Three quarters of landlords have hiked rents or will do so soon

Totally agree, but no one is listening 👂 to us or really changing direction, Labour certainly won’t 😳

D Duck. I couldn’t agree more. Could say more but have summed it up perfecto.

Like Simon I totally agree too. I've been in the business a little less than you but feel exactly the same, though plan a slower timescale. If tenants move on then I'll sell, otherwise I'll look to dispose of the portfolio over the next few years.

I was talking to another landlord yesterday who has a respectable portfolio but he's planning on starting to sell too. 'Tsunami' seems an appropriate word with the wave of homelessness that's coming. The councils are struggling now but they 'ain't seen nuthing yet'

As of about a month ago all tenants are entitled to NON MEANS TESTED legal aid when faced with eviction. Perhaps they can see what’s coming!

For those still wondering the free legal aid does only apply to tenants all paid for by us. Landlords are surprising not included and pay all of their own costs. Strangely we can still offset our legal costs. When will that be abolished?

Like D Duck, I used not to increase rents mid-tenancy, even for long ones.
But that ended with the Tenants Fee Ban.
Someone had to pay for the services those fees used to be charged for: the agents weren't going to, and neither was I.

An unintended consequence: long term tenants had rent increases, but usually did not generate work the fees used to be charged for.
They effectively subsidised the shorter term tenants who caused the work the fees used to be charged for.

I expect lots more unintended consequences from the RRB when enacted.
Many of these Govt. are being warned about.

With RRB proposals on rent increases, I'll have to start increasing more regularly.

I was a tenant several times several decades ago (student and couple of early jobs before I could buy): pleased I am not one now.

Sums it up for me also. Have just got my property back after after just over a year of having a non paying tenant. Two court appearances and a wait of almost 4 months for bailiffs to evict this tenant, with no chance of getting any rent back....not a penny.
What does the Government then do, well they put their big foot on my neck to squeeze whatever else they can from me.
With the housing crisis you'd think they would invest in me to get the house ready to re-let.
We now live in strange times!

One of the best comments on here, ever.
Sums it up perfectly.

Hi Tricia.
I am going to put mine up by 25% next year and I will still be below the current level.
Compassion and loyalty has nothing do with it anymore, as we are still looked upon as 'greedy landlords" and I, for one, won't be losing any sleep over it.
The Welsh so-called government have shafted landlords, with their leftish politics.
If a tenant decides to leave then I will attempt to sell the property and if that's not possible then I will be charging the full going rent to newcomers.

Agree Pat.
The time for rewarding loyalty has long passed.

I started this year, it will continue every April going forward.

But we are 'greedy landlords',so we are not supposed to be compared with these businesses.

I have good tenants too George and have never increased the rent for an existing tenant in over 30 years of being a landlord. However, times have changed and I am just hitting my tenants with a 33% increase WEF January next and that will still be a lot below what local agents claim they can get for my property. Three reasons for such a large increase..
1, They went in Nov. 2019 on a modest rent hoping to buy the property from me during the following 12 months but Covid killed that for them.
2, I dare not risk the government, that is so anti landlord, imposing a rent freeze when my rent was so modest.
3, If I sold the property and invested the money in year 6% bonds, I could get just as much income without any grief and that is even after paying a very substantial CG Tax bill.
My tenants are aware of these reasons for the large increase and chose to stay because it is still a reasonable rent for the property and this is a fact, not more twaddle
George, although most of the times I agree with your comments.

Like most things in life, most ‘rights’ including housing whether purchase or rent are ‘earned rights’. Earning = working for, paying for.
You need to rethink and question your delusion.

A JR, I suggest you take your issue up with the European court of human rights. Unfortunately I don't have that kind of sway. Good luck.

Do you mean Tesco not allowing thieves to steal food?

Of course not, but there's a good chance they're stealing food because their rent has been hiked by 500%. Homes are not for profit, in the same way that water shouldn't be. Because without a home, every single other part of your life will be stalled. That's why access to a safe and secure home is a basic human right. Just about anyone who can pay rent can afford a mortgage.

