Renters (Reform) Bill could increase homelessness, warns industry expert

Reply to the comment left by Michael Booth at 07/11/2023 - 13:49
I am thinking that renters themselves need educating. Let's switch it round so that the person who creates a tenancy breach knows very clearly the result that their action will bring.

Perhaps we need to get tenants to realise that the RRB is a wolf in sheeps clothing, instead of shouting at the governement who's ears are alrady closed.

We have absolutely nothing to fear if we choose to evict tenants now if we inititation possessions via S21 by explaining to them that by doing this means the real reason for it is protected from being made public record.

We explain (most tenants already know) that councils will not have a duty to rehouse them if they are found to be making themselves 'intentionally homeless'.

Rent arrears, tenant damage to property and tenant breach of tenancy agreement and anti social behaviour are all reasons that would be deemed down to the personal actions of the tenant themselves.

A S21 gives the tenant a chance for council assistance/housing where otherwise if the actual reason were known they would be refused.

If S21 were abolished then ALL reasons for possession would have to be listed. This will ultimately have to be declared to any future landlord and may seriously harm their chances of getting any accommodation in the future (including social housing).

A S21 means the landlord cannot claim for all additional costs like court fees and the use of a bailiff.

If a S8 is used not only will ALL reasons be listed, but the landlord can claim back all court costs. This will have a significant impact. Apart from the debt being on public record, they will have to declare the reasons for eviction in any future accommodation application.

Tenants need to be aware of the government plans so they can see it for themselves what the reality will actually be.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 07/11/2023 - 14:42
These points were made very clearly by Ben Beadle of NRLA when giving evidence at one of the House of Commons committee hearings. The Shelter representative was visibly taken aback.

If landlords had always used S8 when appropriate instead of taking the easy way out and using S21 there would probably not be the current pressure for S21 to be abolished.

I would say that if government want so much control over the PRS, let them nationalise it, subside it and pay all arrears and court fees.
Why should government have so much control without it costing them anything?
How many other service sectors put up with constant interference such as we do?
How many other sectors have to continue to supply a service even though the client may be months in arrears?
The PLL is constantly discriminated against by this and will be by future governments. Its harassment. We shouldn't tolerate it.

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 06/11/2023 - 11:43
Judith, many a truism in what you say.

It is hardly surprising that there was no take up on your proposal for all landlords to serve their tenants a S21 (although some media reports seem to imply this is happening) and not just because of concern for their relationship with their tenants.

Few landlords are prepared to stand up and be counted by joining a landlord association, and many of those who do so, or undertake accreditation and other training, are motivated by the cost saving on licensing fees, rather than the desire to understand their obligations and best practice.

As has been said in other posts, S21 has been beneficial to tenants whose actions would have resulted in a less favourable outcome had they been evicted using the S8 route.

iHowz have written to MPs advising them of the unintended consequences of abolishing S21, both for miscreant tenants others with less than perfect references, who landlords will no longer offer the opportunity of renting a home from them when the safety net of S21 is removed.

The government have said that they want the PRS to become more professional yet fail to accept that we are business owners with customer, maintenance, safety and other obligations, which go beyond those of other investors, such as stock market and specialist collectors (who enjoy more favourable tax treatment). The small carrot of deferring higher MEES requirements was welcome but the rise in regulation, arbitrary licencing and penal taxation are unlikely to inspire many investors to allocate their capital to help address the housing crisis by investing in the PRS.

On 22 November, iHowz will be presenting their proposal on making S21 fairer to MPs and Lords in the Houses of Parliament.
https://ihowz.uk/the-unintended-consequences-of-losing-the-section-21-notice/

Reply to the comment left by Rod at 12/11/2023 - 13:01
It would be impossible to get 6 people to form a unit never mind 3m
PS Landlords.
I remember when they brought in 2 tier post, my late husband's suggestion was that everyone bought 2nd class that didn't fly either.
I do concede that Lanlords have to act in solidarity to scupper the new rent reforms, but it needs to be something simple otherwise LL's just won't do it for fear of reprisals.
Start with lobbying Michael Gove with some horror stories.