Why the Renters Rights Act is a sham akin to agenda led BBC Journalism?

The BBC continues to repeat the government lie that the new legislation will allow landlords to easily evict tenants guilty of ASB.

The guidelines look onerous.

The BBC is a cancer that has spread with far left ideology with its staff.
I respected the BBC until the Iraq war and only then did I realise the fake news agenda. They can cuddle up to the EU, WEF and the rest of the nonsense woke left crazy organisations. But I refuse to watch or listen to any of it.
Watch and listen if you dare but do not take any thing as real or fact.
In my opinion, allegedly.
Free speech dead in the UK because of Labour and Conservatives.

An excellent piece Paul, well done.

I have thought this for many years and I gave up watching nearly all the BBC programmes.

Their wildlife programmes are pretty good!

Good piece, and I agree with much of it except the bit about “The government have incited people against landlords like the BBC has incited people against Trump.”

Whilst the BBC edit was unwise, Trump’s own actions (substitute your own adjective here), incited people very well and did a far better job than the BBC edit.

Paul
I agree with the thrust of your arguments but take issue on one point.
You write: “Whilst popular, the view that good tenants get evicted for no reason lacks credibility, but with biased reporting, the nation was convinced.”
It should be acknowledged that n a few cases, landlords have behaved capriciously, such as evicting because a tenant quite reasonably complained about disrepair or the central heating not working. Not all landlords are decent folk.
In many cases hardship was caused to tenants because they struggled to find money for a new deposit before the old one was repaid and for moving costs. Some had to find new schools for children and lost friendly neighbours. Those tenants felt aggrieved, understandably. They complained vociferously and politicians and the likes of Shelter supported them.
Other tenants who received a s21 for non-payment of rent or antisocial behaviour kept quiet about the reason for eviction when seeking housing from a housing association or the Council.
There was an alternative which wasn’t even considered. I canvassed it on this forum but received zero support. I think it would have gone a long way towards satisfying both sides. My solution was that if the only ground for eviction was s21, the landlord would have to pay the tenant compensation linked to the monthly rent and how long the tenant had been there. Say one month’s rent for up to 2 years, 2 months’ for 2 to 5 years and 3 months’ over that. (Precise figures negotiable). If there were also substantial arrears or damage to the property or ASB then the tenant would not receive the compensation. The judge could decide if the tenant’s conduct merited loss of some or all of the compensation.
My scheme is akin to lease termination of business premises under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 where compensation is payable if the landlord wants to redevelop or wants the property for own occupation.
Under my proposed arrangements, landlords would know they would get possession albeit they might have to pay compensation. Tenants would know they would have to leave but would need to sort out any arrears and remedy damage before the hearing in order to obtain the compensation. This would curtail capricious evictions and probably lead to a compromise with the tenant going quietly with some money in his pocket. Legal fees and stress would have been reduced.
Sadly, neither the Tories nor Labour appear even to have considered this.
The RRA will, I predict as do you, make it harder for tenants, especially those who are just getting by.
To their credit no Tories or Reform MPs voted in favour of the Act. No other MPs voted against it. That said, much of the nasty stuff in the RRA was already in the Renters Reform Bill so many Tories will have objected not to the principle but the timing.
As the saying goes: “Be careful what you wish for.” Shelter have succeeded in their “Section 21 causes homelessness” campaign. They will likely see a substantial rise in clientele in the near future. The Act is lose-lose for everyone.

I stopped watching many BBC programmes, which is a shame because it used to be the best broadcaster. Now it is too woke and there is far too much lazy journalism.

An excellent article Paul.

Considered, articulate and showing a far greater level of appreciation and understanding of the inevitable repercussions, than any of those involved in bringing this in have acknowledged or seem capable of understanding, unfortunately.

Reply to the comment left by Freda Blogs at 20/11/2025 – 12:46
Yes with Trump.the BBC changed the narrative to exaggerate a view they held.

For landlords the BBC and the Government and Shelter have gone a long way to avoid seeking evidence that would corroborate or disprove the claims that landlords were evicting thousands of people for no reason. Instead these organisations have colluded on an agenda for the wholesale punishing of landlords.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 20/11/2025 – 14:33
Ian – yes – if anyone puts anyone to out of contract costs or distress they should have a claim. Your solution would cover some cases. I think you are saying there needs to be a way of improving a rental grievance process that works for both tenants and landlords.