Profile incomplete
0:04 AM, 14th March 2024, About 2 months ago 50
Text Size
A Conservative commentator says that the Renters (Reform) Bill can best be described as a ‘wholesale and fundamental invasion’ into the principle of private property.
Tim Briggs goes on to say that the Bill ‘will demonise landlords – and bankrupt councils’.
Writing on Conservative Woman, he says that the Bill ‘insinuates that all tenants are victims, and all landlords are villains’.
He adds: “It forces the cold, dead hand of the State into the mostly harmonious mutual dependency of landlords and their 4.6 million tenants, infantilising the parties into dumb, bad-faith spectators in their own private relationship.”
He goes on to praise a group of Tory MPs as a ‘white knights’ who are trying rebalance ‘the relationship between oppressor landlords and oppressed tenants’.
Mr Briggs adds: “Astonishing that only one landlord representative was asked to give evidence to the Bill’s scrutiny committee, while handfuls of left-wing tenant groups were invited.
“In National Residential Landlord Association (NRLA) webinars and podcasts before Christmas, I criticised the Bill as one of the worst pieces of housing legislation, with no redeeming features.
“Landlords seeking to increase rent will require government involvement. Landlords must accept tenants with pets in any property.”
Mr Briggs points out that the abolition of Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions will hurt the supply of rented homes since ‘landlords cannot get back their properties without the tenant agreeing to leave’.
He says: “What is difficult to understand is that the Government must know that this Renters (Reform) Bill is the disease of which it purports to be the cure because, like all bad law, it makes a bad situation for tenants worse.
“The Government hints that it knows this, yet it still wants to proceed, apparently having abandoned making good law that benefits everyone for the appearance of helping different interest groups.”
He also raises issues with the government believing that a landlord’s property belongs to a tenant – and ignoring the rule of law when doing so.
Mr Briggs says the Bill should be scrapped and writes: “Landlords are leaving the private rented sector in droves.
“If Section 21 notices are abolished, I do not think it is controversial for me to suggest that more landlords will sell up, increasing rents for the rented properties left behind. “Meanwhile left-wing politicians tout the idea of rent levels controlled by politicians, which has never worked anywhere in the world, would make a bad situation worse, and always has to be abandoned.
“This is why abolishing Section 21 Notices will also bankrupt local authorities.
“For the last decade, there are a number of exponential costs that local authorities have been struggling to get under control.
“If Section 21 Notices are abolished, landlords have another option – to lease a property to a company that allows the property to be used for temporary accommodation by the council.”
And that, he says, will see councils having to rent properties at a higher cost to house homeless families because there are no homes to rent – leading to a huge bill for taxpayers.
Rerktyne
22:49 PM, 14th March 2024, About 2 months ago
The only good thing about this silly policy is that it will cause a reaction from landlords and a dystopia for councils and tenants. I say good because things have to get bad before the govt wakes up!
Beaver
11:14 AM, 15th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Mike Thomas at 14/03/2024 - 22:38
That's already happening; rents are already rising to the point where only the well paid tenants can afford them. Some landlords will rent under a license to occupy leaving tenants with less protection. The bill won't achieve anything for tenants.
Rerktyne
12:49 PM, 15th March 2024, About 2 months ago
The government doesn’t care about tenants: it simply wants to avoid taking responsibility for them. So bash the landlord! Imagine if landlords flooded the market and prices went down leading to millions of Tories in negative equity!! Yahoo!!
Beaver
14:36 PM, 15th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Rerktyne at 15/03/2024 - 12:49
I think this is correct; the government doesn't want to take responsibility for tenants. Local government doesn't want the responsibility either. But in the end when they drive rents up by driving competition out of the market they either increase the cost of the benefit bill or increase the risk of councils going bust because they can't meet their obligations.
Healthcare costs are higher in the US than they are here. That's because, whilst not perfect, the large public sector health service here is competition for the private sector AND the private health sector is competition for the public sector.
In the same way the PRS provides competition in the UK for the social housing sector and the social housing sector is also competition for the PRS. If the government drives out the small landlord it drives out competition and drives up rents. Rent controls just kick the can down the road for a year or 2 and then the s**t hits the fan, as the SNP demonstrated in Scotland.
Tony Phillips
20:06 PM, 15th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Bristol Landlord at 14/03/2024 - 04:42
I disagree in most part with all you say. I'll go one further ....The RRB will NOT pass into law, the lefties will fail as anyone with an iota of common sense can see.
Tony Phillips
20:14 PM, 15th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Clint at 14/03/2024 - 11:05
That's far closer to reality than the almost conspiricy theory posts regarding this.
Yellard
0:15 AM, 16th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Robert at 14/03/2024 - 10:52
I think it's more to do with Grove believing large landlords are better than small ones.. My 30 years in the letting business says that small landlords are most often much better than larger ones.. Grove wants/exjevts small landlords to be brought up by larger "professional" landlords.. That will consolidate property ownership but if wont improve anything for tenants.
Robert
8:14 AM, 16th March 2024, About 2 months ago
We agree there are rogue lordlords but there is no recognition there are rogue tenants.
The RRB is not balanced. The risk increase is sizeable, including (reality) carrying court delay and failure.
The objective is to force small private landlords out and open an opportunity for first time buyers. These are not the same people as tenants. Our tenants have reason for doing so. Tenants lose.
After all this, there is not enough property supply. Duh.
Keith Wellburn
8:47 AM, 16th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Robert at 14/03/2024 - 10:52
Interesting to note that Hunt hoovered up seven flats in his newly formed Limited Co ‘Mare Pond Properties’ after Osborne introduced Section 24 interest restriction also supposedly to favour FTBs as he (hilariously) thought that the tax system favoured landlords.
Why is this relevant? Hunt had just sold a business and received £15 million (absolutely no problem with that, my entry into BTL was helped by a sale of a trading business although for nowhere near that sum).
All the seven properties within the Ltd Co were bought with mortgages! Meanwhile I looked on with incredulity that my long held fourteen properties (held at the time) were going to be battered by S24 with no easy and cheap fix to shield in a Ltd Co (as did most portfolio LLs as it was more or less the norm to hold a portfolio personally).
Every time I see Hunt’s smug mug it makes me impatient for the day the Tories get the impending message from the voters, landlords and tenants alike. I’ll take the CGT cut on my last couple of properties but it won’t buy my vote!
Beaver
9:35 AM, 16th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Yellard at 16/03/2024 - 00:15
Most of the small landlords I know keep rents down and look after their properties well.