Renters (Reform) Bill: Housing Minister says not all tenants are ‘bad people’

This is the most pathetic straw man argument I have ever seen. Nobody, but nobody, has ever suggested that "all tenants are ‘bad people’ who are in gangs or smoke weed". However, some are and they make life miserable for their neighbours and their landlords. Ms Maclean will you "do the right thing" for the neighbours and landlords"? Losing section 21 will make dealing with anti-social behaviour nigh on impossible and nasty tenants will be emboldened.
It is incorrect to say that the bill proposes to introduce a lifetime deposit scheme, which would allow tenants to transfer their deposit from one property to another without having to pay twice.
Even if it did, as I explained here four years ago, the idea is misconceived. I have heard nothing since then that counters my arguments.

“There are plenty of young people who are in the private rented sector who are not weed-smoking bad people, in gangs and crack dens and everything else and smashing up the neighbourhood.”

So Rachel Maclean accepts that there are some tenants who fall into the above stereotypes. How does the proposed Renters Reform Bill allow landlords to get these tenants out of the property quickly, efficiently and without delays or large costs?

The bill should protect tenants who pay their rent on time and are “well behaved”.

It should also provide efficient and quick methods for dealing with tenants who fall within the above types of tenants, which she now, obviously, accepts do exist.

My close family members outnumber my rental properties by 5 to 1. I don’t see a problem with the RRB that cannot be easily overcome.
The greatest problem with Section 21 is that it is used when landlords find the going tough and decide to sell. Yet, the government, in their infinite wisdom, intend to make this a ground for a Section 8 possession.
The RRB is 100% about hoodwinking tenants to voting. Conservative.

Reply to the comment left by Teessider at 03/10/2023 - 11:51
If you don't see a problem with the RRB, please explain how landlords will be able to persuade victims of anti-social behaviour - perhaps a neighbour who has been threatened or had their property vandalised by a tenant - to give evidence against the anti-social tenant.

Reply to the comment left by Teessider at 03/10/2023 - 11:51
yep thats exactly what I intend to do if the RRB is taken to the latter of what is written as is as implemented on this basis.

If the need arises the mandatory clause of the S8 to have possession for a family member will be used. I will have no other choice. Either that or I will sell. End of.

In the interim I am gearing up to ensure ALL tenants are vetted to the best of my ability and any 'possibles' I may have considered before hand are getting short shrift.

Best tenants possible and the chaff can stay on the housing lists. They can smoke weed, cause merry hell and be left to the council to deal with!

a pointless ground in reality as it's impossible to the meet the requirements for it to be even used.

As a LL what happens if you cant even get permission off the person affected (the neighbour say) to have their name used in the reasoning for the ground to be cited in the first place knowing a copy of the S8 goes to the nightmare tenant??

Not all Tenants are bad people!

Lol it says everything LLs need to know about how so called new breed of Conservatives view us LLs

Agreed, most tenants are great. But you're empowering the bad ones, and making it harder for good tenants to find properties if they don't fit the model criteria. Section 21 was the landlords insurance to take a risk on a tenant without good renting history.
Time this government learnt to achieve positive change is to use carrots (incentives)not sticks (regulations) against all.

My one consolation about this stupid anti-Tory policy of scrapping section 21 is that one day one of the ignorant supporters of it will find themselves living next to "weed-smoking bad people, in gangs and crack dens and everything else and smashing up the neighbourhood" and the landlord won't be able to do anything about it.

ASB is the second biggest reason for "No fault" evictions.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 03/10/2023 - 11:56Landlords should not be acting as judge and jury in cases where anti-social behaviour has been alleged. Doing so is open to much abuse.
Parliament issued some ‘explanatory notes’ alongside the Bill. If landlords read the Overview of the Bill they will see that the Bill aims to make it easier for landlords to repossess their properties where tenants are at fault, in cases of anti-social behaviour and repeat rent arrears’.
Of course, the proof will be in the pudding but, without evidence to believe they will not deliver on this pledge, I’m prepared to accept them at their word.
I’ve mentioned before that I don’t believe a landlord wishing to sell should be a ground for possession. The landlord arena should be attractive to new landlords and those wishing to expand their portfolios. Landlords should be able to sell to other landlords thus avoiding the trauma of losing one’s home through no fault of your own.
There should be a time bound alternative for when owners work away for a set period. Notice to end the tenancy on a given date (notified during the advertising stage) should guarantee vacant possession on that date.
Here are the notes…

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0308/en/220308en.pdf