Housing may be a human right, though I thought it was actually shelter rather than housing.
Whether housing of shelter is a right, that doesn't mean the PRS has to provide it. And if we can't charge enough to make it economically viable then we won't bother.

If basing income on charging people for housing is wrong, then there is no point in the PRS (and other housing providers like the state, housing Associations and charities) still charge rents to keep them operating.

Perhaps food and water is also a basic human right. In which case Tesco, the Coop et al shouldn't base their income on charging and instead make it free.

Reminds me of Generation Rant during the pandemic: wanting free rentals like they wouldn't get free food.
Economic illiteracy.

James, go and see what other countries do, especially their Governments. They reward Landlord's to be Landlord's. This results in cheaper rents. Our Government are doing the opposite and necessitating rents to rise drastically.
Yes some Landlords are greedy and yes some do not follow though on their obligations, but this is the minority in the same way that most tenants are good tenants.
What is happening currently is bad for all of us invested here and as such the private Landlord will disappear, not a good scenario for obvious reasons.

I don't see it as a basic human right. Lions don't feed and house other lions other than their own family. Snakes, seagulls, dolpins are all the same. They don't sit on their bottom claiming Universal Credit, Housing Benefit, Legal Aid and all of the other nonsense.

People should house themselves. For the people that don't landlords will do it at a cost. Don't want to pay? That's fine - goodbye and good luck.

We need more properties and less people. That's the answer.

These are the human rights as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, note the right to own property and the right to freedom from state interference in that right:

Article 1 Right to Equality
Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Article 4 Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Article 6 Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
Article 7 Right to Equality before the Law
Article 8 Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
Article 15 Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It
Article 16 Right to Marriage and Family
Article 17 Right to Own Property
Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Article 21 Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
Article 22 Right to Social Security
Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure
Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard
Article 26 Right to Education
Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 also protects against state interference in your possessions. These are the rights in that act:

The right to life: protects your life, by law. The State is required to investigate suspicious deaths and deaths in custody.

The prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment: you should never be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way, no matter what the situation.

Protection against slavery and forced labour: you should not be treated like a slave or subjected to forced labour.

The right to liberty and freedom: you have the right to be free and the State can only imprison you with very good reason – for example, if you are convicted of a crime.

The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law: you are innocent until proven guilty. If accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you in a court of law.

Respect for privacy and family life and the right to marry: protects against unnecessary surveillance or intrusion into your life. You have the right to marry and enjoy family relationships.

Freedom of thought, religion and belief: you can believe what you like and practise your religion or beliefs.

Free speech and peaceful protest: you have a right to speak freely and join with others peacefully, to express your views.

No discrimination: everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, disability, sexuality, religion or age.

Protection of property: protects against state interference with your possessions.

The right to an education: means that no child can be denied an education.

The right to free elections: elections must be free and fair.

There is no right to have housing.

Ellie, could landlords bring a human rights challenge against the government over the RRB do you think?

I am not certain, Nick. The state may be found to be interfering with the right to property through excessive or arbitrary controls.

However, the second paragraph of Protocol 1, Article 1 of the European Convention says that the State is entitled to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest..."

In determining the amount of permissible interference with the right to property the European Court of Human Rights distinguishes between types of interference. It applies closer scrutiny to interferences involving deprivation than to those involving control alone.

Ellie, I asked Bard "could landlords use the Human Rights Act to challenged the Renters Reform Bill?" Whilst not always accurate it's response was:

Landlords could potentially use the Human Rights Act to challenge the Renters Reform Bill, but it is unlikely that such a challenge would be successful.

The Human Rights Act (HRA) incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The ECHR protects a number of fundamental rights, including the right to property. Landlords could argue that the Renters Reform Bill infringes their right to property by making it more difficult for them to evict tenants, even if those tenants are in breach of their tenancy agreements.

However, the HRA does not give landlords an absolute right to property. The government can interfere with property rights if it has a legitimate aim for doing so and if the interference is proportionate to that aim. The government has stated that the Renters Reform Bill is necessary to protect the rights of tenants and to create a fairer private rented sector. It is likely that the courts would find that these are legitimate aims and that the interference with landlords' property rights is proportionate.

