A newspaper report claims that some Conservative MPs are unhappy at the anti-landlord tone of the Renters Reform Bill which is due to be published this week.
Using unnamed sources the online-only newspaper i says: “A group of Conservative backbenchers – some of whom are landlords and, according to Westminster sources, reportedly include the former chairman of national estate agency chain Hunters, Kevin Hollinrake – are unhappy about the pro-renter legislation and have been lobbying against it.”
But it continues: “The bill has the support of No 10 and concerns about whether landlords will still be able to evict tenants for anti-social behaviour or rent arrears have been calmed by [Housing Secretary Michael] Gove, according to sources close to the draft legislation.”
On the other side of the argument, but also on the Conservative benches, is Natalie Elphicke MP, who has previously called for a private sector rent freeze in England, similar to that in Scotland.
She told i that she will be scrutinising the legislation to make sure it goes far enough to protect renters. “I still think there’s a question over whether or not renters should be given some compensation to help with the cost of moving if they are evicted because a landlord is making a commercial decision [to sell]. I’ll be looking very closely to see [what the bill] does achieve in terms of effective change and protection for renters.”
Timothy Douglas, head of policy and campaigns at industry body, Propertymark, says: “This announcement and the long-awaited introduction of legislation from the UK government to reform the private rented sector in England will help bring much needed clarity for letting agents and their landlords.
“The legislation is likely to focus on improving standards and the quality of property in the sector so Propertymark will be scrutinising the proposals, pushing for amendments where necessary and championing the role of letting agents to ensure the reforms are workable and fit for purpose.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
/GregClark-400x310.png)
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Well they never should have let Lefties near the drafting of such legislation. Should have kept them isolated where they could mess up less crucial areas then housing. Areas like legislation on litter picking, recycling, rubbish collection etc.
Who is Elphicke to suggest landlords should pay compensation to landlords just to get their own property back? Is she another Labour mole? I don’t get paid compensation when I return a hire car.
The Tories made interest rates rocket. Are they paying us compensation? Who’s freezing my maintenance costs?
I would far prefer to keep Section 21 even if there was the requirement to pay up to 2 months rent as compensation if you need to evict long term tenants in order to sell. You only sell a property once. Over the many years of ownership dozens of tenants will have come and gone. Most landlords will choose to wait until a tenant leaves before trying to sell so it's only the few that really need to sell that would be affected anyway.
The vast majority of tenants vacate of their own accord. No one is going to stay in a house just on the off chance the landlord may decide to sell at some point in the next couple of decades.
There will still be fault based evictions with no compensation due. As long as Section 8 is made fit for purpose most evictions would be fault based. In reality 2 months rent would be a bargain compared to some of the loses incurred in contentious evictions currently.
If you have a good long term tenant who has looked after your property, maintained or enhanced it's value, reliably paid rent on time why would you want them to be out of pocket just because you suddenly decide to sell? Losing their home will be devastating. To leave them £'00s out of pocket due to moving costs, etc is just barbaric.
Jo, I think it is difficult to prove fault. With my infamous Nigerians I have had mould. We all know the difficulties with proving tenant lifestyle and condensation etc. From what I can think off it's easy to prove 1) late payment of rent which no one but the landlord cares about and 2) non-payment which the landlord really cares about. Politicians are becoming increasingly less interested in this (i.e. in Scotland. Lisa Nandy here also thinks people shouldn't automatically lead to eviction. It's becoming a scrounger's charter.)
TBH I would trade keeping S21 for a small multiple of month's rent for compensation. But I don't want to sell my properties just to get rid of troublesome tenants. It's a red line to have to sell AND PAY THEM COMPENSATION when they are the route cause of the S21 being issued in the first place.
Wonder if Mr Elphicke is still enjoying free board and lodging at the King's pleasure?
Perhaps there's a case for paying compensation to hard working tax payers from some nearer to her own home?
Paying tenants compensation to get them out in order to sell your property. What a joke. What next. We pay the tenants to be in the property in first place!
The way things are headed , that a possibility
What I do not understand is these MPs are not stupid, and they must be mindful of the effect of such legislation on the supply of property in the private rented sector. Their advisors must ask, “What effect will this have on existing landlords and what does this do to encourage people to become a private landlords?”. It is very clear that the abolition of section 21 is going to cause a lot of landlords to leave the market. Is this just the unintended consequence of moves to improve the private rented sector or is it all part of a conspiracy to eliminate private landlords?
