The Renters’ Rights Bill is not anti-landlord says KC

Reply to the comment left by Michael Crofts at 22/03/2025 – 07:23Michael everything you say is absolutely correct!
The 1988 housing act was a game changer for everyone.
It was a great boost to the economy and an enormous help to tenants.
Tenants suddenly had a lot more choice and they could now happily move anywhere in the country without the worry of not finding a property to rent.
There is nothing in the RRB bill to keep Landlords investing and it could be even worse than it was in the eighties because of the massive burden of compliance and regulation we already have.
I also agree that rents will be regulated because the RRB is giving the tribunals the ability to reduce rents which will come into effect from the dates that they make their determination.

KC ? what’s Kentucky Chicken got to do with the RRB

I believe that Justin Bates has been very effectively brainwashed. The Renters Rights Bill is a solution which disadvantages everyone, including the local authorities.
Just wait to see the chaos when the bill becomes an act.

Reply to the comment left by Stella at 20/03/2025 – 12:01
I did get my property back and I think it was because I hired private investigators who traced an undeclared £50k bank account that the tenants had hidden away whilst pleading poverty and claiming Legal Aid and asking for a council house!
I got an eviction order and they got their council house in spite of their self-evident fraud!
The Law Centre from the local authority supported them all the way even after their fraud was uncovered. They paid for nothing, I paid £20k in costs. The rent was determined by the Rent Tribunal at £160 pw. for a 4 bed flat.
This is what we will be up against once the RRB goes through.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Crofts at 22/03/2025 – 07:23
Fantastic commentary. I’m an old codger too and lived with problem tenants before the introduction of S21. I and agree 100% with the sentiments expressed above. It’s been a good run, time to sell up and move on.
Sadly I’ve issued S21 notices to my 25 tenants while I still can…
The government are building 1.5 million new homes so I’m sure everyone will find an affordable place to live..

Reply to the comment left by Michael Crofts at 22/03/2025 – 07:23

Justin Bates ( aka Bates & Peaker ) author of Fitness for Habitation Act, …
as I said, Landlords need to know who they’re paying money to listen to.

The speakers analysis completely ignores that the Finance sector gets a free pass without any significant responsibilities, however fully enabled by government which decides every three weeks (MPC) what the base interest rates will be. Restricting property owners to making one Section 13 rent change per year means that the risk is with the mortgagee and not at all with the bank.
Any suggestion that this is equitable law that balances rights is ludicrous..

“the government’s main concern with the bill was to right various problems in society, such as the huge number of tenants being evicted, which is putting strain on council finances and the ever-increasing rents”

At what point is a private LL the right person to land this ‘problem in society’ on?

Paying the rent is a ‘problem in society’ if the provision is owned and provided for by the state/taxpayer.

My house isn’t. I own it.

Tenant pays the rent, I don’t evict. Very Simple really.

Reply to the comment left by Cause For Concern at 20/03/2025 – 10:20
let to a tenant who wont be granted LA (is working with own savings/funds), is not eligible to apply for it (no recourse to public funds) or has a guarantor.

GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM, not the solution, and the lawyers profit from their impositions.

Whatever happened to Primary Legislation? Whatever happened to Private Property Rights? Why does someone who enters into a commercial agreement with you have superior rights to your property? This is completely unconstitutional and unlawful. It is an ever-so-gradual further creep into socialism that started decades back.

If .gov have got themselves in a bind because they created the Nanny welfare state, then make them pay for it. If they have made themselves insolvent, then let’s sell off their assets. We could start with the Houses of Parliament. I’m sure some yanks would be keen to turn it into a theme park. They could keep the clowns that already joke about in there.

Also, how about they all have their wages reduced to pay for their welfare-subjects? Oh no, they all have their wages linked to inflation. Who creates inflation? You guessed it. Who pays for the inflation, yep, us. And then they cry “crisis” and say they have to increase the taxes to pay for the increase in costs due to inflation that in turn increases the tax revenue so they can then spend more of what they don’t have, get further into debt, drive more inflation on and then create more taxes.

Or, they just turn us into a socialist state where they control the assets and we just administer them at the threat of fines.

USSK anyone?