Associate
Wait what? That one needs explaining lol as on the surface it sounds utterly mental?
Wait what? That one needs explaining lol as on the surface it sounds utterly mental?
Soldato
I’m sure there will be various consultations etc. But I’m pretty sure that’s a starting point.
I wonder how many Labour donors are landlords.
But yes if the landlord can for example prove they would be homeless otherwise, then you can evict the tenant. Not sure what would happen in the case of rent arrears.
Last edited:
A lot of what the gov are proposing is just spam to show that they're "doing" something to appease their voters, but at some point reality has to hit home and the policies will have to change for the good of everyone.
Unfortunately with rents, they'll (imo) leave it way too long and the majority of landlords will leave the market, and then the poop will hit the fan big time, and they'll be no one to fill the void left.
I hope I'm wrong, but it all seems too predictable.
Unfortunately with rents, they'll (imo) leave it way too long and the majority of landlords will leave the market, and then the poop will hit the fan big time, and they'll be no one to fill the void left.
I hope I'm wrong, but it all seems too predictable.
I agree in terms of what i would call casual landlords e.g. those with less than 3-4 properties. The larger ones who have tens if not hundreds of properties will just be more diligent in terms of who they accept.
We sold up one a year or so ago and my last one is on the market now. Less stress just to take the money and run!
I'm sure there are plenty of large landlords and for profit and not for profit organisations that haven't been as exposed to rate increases but have happily taken the extra rent increases as pure profit hovering around to snap up cheap property.
Big fish eats little fish, it's just capitalism baby.
Big fish eats little fish, it's just capitalism baby.
Soldato
I wonder who is buying these properties because its either
1) someone else who is planning to be a landlord, hence no real change, or
2) someone buying the house to live in, a better situation than some hobby landlord
I am struggling to see how the net result can be worse than now.
1) someone else who is planning to be a landlord, hence no real change, or
2) someone buying the house to live in, a better situation than some hobby landlord
I am struggling to see how the net result can be worse than now.
It won't be, just like in other countries with far tougher protections for renters, it'll all balance out. It's just the usual flap from people that don't like change.
After 5 years of promising rental reform and doing nothing, the Tories created the uncertainty in the market, people just aren't used to a Govt actually doing something and are getting all a fluster
A report in May found about a third of Landlords are planning to reduce their portfolio, with 9% looking to increase it. Uncertainty about rental reform and high interest rates were the two key reasons cited for Landlords planning to sell.
Landlord advocates a few months ago
Renter advocates
And it's not like the tougher reforms requested are unreasonable
And like you said
So let's see what is finally enacted and the market will adjust accordingly.
For example, I'm fully expecting Labour to bring the energy efficiency standards back and have been putting the rental profits aside to make the upgrades.
Soldato
Decent tenants should have decent protection. Landlords should have decent protection from bad tenants.
Landlords need to realise that they are not playing with a %age yield, they are playing with someone's home. A place where a child feels safe, a place with neighbours who are friends.
But a tenant needs to accept responsibility for paying the rent, looking after the place etc.
The problem with most laws designed to "protect" is that they achieve the opposite.
Limit rent increases, you'll simply drive up no-fault-evictions so bad landlords can recycle tenants and put the rent up.
The only way out of this is to help tenants "trapped" by mortgage rules buy their own homes. It's mad that a tenant who can show they have paid a rent of X for 2 years can't get a mortgage approved when the monthly payments are less than X.
The rent on a 2 bed flat in North Swindon is about £950 pcm. That flat is worth about £130k. A 25 year mortgage at 5.15% is only £695 a month. Yet most tenants would fail to get approval for a mortgage on that flat due to resilience and income tests.
Landlords need to realise that they are not playing with a %age yield, they are playing with someone's home. A place where a child feels safe, a place with neighbours who are friends.
But a tenant needs to accept responsibility for paying the rent, looking after the place etc.
The problem with most laws designed to "protect" is that they achieve the opposite.