To reassure other landlords who may be concerned about the abolition of section 21, it does not in anyway frighten me as I never evict tenants for no reason. I always end up evicting for rent arrears as my antisocial tenants also do not believe in paying their rent, so I have never had to evict for antisocial behaviour. I have asked thousands of tenants over the years to leave and had to take over 350 tenants through the courts always for rent arrears with 100% success, so I have no concerns over being able to evict tenants.
Jim Haliburton
The HMO Daddy
MPs may not be stupid (up for debate) but their are plenty who know nothing about the PRS & do what will keep them elected.
Hi Jim
You must tell us how you do it, especially if they are HMOs, because I thought it was impossible to get the rent arrear out of students who are evasive,, and we lose more money than we will get from going to the courts!!!
MPs are self-serving looking to get votes to stay in power. If they need to do stupid things that are popular amongst the electorate then so be it. Brexit for example....
The Conservative party is now the "green Melon party." Green on the outside, and red inside.
It will get even worse once Sir Kneeler, and his Marxist supporters gain power.
If you have millions of pounds of money invested in rental property you are not going to leave it there if the new legislation means that you do not, in effect, own the property anymore.
Letting property is already a very burdensome investment, so it doesn't take much to make landlords withdraw from the sector, and open-ended periodic tenancies are a huge reason to leave.
Jim. While I agree with much of what you say like the Government wanting to destroy Private landlords, that goes without saying or they wouldn’t have invented a whole raft of unnecessary legislation and one sided Regulatory Compliance like 2015 De-Regulation Act. Removal of Section 24 for Private Landlords only to Benefit Companies, now Removing Section 21.
All this just to clear the decks for the Big Boys to take over and aren’t they lining up.
I don’t need to mention them all again when it’s happened before your very eyes.
The High Rise Flats will continue suitable or not the Concrete Mixer cannot stop.
The Round Table Meeting of Key Representatives to Discuss the Rental Sector was held very recently by Mr Michael Gove which included key Industry Players but excluded Private Landlords the main Players who provide all the Property.
So none of the Round Table participants supply any Housing to the Private Sector and must have a giraffes neck to be make laws for us.
Ok who took part at the
Meeting - Mr Gove, Shelter, Generation Rent, National Housing Federation, Local Government Association and NRLA (100k member out of 2.6m), hardly Represents the industry altogether I am a member and I think too much self interest.
I declare the Meeting Null & Void not fit for Purpose going to base the law of the land on those flawed events.
But Michael, You are simply wrong. We have Ben Beadle who was at the Roundtable. He represents landlords and in his typical manner has simply welcomed everything that Gove & Co want to throw at us. So it's all sorted now. :)))
TBH I have to agree there's only 100k members. Less than 5%. Hardly representative of the suppliers of property. With a limp wristed Beadle at the helm waiving it all through we have no hope.
Jim I appreciate you are a Section 8 man and have done hundreds through the Courts but Its not for me. I don’t want to be running to the Courts dozen’s of times. I don’t want the situation where I need to go to Court at all.
Tenants don’t need to go to Court and can walk at any time,
I think its totally wrong that the landlord has always got to go to Court to get possession of his Property that was freely entered into by both parties but only the Tenants can end the Tenancy and he’s not the owner or have any financial stake in the property.
Totally agree. The tenants don't need a court to get them into a property. They don't need one to leave either. It's the LL's property. These lefty politicians, activists and tenants don't own any of our property but expect to call all the shots. It's ridiculous and unacceptable.
I would love to know how many evictions are genuinely no fault and how many only use Section 21 because Section 8 is too uncertain.
I would also like to know how much of the evidence used to come to the decision to abolish Section 21 is recent and how much dates back to before the Tenant Fees Act. Letting Agents used to be notorious for evicting at the end of a fixed term purely because they could charge huge fees to both landlords and tenants on everything. That's no longer the case and there is no longer an incentive for LAs to behave in that way.
It may be the case that the decision to abolish Section 21 came from Theresa May's introduction to the German tenancy model - a combination of long-term open ended periodic tenancies and some fixed term tenancies largely for students.
One has to remember that part of Germany was a Communist state for many years, and prior to that there was authoritarian Nazi government which thought nothing of confiscating all the property of Jewish people.
