How the Renters’ (Reform) Bill could backfire on tenants: Higher rents and fewer homes
3 years ago | 11 comments
Shelter demands 12 months of no re-letting in new Bill
9:50 AM, 11th July 2023, 3 years ago
56
Categories:
The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has been told that the Renters (Reform) Bill needs strengthening to prevent landlords from using a loophole to evict tenants for no reason.
The follow-up meeting heard that under the proposals, the law will enable landlords to take possession of their rented property when they or a family member want to move in or to sell it – and there will be a period of three months when the property cannot be re-let.
However, Shelter’s policy manager Tarun Bhakta told the committee that the Bill offers ‘a backdoor to ‘no-fault’ evictions’ and he said the no re-letting period should be longer.
He told the committee: “This is a big concern of ours, at the moment a landlord won’t be allowed to put the property back on the market for three months.
“We don’t think that is a strong enough disincentive when misusing those grounds, particularly when you consider that it might be quite difficult to design quite robust evidential requirements for the landlord moving in. It’s really difficult to imagine what that would look like, but we want the government to try their best.”
’12 months for no re-letting is what we are recommending’
He added: “We think there needs to be strong disincentives via the no reletting period so 12 months for no re-letting is what we are recommending.”
And when tenants believe they have been wrongly evicted, tenants should be able to seek compensation and rent repayment orders – and tenants should be given an incentive to bring a case of wrongful eviction to a local authority.
In response, an irritated Ben Beadle, the chief executive of the National Residential Landlords’ Association, said: “This isn’t roulette. It gets tested in court, it goes before a judge, a judge will need to be satisfied that the landlord is telling the truth about selling the property.
“And the last time I checked, if you lied in court, it was perjury so I would say that was a pretty strong disincentive.”
He added: “I don’t know what it is what my friend from Shelter wants to see, whether it is waterboarding or public flogging, but a financial penalty of £30k if you re-let sounds to me to be a lot of money and I think we have to look through the lens of why landlords are selling and the confidence levels in the sector are where we should start rather than having 12 months punishing waits and lots of extended notice periods.”
Turning to Mr Bhakta, Mr Beadle said: “And, actually, do your clients a great disservice.”
Below is Mr Beadle’s response to Mr Bhakta’s comments:
Watch the full committee exchange on Parliament.tv
Tags:
ben beadle in parliament, National Residential Landlords Association, No-fault Evictions UK, Renters Reform Bill, Shelter UK, Tenant Rights UK, UK Landlord Legislation, UK Property Market, UK Rental Regulations, what do shelter want from the renters reform bill?
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Previous Article
Are you a Birmingham Midshires customer?Next Article
Holiday homes worth billions in England and WalesRelated Articles
Michael Gove says landlords are ‘vital’ for a fair rental market
3 years ago | 28 comments
Letting agents voice concerns over Renters Reform Bill
3 years ago | 4 comments
Member Since November 2016 - Comments: 227
9:59 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
I guess Shelter just don’t want housing available to rent.
Member Since February 2016 - Comments: 45
10:02 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
Then I will DOUBLE rents. I have already done so on new tenancies.
Keep going Shelter, your lefty marxist ideologies will only hurt those you claim to support.
Member Since January 2020 - Comments: 1102 - Articles: 1
10:11 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
What I found interesting was the reaction of Tarun Bhakta when it was pointed out that the abolition of S21 will bring transparency to the true reason for eviction and that the resultant CCJ will make it very difficult for rent defaulters and anti social tenants to find a private landlord willing to let to them in future.
His suggestion that this would amount to discrimination and should be legislated against was pounced on and rejected by Ben Beadle in no uncertain terms. Is it possible that Shelter are actually starting to worry about the unintended consequences of their campaign to abolish “no fault evictions”?
Member Since December 2015 - Comments: 292
10:12 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
Re: A whole year off no letting? I ‘d be happy with that – providing I can get a court order to get the tenants out to start with! Also with a whole year of an empty property that should increase the rents even more when re-let, at least enough to cover the CTAX and utilities for the year when its left empty. Wonder who at Shelter is using the brain cell this week?
As to the perjury threat – there is no such problem to some of these tenants and in all my time in court a judge has never imposed any penalties.
Member Since November 2022 - Comments: 7
10:26 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
What Shelter should concentrate on is teaching tenants to value their tenancy such that evection is the only course left to the LL.
Perhaps if a tenant is evicted for a fault reason such as none payment or other breach of contract and ignoring preventative remedy intervention they too should be barred from holding a tenancy for 12 months.
Apart from sale or personal housing requirements, why ever wound a LL get rid of a good tenant?
Member Since June 2022 - Comments: 41
10:27 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
As a small letting agent, I see many different organisations offering their opinion.
When are the government and associations that landlords pay into going to listen and stand up for the landlords.
It is clear to you and I that these people do not live in the real world.
The only genuine reason a landlord would serve notice is for arrears, ASB or to sell or move back into their property. WHY on earth would landlords evict good tenants. Yet these organisations (do gooders) are poking the bear and the bear will bite back as has been seen with so many landlords selling up. It is the do gooders that have no idea that are making people homeless not decent landlords.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 192 - Articles: 1
10:55 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
Well said Mr Beadle!
Member Since January 2016 - Comments: 297 - Articles: 1
10:59 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
Reply to the comment left by dismayed landlord at 11/07/2023 – 10:12
Tennants will not get punished for perjury. My father 50 years ago said
“How do you know a tennant is lying?
Lips are moving!”
Member Since January 2016 - Comments: 297 - Articles: 1
11:05 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Harjit Mahal at 11/07/2023 – 11:03
“good old days when the government had the means to look after its citizens and private business was just private.”
When were those good old days?
Did they ever exist?
Member Since October 2022 - Comments: 200
11:27 AM, 11th July 2023, About 3 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 11/07/2023 – 10:11
The lack of S21 could ultimately be a huge deterrent to rogue tenants as they will know that the landlord will have no option but to get a court order or CCJ for arrears or suchlike. No LA would house them in future as they are voluntarily homeless and once it is on their credit file, virtually no private landlord or agency is going to touch them with a bargepole either. So they will find it extremely difficult to get a permanent place to live in the future. This should give a landlord good leverage in ensuring reasonable behaviour or negotiating an exit strategy.
Overall, the abolition of S21 is likely to make life harder for tenants.