Telegraph needs landlord feedback on Renters Reform Bill please – Article Written

Reply to TheBiggerPicture:
"What the Government does not seem to understand is that landlords and tenants are not enemies, they are partners in a mutual agreement. They need each other." This sums up the situation in a nutshell. As I have posted on here before, a person cannot be a tenant without a landlord being willing to offer accommodation. Yes, landlords need tenants and tenants need landlords, but landlords can put their money elsewhere if the contract becomes too one-sided and the returns are no longer worth the stress, risks and responsibility of letting. The woud-be tenant, however, has nowhere else to turn. Ths is what has been happening with recent government meddling in what was a functioning (though not perfect) market. By pandering to left-wing influencers who are fundamentally opposed to what they categorise as "rentierism" and calculating that since there are more tenants than landlords it is advantageous to appeal to that majority the powers that be have done inestimable damage to renters, who would be unlikely to vote for them anyway, while alienating the landlords who would be their natural supporters. The 1988 Housing Act was brought in because there were only 8% of the population in privately rented accommodation and insufficient social housing. Council housing was too expensive to maintain and being sold off under the right to buy so the plan was to stimulate the PRS. We are in danger of returning to that former dire state of affairs only now it will be worse because home ownership is out of reach for a greater proportion of the population.

Reply to the comment left by Alan Veal at 16/06/2022 - 16:54
I agree with this. At the moment we are seeing almost double digit inflation across Europe.

The introduction of the EICR regulations raised costs (massively for many of us); if you had tenants in a property it just gave electricians and property management companies the right to write a blank cheque against your property to 'remedy' matters that were not a significant risk, unlike for example gas installations where carbon monoxide is a significant risk. The cost of improvements to improve the EPC rating seems to be the next thing on the horizon. But you can't offset capex against your revenue expenditure; there are no grants that come close to paying for the cost of doing it all. All that you can do is raise rents to cover the finance; if that is you can get the finance. Whatever happened to climate change? £5-6K to stick in a ground source or air source heat pump, but only if you're prepared to disconnect from the gas supply? With thousands in on-costs and less energy security as a consequence and you can't deduct the costs from your rents? And if you put the capex in you might not now be able to get your investment back because the tenants have been given "rights" over your investment? You're dreaming...and you're delusional.

Everything that's out there at the moment for a private landlord raises both cost *and* risk. Interest rates rising, restrictions on finance, higher insurance costs, higher maintenance costs often for no benefit to either landlord or tenant; it all raises risks both for landlords and financial services companies. So as a landlord to mitigate your risk you raise the rent (I just did).

You are only allowed a 5 week deposit (it used to be 6). Clearly a tenant needs to have vacated a property for a few days before you can see whether they have done any damage or not. Anything that's done to attack the deposit (it's not the tenant's deposit, it's a deposit that's there to protect the landlord and incentivise the tenant to look after the property) also raises risk for you as the landlord. If there are no consequences for the tenant from not looking after your property many aren't going to bother. That increases maintenance costs and the length of void periods when you are trying to get the property back in order. That creates risk. The only thing you can do is to raise rent.

The law does not permit you to send the tenant an invoice for anything, even if it's wilful damage or neglect. All that you can do is to raise the rent.

Faced with escalating risk the only thing you can do as a landlord is:

(1) Raise the rent.
(2) Sell - probably to someone else who will raise the rent particularly if they are big incorporated landlords that have all their ducks in a row.
(3) If like the majority of landlords you have a small portfolio evict your tenants and move a family member back in to your property.

(1) is directly inflationary. (2) and (3) contribute to inflation by exacerbating the shortage of rental properties, which also raises rents and therefore is indirectly inflationary. The bank of England raising interest rates is also inflationary and feeds back in to the vicious circle of rising costs, rates, rents and risk.

The Rental Reform Bill is inflationary. Just how much inflation does the government want?

I had a bad experience with carpet fleas, too, and vowed not to have pets ever again...

Plus, all my properties are flats, which generally are not suited to pets.

And the 999 yr lease usually states no pets allowed, or only with the man co's / freeholder's consent, which they often withhold, anyway, so how will this be overcome??

Not too bothered about the periodic tenancies, as mine generally move onto those, anyway.. Worried about no minimum term, tho, as expressed by others.

Re the EPC requirements, many of mine are listed buildings, so will be interesting to hear the proposals on those.

All in all, not good..!

Hey Melissa

Landlords being demonised to gain political favour nevers ends well. The common theme is most landlords are exiting or looking to. At a time when we are needed the most we are being ostracised.
1. Pets we for example state not allowed. Even with this stipulated many tenants ha e abused this and resulted in costs which we could not recover. For example pets peeing on new carpets and when they left we had to replace perfectly good carpet. Now to be told this will not help in any way
2. Section 21 abolition means it becomes very hard to get our properties back from bad tenants. Putting the risk and costs on us. Why else would we want to remove a tenant unless they keep repeatedly breaking agreements and in arrears
3. It's all getting too political and risky for any Landlord. Time to exit what I felt was going to be our retirement income.

Shame on this government and other political parties are no better we feel.

Reply to the comment left by Jiten Karia at 18/06/2022 - 16:56
Also to add having to take on benefits tenants is a no go . They have always historically been the worst payers and create the most damage. I know this is not politically correct but it's the fact.

I wish landlords had a union and the ability to strike.
The NLRA doesn't speak up for landlords it is not effective as it has no power.

The only option a landlord has is to accept the changes or sell up.

None of the changes catch the illegal landlords with poor quality housing, as they are already getting away with ignoring the rules.

The ones that suffer are the tenants that will have less availability of rentals, and higher rents and the consciencous landlords that try to comply with everything, see their profits eroded and the risk factors increase. It is forcing the small "good" landlords away

I advertised one of my 8 buy-to-let properties in Folkestone and received 52 replies. The market has changed compared to when I last advertised a year ago. Market rent has gone up about 10% and there are many more people finding it very difficult to find accommodation. Those on benefits hardly have a chance - housing benefits do not cover the rent and there is an abundance of candidates with a better financial position.

This rental reform bill is without doubt the worst thing that could happen to the PRS. I can see an even bigger exodus of landlords this time around.

I have had rental properties for 20 years and have sold all but one since the penal tax changes brought in recently but have been happy to keep one to date. The proposed S21 changes together with the ill thought out pet rules make it untenable for anyone to have rental properties in the PRS.

It beggars belief who could think up such a devastating impact on mostly young people who have to rent. You can imagine the civil servants sitting there justifying their useless jobs thinking up these moronic conditions whilst sucking up to Shelter.

Sadly it all just means less and less rental properties for the genuinely good tenants and higher and higher rents.

I've had housing benefit folk before, and unless the rent is paid direct to the landlord, the tenants tend to spend it and not pay in full, or indeed at all.

I was once told by the Council that it helps them look after their finances and engender an element of self-esteem, if it's paid to them, but in my case, it just meant that I had to go without most of the rent, and the tenant left with large arrears!

I too used to have mainly housing benefit tenants in the 1990's. Rent paid direct to the landlord (occasionally a top up because the house had an extra room).
They used to be my preferred tenant, as at least the majority of the rent was guaranteed.
Now they are not excluded from my property, but they would be lower down on my choice list because the rent is no longer guaranteed, and the housing allowance is too easily spent by the tenant instead of paying rent