Ellie, I understand a Tory MP called James Brokenshire visited a LA property and was shocked at the conditions and stories he heard. So with May in early 2019 proudly announced they were going to abolish S21.
That is interesting Nick. I had read something somewhere about Theresa May discussing the private rental sector tenancy models with Angela Merkel at that time.
I've only had to evict once, for several months of rent non-payment: agents advised S21 as easier than Section 8; which is what they advised all landlords! So that may tell us something.
(Afterwards, I left it quite some time, tracked down the ex-tenant (not easy as he was keeping very low profile) and then used the High Court Enforcement Group to get quite a chunk of the unpaid back - they were very good.
I doubt there is any real evidence of the use of Section 21; instead a Manifesto commitment without any. As I recall some months ago, but after the White Paper was written, Paul Shamplina of Landlord Action said he and others had been approached by Civil Servants about why S21 was used: indicating such a lack of evidence.
One could make a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request to Gove's department (I think online, for local authorities I've used WhatDoTheyKnow . com) asking what is the recent evidence and to produce it to you. As you may know under FOI rules they should reply in 20 working days, although sometimes it takes longer.
I'd thought of doing so, but have too much else on right now. And have just spent 6 years with others in a (now successful) battle with a council about a historic footbridge they wanted to demolish, so need a rest from FOIs as had to do lots of them.
Jim halliburton
The economics are simple 2 million PRS homes times £ 200 is £400 million turnover, looks to me as though beadle and the MP for Dover are being lined up which will be a nice earner for them. It's happened before Norman tebbitt told everyone unemployed to get on their bike and find work. He didn't, he privatised companies and put himself on the board, earning loads of money. Other ministers repeated this which caused the conservatives to lose votes.
I think the NRLA are lining themselves up for a little bit more revenue raising. While I think it does have a part to play it is not really representative of what landlords are going through. Beadles About at every meeting but not really feeding back nor asking his members for their viewpoints. At least with 100k members he could ask all of them what is the biggest issues faced. This should be taken to The Roundtable and discussed. I am sorry but Shelter and Generation Rent should not be there as they are politically driven one sided crackpots.
Jeremy Beadle would always have been better than Ben.
I don’t agree with compensating Tenants when I want my property back.
I don’t see why I should have to give them a reason or justify myself to the Tenants either I didn’t need their permission when I acquired the house.
I Build a House in Croydon to let out so I was Built to Rent before the words were invented.
That was a very big mistake I made. I bought the ground at Auction with a Company Check on the day that wasn’t tax allowable but if I had bought Plant or Machinery it would be allowable.
So I was taxed as if I still had the money putting me in the red in the Bank and having to pay interest on it as well.
Then a Recession and not viable to do it stood idle for ages.
Then I was advised I should have bought it in my own name, so I went to Solicitors they said I would have to buy it from to Company which involved me paying tax on the money to buy it from the
Company, then when I done my Accounts had to pay tax again it, sale of an acid.
Anyway I Built House and let it out got plenty of trouble from Tenants backed up by Council.
Eventually I sold it because I wanted to buy a property nearer to home. Ok a big lump of C/gains tax went, then not enough left to buy nearer home so I had to get another loan to put me in further debt.
Do you seriously want to tell me I should be paying Compensation the Tenants as well you’re having a laugh.
So we buy / sell more than
once.
I'd like to know in new legislation under Section 8 how much rent arrears before you can take court action.
The tears in here are amusing. This bill is sensible, proportionate and finally redresses the ridiculous imbalance of rights renters face. Landlords have for decades enjoyed the financial fruits of the private rental sector with minimal regard for the importance of housing and the wellbeing of tenants - while trousering billions in taxpayer funded benefits. It’s great that the Government are stepping in here.
N.b - Landlord Today are once again providing a National service - renters, is your landlord in this forum calling these changes Marxist and threatening to sell up? Plan accordingly!!
John, there is a law of unintended consequences in all this, I think there will be more tears from tenants than from landlords when this all kicks in, lets see where we are in a couple of yrs time
Some landlords have not been doing it for decades.
Not sure what your background is but I think you are in the wrong place.
I agree with Andrew - the tenants will be the ones who suffer as a result of the legislation; there will be even fewer flats available for them to rent.
There were virtually no flats available when the Rent Acts were in force.
John
I don't "trouser taxpayer funded benefits" as I don't rent to workshy scroungers.
