re missing the point.

Unless it’s stopped, this government is using a combination of legislation and regulation to effectively nationalise all housing outside of owner-occupation. They’ll boast that these properties count toward their 1.5 million homes target—and technically, they’ll be right.

We’ve seen this playbook before. During the era of confiscatory capital transfer taxes, property estates were broken up, and many owners were reduced to living in a portion of what they once fully owned. This time, the state is leaving nominal ownership in landlords’ hands, while dictating exactly what they can and cannot do with their own assets.

It will devastate property values—just as it did prior to the Housing Act 1988, which had to rescue the private rental sector through the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies.

Only now, the threat is even more severe.

Today’s framework is more draconian than the Rent Act 1977 or any earlier rent restriction regime. Councils have armed themselves with sweeping enforcement powers, imposed punitive fine structures, and granted tenants the authority to police landlords—under threat of rent refunds and penalties.

The result is a creeping form of economic expropriation, executed not by seizure but by regulation—and dressed up as social policy.

There is a pretty simple solution to this suggested scenario. When existing agreements come to an end, just say Goodbye to the old tenants and bring in new ones at the higher rent. Obviously it would not be a rent increase since these are new agreements for new tenants. Such a shame that good tenants would have to suffer as a consequence.

Another solution would be for the government to make good on its promises (didn’t the previous one make the same promises?) and build loads more affordable housing.

Leaders are my letting agents and against their advice, I actually REDUCED the rent at the annual review instead of increasing. I’m happy and the tenants are happy.

Incidentally, Leaders increased their fees to landlords in January, citing the NIC increases in the Budget.

Dear tenant, your new rent id £800.

Dear landlord, I’ll try my luck at the First Tier Tribunal.

Dear tenant, please see enclosed Section 8, Ground 1A. I need to sell as rent doesn’t cover costs sufficiently to make the hassle worthwhile.

Have a nice day.

Reply to the comment left by SimonP at 28/05/2025 – 19:52
Governments don’t build houses, builders do.

Builders don’t build houses that they cannot sell.

Those who can only buy have the option to buy former rental properties. Landlords won’t buy because of punitive SDLT rates.

Without buyers, builders don’t build.

Absolutely spot on. In my (more than) 3 score years and 10, I have yet to come across any investment opportunity open to to ordinary hard working individuals that doesn’t eventually have the rug pulled out from under their feet. The vast majority of private landlords are just ordinary working people who have put their hard earned savings into a modest rental property portfolio in order to provide themselves with the means to support an independent and dignified retirement, and at the same time, provide others with a decent place to call home. From being the providers of an essential service 25 years ago, we’ve now become the whipping boys for successive governments failed housing policies.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 28/05/2025 – 22:26I don’t believe it is going to be as easy as you think to get vacant possession under section 8 ground 1A
We will have no control over this as it will be up to a Judge to decide whether we can sell with vacant possession or not.
I have asked the NRLA about this on two occassions and the answer was the same, they cannot tell us yet whether this will be a mandatory ground or a discretionary ground. If it is not a madatory ground this could be problematic especially if the introduce they hardship clause.

Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 28/05/2025 – 16:10
I understood the point and I understand what’s going. Champagne socialists like John MacDonald for example, with his second home in Norfolk, are only ever any good at bullying the little people. If he had succeeded in stopping landlords from offsetting their maintenance costs against rents he would probably only have managed to do that for the small portfolio landlords and probably wouldn’t have been able to touch limited companies. When people incorporate their businesses they are joining a much bigger and more powerful club that is better able to defend itself against the hypocrites holding themselves out as the defenders of tenants.

The point I’m trying to make in return is that they only get away with this because their lies aren’t called out and they are not truly accountable.

Reply to the comment left by Stella at 29/05/2025 – 09:28
EICR

ARTICLE 8

Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others

ARTICLE 13
Right to an effective remedy
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national
authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

ARTICLE 14
Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

ARTICLE 17
Prohibition of abuse of rights
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

Protocol to the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms
Paris, 20.III.1952
The Governments signatory hereto, being members of the Council
of Europe, Being resolved to take steps to ensure the collective enforcement of certain rights and freedoms other than those already included
in Section I of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November1950
(hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
Protection of property
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.