Limit rent increases, you'll simply drive up no-fault-evictions so bad landlords can recycle tenants and put the rent up.
The only way out of this is to help tenants "trapped" by mortgage rules buy their own homes. It's mad that a tenant who can show they have paid a rent of X for 2 years can't get a mortgage approved when the monthly payments are less than X.
The rent on a 2 bed flat in North Swindon is about £950 pcm. That flat is worth about £130k. A 25 year mortgage at 5.15% is only £695 a month. Yet most tenants would fail to get approval for a mortgage on that flat due to resilience and income tests.
Tenants can still be evicted under S8, I cant believe how many are claiming they have no means to evict anymore, its as if either loads of landlords dont know the law and just got used to using S21, or there is some kind of pretence they have become powerless.
I think some timescales also got added so they cant do things like rent it out for a few months then grab the property back.
S21 had to get banned, it was being so heavily abused by too many landlords. It also made a mockery of other legislation such as S13 rent dispute.
If you are a decent landlord you have nothing to worry about, every landlord claims they not one of the abusers yet so many are opposing the ban really extremely like they think its just intolerable or something.
Awaabs law also being extended to private sector, utterly bizarre that was social sector only.
Last edited:
What about tenants who wont or cant buy a home though, the problem with your way out is it assumes home ownership is the solution.
We just need to build loads of council houses. That will in turn also help the home ownership problem as well.
Commissario
And very likely lead to a massively reduced benefits bill.
IIRC housing benefit, which is paid to people with jobs (not just the "feckless layabouts" as some seem to love calling them), costs the government a fortune and basically props up the rental markets insane pricing.
Around my way it would be considerably cheaper on a monthly basis for most people to buy rather than rent, the problem is no one except those in really good jobs or with a hefty balances with the bank of mum/dad/gramps can actually afford a deposit and the banks don't like loaning to people on their wages (even if they're paying more in rent already).
Yep, I think this is a reason why some Tory voters now support a building program, as economically the current strategy is becoming a big loser.
Friend of a friend manages properties for someone who owns multiple HMO type properties, and the current rates he lets out bedsits for is £600 and this is in one of the poorest areas of the country. I am waiting for a photo, as I am too curious, want to see how big these bedsits are.
Associate
Round our way it takes over a year to get a tenant who stopped paying their rent out through the courts. There's a huge backlog for Section 8 eviction proceedings. Many landlords in financial distress prefer to use Section 21 and do a deal with their dodgy tenant just to cut their losses (even though it might mean losing thousands of pounds of unpaid rent).
I don't agree. It's the decent landlords who are getting shafted nowadays. They follow all the increasingly over-the-top rules (including mandatory licensing in many areas) but have less and less ability to enforce their rights against delinquent/anti-social tenants. That's why so many of them are selling up and being replaced by huge faceless companies (owned by pension funds, hedge funds and foreign billionaires) who see their tenants as nothing more than cash cows.
Here here. Spread the wealth.
Soldato
No fault evictions surely all you need to do is raise the rent so much to a point where the tenant can't afford it and moves out?
This is what a dodgy neighbour landlord did once when he wanted to move one of his dodgy associates in.
This is what a dodgy neighbour landlord did once when he wanted to move one of his dodgy associates in.
I think there is still going to be a problem with the "market rate" thing, there is areas all over the country with rampant rent inflation market wide, of course there is always someone who goes first, so hopefully with S21 getting banned, S13 gets used very heavily which should contain large market wide increases.
Last edited:
There is a few different things going on.
One of them is to tell the tenant there is a large rent increase e.g. 50%, and if the tenant either says no or disputes it with S13 or perhaps even becomes slightly awkrawd, then a S21 gets issued as a counter, as its deemed more profitable to have a short void period, take the risk with new tenants, so you can hike the rent up by a very large %.
I get what you saying alternative tricks will be used, but S13 is a rent dispute system which should at least offer "some" protection against what you said, and if rent control does become a thing it would hopefully prevent that tactic.
Last edited: