Why Property118 Is Changing Its Tone

Ground 7 for possession

I have just been reading through the latest guidelines and looked at Ground 7.

This looks scary as it allows automatic succession if a person lived with the tenant before they died (no requirement to be on the contract it seems) – what evidence would be sufficient to prove that they didn’t?

I completely agree that trying to fight the system is futile. Authorities have the legal weapons; landlords are unarmed.

However we should not pretend that we think the government’s latest and most dramatic housing market reforms are right when we know them not to be so. Nor deny that housing professionals ignored by government accurately predicted what will become clear in two or three year’s time.

Rents will rise more steeply. This is inevitable when supply is reduced as landlords flee the costly burden of proving their innocence.

Homelessness will rise. Instead of avoiding court action by just complying with the soon-to-be obsolete Section 21 process and moving on, defaulting tenants under Section 8 must go to court, and will get a County Court Judgement against them. Who will house them now?

Not only that, but a Section 8 eviction is classed as voluntary homelessness, because the tenant chose not to pay the rent. So unlike a Section 21 eviction, councils will have no legal obligation to re-house.

Prosecution of rogue landlords won’t “level the playing field” – good landlords aren’t even in the same game. These people are prepared to disguise ownership, claim they are letting to a family member, forge documents, use ‘friendly’ contractors, and doubtless deploy other dodges to evade regulatory capture.

The government has given local councils more cash-raising discretion, then squeezed their budgets so that they have to use it. Examples include doubling landlord council tax by claiming temporarily void property is a second home, and encouraging the imposition of ‘selective licensing’.

Often initiated on unproven allegations of ‘local problems’, selective licensing is actually an effective means of compiling a national landlord register by stealth. Councils claim no money is made, as licence fees simply pay for running costs.

However, fines are never ring-fenced, and if all goes to plan these will more than offset governmental grant cuts. Heralded as safety-critical, faults attracting fines could be a simple oversight such as the lack of an accurate floor plan or a literal error that endangered nobody.

So let’s not play dumb. Indeed, now more than ever we must act smart by maintaining full compliance – or suffer the consequences.

Reply to the comment left by Richard Dean at 18/11/2025 – 16:50
I agree. I frequently used philosophy I have is “plan on how things are likely to be not how you’d like them to be”

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to comment so far. Reading through all three pages has been genuinely energising. The honesty, intelligence and practical thinking you have all brought to the discussion is exactly why this community matters and why this shift in tone feels worthwhile.

I want to highlight Slooky in particular. Your comment stood out for me because it was not just reacting to the article. It was building on it. You asked for specific, practical, investigative pieces: clarity on grants for EPC upgrades that seem almost mythical in practice, the reality behind HMRC’s “free” bridging software, how to challenge double council tax for furnished long-term lets, and a deeper look at the pension gap landlords operate within. These are subjects that genuinely help landlords take action, and your list is the perfect example of how readers can shape the next phase of Property118.

Paul Essex, you set the early tone by calling for fewer sensational headlines and more fact-led reporting on contracts, tribunals and the practicalities of the Renters Reform changes as they land. Then, on the final page, you raised the alarm on Ground 7 and its implications around succession. Both contributions speak to the value of detailed, grounded analysis, and they’re exactly the kind of prompts we need.

Jo Westlake, your EPC story was an important moment in the thread. You reminded everyone that not all outcomes are negative and that proper documentation, evidence and a skilled assessor can completely change the picture. Stories like yours give people confidence and perspective.

Richard Dean, your final-page comment was powerful. You spoke plainly about the consequences of current policy, the reality of reduced supply, the rising risk of homelessness, the difference between Section 21 and Section 8 outcomes, and the growing financial pressures from councils. You also highlighted the uncomfortable truth that good landlords and rogue operators are not even playing the same game. It was a clear, unvarnished but thoughtful contribution.

Graeme, your comments reinforced the need for fact-based reporting and the value of clear communication. The reminder to “plan for how things are likely to be, not how you want them to be” fits perfectly with where Property118 is trying to go.

A number of you also spoke candidly about tone, mental fatigue and the emotional load created by constant negative coverage.
Nicole Livingstone-Smith, Elizabeth Arnold and Brian Edwards, thank you for being so honest about how close you came to unsubscribing. It matters. The message was heard.

Brian and Dawn, your comment about selling one property, managing CGT, and wanting clarity on how to operate a smaller portfolio in a tougher environment is exactly the kind of guidance we want to develop.

Suspicious Steve, Sheridan Vickers, Mick Roberts, TheMaluka and DPT, all of you reminded us that positivity cannot mean glossing over real pressure. Licensing costs, huge fines, discrimination by councils, unfair fee structures, and flawed systems all need to be addressed, but in a way that brings clarity rather than despair. Your comments help keep that balance grounded.

Private Housing Provider (Alan), Downsize Government, Jack Jennings, JenB, Adam and others — thank you for adding your perspectives, encouragement, concerns and questions. Each one adds shape to the direction this community wants.

What stands out most in all of this is not agreement. It is the quality of thought. People here are not speaking from panic or slogans. They are speaking from lived experience, real portfolios, real numbers and real frustrations. That is exactly why improving the tone matters: not to sugar-coat reality, but to make space for clear thinking and practical ideas.

This conversation is not finished. It is only just getting started.

If you have more thoughts, challenges, questions or ideas for future articles, please keep adding them. This thread has already shown how valuable it is when landlords with real experience speak plainly. The more perspectives we hear, the more useful the site becomes for everyone.

Let’s keep this going. You are shaping the direction as much as we are.

Well done Mark for providing such a useful and professional platform in the first place!

My long-term (housing benefit) tenant moved out in Summer, and as the property is some distance from where I live, I decided that the best option would be to sell it.
Unfortunately, this has coincided with buyers hesitating due to uncertainty around the Renters Rights Act and the budget, and the mass sell off by landlords who have had enough, so there has been very little interest from potential buyers.
Rather than drop the price, and drop it again and again, to try and catch the buyers, I’m going to change strategy.
I’m going to divide the one bedroom flat into two letting rooms, and then let it as a shared flat, with each tenant liable to pay 50% of the rent. This will then be affordable to both tenants, even if they are in receipt of welfare benefits, (as 50% of the total market rent will be lower than the individual LHA rate). – This enables two people to be housed instead of one person, and both to be housed at affordable rents (within the LHA benefit rate), and with affordable utility bills.
It also benefits the Local Council, as it gets two single people housed, at minimum cost to the Council, thus saving money for both local and central government (and ultimately, the taxpayers).
As a “shared flat”, not a HMO, it would be let on one tenancy agreement. Ideal tenants for this type of shared house/flat letting would be close relatives (e.g. parent and adult child), or two friends.

Hopefully, this idea may help a few other landlords in a similar situation.

Agree wholeheartedly, in fact I criticised 118 articles over the tabloid approach ages ago.
Inform and provide thoughts for remedy.
Thank you.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander – Founder of Property118 at 17/11/2025 – 19:16
I am so pleased Mark – I’d only said to Dale yesterday that I needed to stop reading Property118 as it only causes me stress and upset – and I was amused that you’d used the expression from my years old profile pic (my Chicken-Licken and the sky falling down picture dates right back to our West Brom days) to illustrate your change of direction!
Very welcome news

Just looking at the comments. Hey Mark Alexander, you’re on a roll!

Reply to the comment left by Richard at 18/11/2025 – 08:32
it is very very quiet on that front. Even on LinkedIn the usual property experts have a lot of information and training, but nothing about students.