Do you criticise Tesco for "trousering tax payer funded benefits" in serving such workshy scroungers, or Paddy Power, Wetherspoons etc. who frequently benefit from such taxpayer largesse?
Personally I prefer to patronise Waitrose where I don't detect such "trousering" and get the Daily Telegraph free to read more intelligent views than those spouted by you and your scrounging compatriots.
Andrew/Ellie
Look at the massive shortage of rental properties now in Scotland where the SNP have managed to make a bunch of students more desirable tenants than young hard working families simply so that we can continue to be in control of our own properties and ensure our rents can keep up with market rates, which is impossible with rent caps and the outlawing of mutually agreed fixed term tenancies.
Robert, Don't forget Imperial Brands and British American Tobacco for the cigarettes.
Nick
At least tobacco and alcohol products are heavily taxed so we taxpayers are having some of our largesse returned, albeit indirectly.
PS. I forgot to mention Messrs Domino, Pizza Hut etc. who could also be accused of trousering tax payer funded benefits!
Robert - Agree.
Also should have added Sky Sports, Bet365, Ladbrokes and William Hill. Plus perhaps the local 'dealer' but I suspect that's just me scraping the barrel now :))
John I don't know any LL who will rent to tenants who do not work. I only rent to house holds with two people working to ensure If one might lose their job the other can still pay their rent. So no trousering of tax payers money here. At the moment there is a balance between rights of tenants and LL. A LL has to give two months notice to the tenant whilst the tenant has to give 1 month notice to the LL. The new bill is suggesting LL have to give 4 months notice whilst tenants only have to give one month. This is rediculouly unbalanced and will result in an even bigger exodus of LL than before.
I agree Wendy, how many landlords will touch benefit scroungers now ?
Nick
I bow to your encyclopaedic knowledge of low life suppliers and their products and services!
I'm an expert on breweries, have a working knowledge of distilleries and junk food providers but almost zero knowledge and experience of the betting fraternity.
Robert, I have a house in a poorer (or up and coming) area of East London. So I am an expert of all sorts of things including all nationalities (except UK British because none live there), drugs, ASBs, CCJs, betting shops, pie & mash, amusement arcades, McDonalds, Burger King and credit cards like Vanquis and Wonga [dot] com.
I see John Smithers has one 'like': made by himself.
Like others, I've never trousered tax payer benefits - not intentionally. Though once when -properly- clearing a house after tenants left, I found paperwork at the back of a drawer that suggested one of the extended family had been claiming a local benefit I thought they weren't entitled to. Which may say something about some tenants.
And I certainly don't treat tenants with minimal regard to importance of housing and wellbeing of tenants!
Its not just LLDs who may call the changes Marxist that tenants need to worry about selling up, with consequent even higher rent rises. Half a million LLDs in one recent report.
So I'd be interested to know how those tenants Smithers is addressing 'plan accordingly'.
The old saying: 'be careful what you wish for has never been more appropriate', as John Smithers and others will find.
Smithers no doubt you are from a group, probably the legal profession who will generate money from this legislation. Why don't you tell us who you really are ?
Hi John, my friend a correction the Tenants have enjoyed very reasonable rents for decades on the fruits of our labour.
Now look what has happened with Government interference rents shot up to roof do you call this a big benefit success story for the Tenants ?.
Funny thing about Smithers and so-called tenant support groups, is the benefit tenants, even the majority who have hitherto been grateful and good tenants for landlords, will be the biggest losers.
First thing Landlords are going to do after Reform legislation, is what many have been doing. - only renting to those with a Guarantor.
... But, but, there are many benefit tenants who can't get a Guarantor croakes Smithers, and the law of Unintended consequences answers back, and there will be many who can - and there isn't enough housing to go around. ( and you can thank Govt and so-called tenant groups for that )
We simply cannot take the risk of benefit tenants any more, and lets face it there are no shortage of good working tenants out there now, benefit tenants are best left to social housing
Perhaps they should do the same in other industries and businesses. Heck, if you don't feel like going into work for a month or two then it won't be an issue as your job would be expected to still pay your wage without getting a return. And they can't sack you for choosing to stay off work because they have to give you lots of notice and then pay to take you to court to do it.
How ridiculous does it sound if you change it from being a property you rent out which is a BUSINESS (not a charity!) to any other business sector and expect to get away with the current laws now and proposed future ones.
