What is the purpose of prescribed information and why doesn’t the Renters’ Rights Act fix it?

Landlords will know that once a deposit is placed in the Deposit Protection Scheme (DPS), the landlord is under a countdown of 30 days to provide prescribed information.

The prescribed information appears totally pointless. It appears to add zero value, worthless paperwork for paperwork’s sake. Yet the DPS states the landlord can be fined up to three times the deposit for not filling out this pointless document.

Does anyone know what the purpose of this document is and why it is not already covered by the tenancy agreement?

If it is pointless, millions of landlords are wasting time when life is already too short. Does any of the Property118 community know how this can be challenged?

At the same time, the private rental sector is shrinking, and LHA rates continue to fall short of actual market rents, leaving many good tenants at risk of losing out on housing.

Landlords are rightly becoming more picky in who they can accept, but the government have failed to recognise landlords can already legally refuse social tenants on an affordability basis, regardless of what the government say.

After all, the banks have been doing this for years by refusing to offer adequate mortgages to people on benefits. Why does the government think a discrimination policy will address affordability issues?

Since landlords will be unable to distinguish between good social tenants and bad ones many will not take the risk. Having tried to help many tenants, some are abusive and difficult and play the system, but with social tenants, the landlord is unlikely to see and redress.

I had a lettings agent as a tenant who repeatedly told court hearings the heating didn’t work when it was under warranty and state-of-the-art, she prevented access to the property and I was left totally powerless to resolve. The system took two years to evict her and I was left in thousands of pounds in rent arrears. I did seek a court order and recovered the money.

The changes to the law do nothing to help landlords who find themselves with a bad tenant. Many posts here indicate landlords feel the same. Further, where there are difficult tenants, the government has ensured the psychological burden placed on landlords will be increased. In delaying the point at which legal action can begin for rent arrears.

All tenants can now have three months free rent without the risk of being taken to court. They can leave with thousands of pounds of debt, and this will go unknown to other prospective landlords. They can make nefarious and vexatious claims that will go unnoticed by other landlords. I can only think the people behind current policy have not experienced a bad tenant.

There needs to be a balance and fair rental system that provides J4L – justice for landlords and justice for tenants and addresses grievances of landlords and tenants.

The government policy will likely see a rise in homelessness with an incline to refuse social tenants. Social families that would have found PRS accommodation will likely end up under pressure in high-cost temporary accommodation. Councils will complain about the homeless cost burden.

J4L calls for critical success criteria where government expectations are measured against reality and the people involved in damaging decisions are held to account and prevented from repeating their mistakes.

Can the Property118 community come up with success criteria from the Renters’ Rights Act?

I would suggest:

1. Increase in council temporary accommodation costs and numbers.
2. Increase in Section 8 evictions and CCJs.
3. Measure of court times from initiation to eviction.

Thanks for reading,

Paul