In addition, the HRA allows the government to derogate from certain human rights, including the right to property, in certain circumstances. The government could argue that it is necessary to derogate from the right to property in order to implement the Renters Reform Bill. This is because the bill is designed to protect the rights of a large number of people (tenants) and to improve the overall fairness of the private rented sector.

It is important to note that the Renters Reform Bill is still in its early stages and has not yet been enacted into law. It is possible that the bill will be amended before it becomes law, which could address some of the concerns of landlords.

Overall, it is unlikely that landlords would be successful in challenging the Renters Reform Bill under the Human Rights Act. However, it is possible that they could mount a legal challenge on other grounds, such as arguing that the bill is discriminatory or that it infringes their right to a fair trial.

The only point I would make is that the Renters Reform legislation may not be in the general interest of tenants because it is reducing the supply of housing available to them and consequently leading to increased rents.

Not according to Michael Gove in the commons debate last week. He said there was "no evidence" of that (of landlord selling).

I don't want to be without S21 having to gather evidence for people like that who don't want to recognise anything!

Good evidence would have to be obtained/gathered if there were a human rights challenge by landlords under Article 1 on the grounds that government contols in the RRB were harming tenants by leading to increased rent and reduced supply - so that those legislative provisions in the RRB were not justified control of the owners' properties.

It would have to be better than Michael Gove's evidence.

There is the historical evidence - data and statistics - showing how small the private rental sector was when the Rent Acts were in force because landlords could not get their properties back once they had let them.

At the moment, many landlords are still biding their time, but what will happen is predictable from the past.

So James are you lazy and expecting a free ride through life ? sounds like it. hope you end up sleeping in shop door ways where your kind belong

Actually the same Human Rights argument could apply to additional licensing.

The controls on the landlords' properties are not justified because they are leading to tenants having to pay more rent; previously a two double bedroom flat could have been occupied by three or four people - and now it may only be legally let to two people so obviously each tenant has to pay more even if the rent is the same as it was years ago.

While you didn't say it originally, you now appear to be okay with charging rent, as long as there's no profit.
Which means there would have to be enough charities etc to fill the void left by the PRS.

Would they get enough funding to do so? Though the supposed tenant helping charities could always use their donations to actually house people rather than attack landlords.

I caught out Crisis telling complete untruths. Should have reported them to the Charity Commission (may still do so, as their 'excuse' showed they were LLD bashing).

James

Whilst there's not a magic money tree, some food and building materials ( wood) grows on trees so I am sure you could become self-sufficient and not rely on charity from others if you wanted to do so.

Basic human rights are not free they have to be paid for James

What does 'access to a safe and secure home is a basic human right' mean? Does that mean a homeless person can get accommodation with no money? Who pays for it? Sounds like communism, the government pays for all accommodation, gives you a free home but tells you where to live and work and everyone pays higher taxes.

John - James is an Acorn tenant's union disciple. so communism is exactly where he is at!

I've got nothing to do with acorn "nick", they're as useless as you.

James, I wish you would direct your anger towards the government. If the PRS was less restrictive and landlords could make decent money then the PRS would grow. This would give tenants much more power by being able to vote with their feet. If the rents were too high, or the property was in poor condition, you could just choose a different property and the landlord would have to improve or quit.

Don't forget landlords and tenants both need each other.

Interesting that you mention high levels of damage. Who do you let to?
I have very little damage most years. Student houses usually come back somewhere between very good and immaculate. One room this year had a lot of soot damage from candles and joss sticks but that was the first real damage for years.
Young professionals usually leave their rooms pretty good. Maybe a bit of dust behind the bed or on top of the wardrobe.
A long stay family house will probably need fully redecorating but it's not frequent if it's long stay.

Candles are probably the biggest problem and I'm amazed most standard tenancy agreements don't have a specific clause about their usage. It always worries me when I see candles or tea lights in any of my houses .

I am really worried about candles, too.

There was a large ornate multiple candle holder left in the flat when I inherited it. I left it in the front garden and I was glad that it was taken away.