9:25 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago 10
Text Size
The NRLA has hit back at the media narrative that paints landlords as “fat cats,” praising two amendments in the Renters’ Rights Bill designed to help landlords regain possession.
Under the Bill, the threshold for rent arrears would increase from two to three months before a landlord could enforce repossession by serving notice.
However, one of the amendments, proposed by Lord Carter of Haslemere, keeps the existing two-month threshold in place when the Bill comes into force.
The second amendment would allow landlords to continue using rent arrears caused by delays in universal credit payments as a ground for possession.
The NRLA argues that the three-month rule for rent arrears will create chaos for landlords, particularly those with smaller portfolios who cannot afford to go without rent for what would effectively be four months once the notice period is factored in.
The organisation also warns of unintended consequences, as the change could make it harder for those on lower or uncertain incomes to secure rental homes as landlords become more wary to rent to those on benefits.
NRLA policy director Chris Norris said: “As we have taken pains to point out throughout the consultation process, most landlords are not the fat cats the media makes us out to be, with 70% basic rate taxpayers.
“It is vital that landlords have confidence that, if tenants do not pay their rent, they can regain possession in a timely manner, and it is crucial we retain the two-month limit, or risk debt spiralling out of control, both for the tenants and landlords housing them.”
The second amendment from Lord Carter focuses on allowing rent arrears caused by non-payment of Universal Credit to remain a valid ground for possession.
Under the current version of the Renters’ Rights Bill, landlords are restricted from using Ground 8 if rent arrears are due to delayed Universal Credit payments.
The NRLA warns that this could have serious consequences for landlords, leaving them with no rent and no way to regain possession of their property.
This issue is complicated further by the fact that, unless tenants receive direct payments, landlords often have no way of knowing whether their tenant is on Universal Credit in the first place.
The Department of Work and Pensions does not need to inform the landlord either.
This could mean a landlord could start a possession claim, pay court fees and attend a hearing, only to be told the claim is invalid due to a delayed Universal Credit payment.
The NRLA praises Lord Carter’s amendment, which would remove this rule.
The organisation argues it will not only reduce the court workload by preventing possession claims with no chance of success but also provide landlords with valuable assurances that if their tenants stop paying rent, they can regain possession.
Mr Norris adds: “Lord Carter has tabled two practical, sensible amendments, in line with calls we have been making for some time.
“We will continue to work with peers to gather support for these, and other amendments, to ensure we have a bill that is balanced and fair for all.”
Previous Article
UK housing market grew by £22.3bn in 2024
Cider Drinker
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up9:57 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
It should be that two late payments in a 12 month period should trigger a mandatory ground for possession.
When houses are in such support supply, surely it is better to house those that are prepared to pay the rent on time.
Seems odd that we have come to accept the non-payment (or late payment) of rent as somehow acceptable.
If the problem is caused by late payment of UC then that’s a matter for those that make the UC payments.
Jervais Straker
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up10:31 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 17/03/2025 - 09:57
There is a significant double standard among local authorities, who are key contributors to this crisis. They have relied on landlords to accept tenants, but then fail to pay the rent to these landlords. They insist that tenants should not leave their homes, which places an enormous burden on the landlords.
Paul
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up10:39 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
It seems to me that this bill is more about protecting councils (Government) in particular against problem tenants They are deliberately pushing tenants into the PRS, Then making sure that PRS landlords can not evict them by various clauses such as 3 months late rent etc. Its astounding that they are proposing to reject eviction claims due to another government departments inability (Or unwillingness) to pay UC on time. Or was that the plan all along?
At present, If a council evict one of their own tenants. They are then legally obliged to rehouse them. I would want out of that deal too.
Jo Westlake
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up10:46 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
I house several people who dip in and out of the UC system. They all pay their rent directly to me so I have no idea which months they receive a UC top up and which months their earnings are too high to qualify for benefits. I suspect one of them hasn't received UC for about a year but I have no way of knowing for sure.
Only one of them has arrears directly related to the UC process. He started chipping away at the arrears last year but it's a long, slow process.
Another has arrears because his fortnightly pay in a seasonal job is incompatible with the UC system. He will probably be up to date by the end of this month.
The others are all fully up to date.
Some are perfectly happy to discuss benefit claims with me, others try to hide that they're claiming. Some delay claiming either because of lack of knowledge or embarrassment. The DWP certainly don't inform us of anything.
As landlords don't know if a tenant is receiving UC it would be ludicrous if an eviction could be stopped because of something the landlord had no knowledge of.
TheMaluka
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up11:00 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
By making it difficult to evict antisocial tenants, the government is encouraging antisocial behaviour - and then expecting landlords to control their tenants. Never take a tenant who cannot find a months rent up front and five weeks deposit and NEVER take a tenant from a council, NEVER no matter what the golden hello.
Seething Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up11:09 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
The obvious solution to the UC problem is to make it mandatory for the tenant to notify the landlord during the one month notice period of the reason for the delayed payment of rent if he wishes to take advantage of this particular defence.
K Anon
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up11:10 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by Paul at 17/03/2025 - 10:39
so true. There are absolutely no consequences for problem tenants or ways to deal with them. Nobody is tackling that head on.
1 strike and you are out should be enough but what do you do, they just breed more kids and know they will be rehoused at taxpayers expense.
I don't know the answer but working and earning your keep never was a bad start....
Paul Essex
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up11:50 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
Sad that the NRLA seems to be praising minor parts of the Bill but remaining silent on the bill as a whole, even welcoming it in public - presumably they hope to get a good income from forced training and of course PBSA still seems exempt from most of the bill.
richard bestic
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up11:56 AM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by K Anon at 17/03/2025 - 11:10
Ouch ... a little bit Dickensian in tone Paul.
Paul Essex
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments and posts!
Sign Up13:14 PM, 17th March 2025, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by richard bestic at 17/03/2025 - 11:56
I would have been happy to extend the notice period to six months for those up to date with their rent but this blanket Section 21 ban and ridiculous powers granted to councils makes the current rewards insufficient for the risks we now all face.