It's bad enough running a business when people don't pay you for your work. Oh but you have the right to remove that work without any legal battles if you can.
Just incensed at the disdain for the Private RS from the government and all the other bodies when people are providing homes which otherwise they would have to buy to house people themselves.
Until they come up with a way of making it equal for both renters and landlords (ie repair standards and fair eviction notice for tenants when not at fault but equally faster action if tenants don't pay or trash the house!) then noone is going to be happy.
Perhaps the government should offer some sort of scheme where if the tenant doesn't pay then they cover the cost and pay the landlords and the tenant then owes the government! 🤣 Might encourage more PLs with less risks and less resentment.
Perhaps every type of tenant should do it this way. The government would be out of pockets by millions 😂
Well after what I seen today I the obligation to attend a funeral in Croydon, so I took the opportunity to go by the detached house I Built & sold.
What a disgraceful way to treat a property, lack or maintenance weeds everywhere the tarmac drive full of moss, big window at front changed for a smaller one, the remaining aperture bricked up with poorly matching brick work. I spoke with a local resident who said it’s housing to an Nigerian family….
I can imagine how sad and shocked you felt to see your lovely house being ruined.
I drive past my old cottage in Kimberley almost daily, the lady I sold it to has died, the stupid lady she left it to has had the roof striped, lovely original rosemary pin tiles, to be replaced with horrible new tiles, cast iron gutters and down pipes replaced with black plastic, a dreadful small extension in new seven valley reds, the orchid I planted has had all the fruit trees removed, and I'm told by a local carpenter has had a dreadful new stair case fitted , some people have no taste, when I renovates it 40 yrs ago I kept original features and used reclaimed materials, bricks etc, criminal !
OMG. Nigerians.... Mine don't get of their bottom for anything around the house. Garden all over grown. Terrible people. They are on benefits so may be working Nigerians are different. I wouldn't like to say... I will say I will never take the chance again! Especially with all this s**t coming out from the Dept of Levelling Down, and Labour etc.
As I said yesterday - highly amusing stuff.
A highlight: “the Tenants have enjoyed very reasonable rents for decades on the fruits of our labour.”
This is why it’s impossible to get landlords to understand this bill - many don’t understand basic economic principles - owning an asset and rent-seeking isn’t labour 😂
John you clearly are not a landlord or have any idea of the work, yes work, that landlords have to do, assets have to earn money, a lorry is an asset, while it's wheels are turning with a load in the back it's earning money, renting a property is no different
That's one 'like' for your comment and it's from you! Says alot...
John Smithers, you obviously don't know what being a landlord entails.
It involves work, i.e. 'labour', which can be paperwork/admin (which to non-landlords is a paid job - just ask agents or lawyers) or manual stuff like repairs; or unblocking drains when tenants have flushed the wrong stuff down the toilet (as all tenants and homeowners shouldn't - its national advice to avoid things like 'fat-bergs').
If I do some work myself, rather than engage a tradesperson, HMRC rules mean I cannot deduct payment for my time -even at minimum wage rates- off my income before it is taxed.
So as Jo Westlake has reported on here HMRC regard work by me as 'a hobby'.
I could have far better hobbies than messy drain unblocking!
Smithers, You don't understand basic economic principles:
Less Supply = Higher Prices
Being a landlord is labour intensive. Having to deal with endless texts at all times of the day with endless breakages. I've had 4 window handles and 3 door handles broken in separate incidents in about a year. Amongst many other things. Some genuine. Some due to the recklessness of the tenants. Also mould and solicitors. All unnecessary.
I won't go on. I think you are obviously not a landlord but a silly left troll.
Yes, given your comments elsewhere on this page - particularly about Nigerians being “terrible people” - it doesn’t surprise me at all that you find enquiries about mould or the use of solicitors “unnecessary” .
All the very best with the Ombudsman proposed in the Bill 👍
Smithers, Well these particular Nigerians are "terrible people". If they behaved properly in the house there would not be mould or the need for solicitors.
I won't be around for the Ombudman :)
John I don't think Nick has ever referred to ALL Nigerian people, just the Nigerian people he has in his property at present, I had issues with an Indian family some yrs ago, glad to see the back of them, they left the property in a right mess, that's not to say all Indian people are the same, I've had some bad white British people as well
Exactly Andrew.
Please login to comment