Why Matthew Pennycook is wrong about the Renters’ Rights Act?

Yep, we evicted a benefits tenant on S21 , rent arrears, social misbehaving, druggie. Sold after this experience. Wouldn’t ever take that risk again even tho the Government paid us directly.

Next move by this government will be to ensure we are back to the 1950/60s with sitting tenants and unsaleable properties. Get this dreadful government out.

Obviously as the great physicist Sir Isaac Newton said so many years ago, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And as the chemist le Chatelier said, if you unbalance an equilibrium, it will move in such a way as to minimise the effect of the change.

So landlords will react by being far more proactive about dealing with issues like rent arrears, either by rigorous vetting to avoid subprime tenants in the first place, or by meticulously keeping evidence and acting at the first sign of trouble, issuing formal notices of arrears instead of informal ones, and beginning proceedings at the earliest possible date instead of taking time to try to help the tenant or negotiate with them.

And things like annual rent rises and maximising returns will become the norm rather than the exception. So the disgraceful stereotype of the “greedy landlord” will become true by necessity rather than by choice.

A section 21 was a “no reason given” end of a fixed term tenancy but everyone allowed the organisations like Shelter to coin a phrase implying that landlords were at fault.
There obviously were reasons for ending agreements under S21 which will now be laid bare, reasons which will probably keep problem renters from private or social housing. This might have been good news except the court system we have to pay for has delays of many months costing thousands which will not be recoverable in most cases. This is why the comments that “good landlords have nothing to fear” is naive or dishonest.

Yes it’s disingenuous to suggest landlords have nothing to worry about when laws are tightened for all landlords and we will be further penalised for tenants who don’t pay due rent. Maybe delusional on behalf of the government certainly damaging for the rental market.

As we said no landlord will ever evict a good tenant except if the family needed the extra accommodation or upgrading. If this dreadful RRB is not scrapped then the landlords should contribute to challenge this law in court of law to ask what rights does anyone have over your investment to take away all the control ? Apart from general taxes etc. Any judge will think that after the successful eviction why can’t you re rent the property to reduce the countries renters burden on the country. It appears the law encourages to people sit back do not invest or take risk and slow the economy to no point of return or equivalent to third world country. This is a dreadful act should be scrapped immediately to encourage investment ?(which if government can’t do it then who can the question they need to ask themselves? )and make uk to be attractive place to invest. Or carry on with doom and gloom..

Joe

Reply to the comment left by David at 06/05/2026 – 10:52
The iPaper just carried an article with a story about a retired policeman who gets more from his holiday let than he gets from his police pension:

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/property-and-mortgages/get-holiday-let-police-pension-4393070

So that’s not some ghetto landlord or the Duke of Westminster with an enormous property portfolio…it’s an ex public sector worker who invested in property and now uses it to supplement his public sector pension. In this case that’s as a holiday let so he doesn’t have the problem of trying to evict a non-paying tenant. Over the last decade we have seen a succession of government ministers coming through the revolving door of the housing ministry who have made providing buy-to-let accommodation to long-term tenants much less attractive than providing short-term holiday lets. And it’s not just the rich who invest, it’s often small landlords trying to supplement a pension, as is the case with this story.

Although Matthew Pennycook says that the government is investing in the courts to ensure that landlords who have tenants that don’t pay, don’t look after the property, or exhibit antisocial behaviour can be got rid of, the truth is that this just HASN’T HAPPENED YET. This government is full of empty promises. For many landlords, short-term holiday lets will still be more attractive than the possibility of having a tenant that they can’t evict because the courts are overwhelmed and can’t deal with them.

Matthew Pennycook hasn’t made the situation any better yet and the chances are that he isn’t going to be around long enough to make any difference.

The parties, ministers and leaders who aren’t completely nuts are the ones who aren’t talking about introducing rent controls.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 08/05/2026 – 12:18
But the important point for councils and the Government is that councils will NOT be obliged to house tenants evicted under S8 because they became vVOLUNTARILY homeless – it is their fault they were evicted (rent arrears etc), whereas under S21 the council was obliged to house them because they were involuntarily evicted – through no fault of their own

Most landlords aren’t “profiteers” — they’ve invested personal taxed income, taken the risk, paid the tax, and carry the mortgage, repairs, and compliance.
When rent stops, they can’t just shrug; they absorb the loss.
So yes, hard-working landlords have plenty to worry about under laws that make possession slower and more costly.

Reply to the comment left by Ben Beadles Alter Ego at 09/05/2026 – 11:03
According to this government landlords are not working people.