Renters reform bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Renters reform bill

    i have just read an interesting summary of all that is proposed in the EG (Estates Gazette). As drafted it effectively brings back a form of rent control as tenants will have the right to go to First Tier Tribunal to challenge any rent increases which must be proposed by section 13 notices.

    I now understand why people who are members here have been saying that they plan to sell up and as is so often the case, Government intervention has the unintended effect of making the situation worse than if they had not meddled. I don't like the sound of it at all but it seems to me that the best days are behind us as residential landlords. Selling up makes sense. I don't see why the Government should have the right to force me to accept that tenants will have pets. The legislators probably dont understand that with a maximum of five weeks rent deposit this doesnt begin to cover the damage a dog can do. Ive had new engineered wood floors ruined by dog urine. I really dont want pets.

    It will be a year or two before this comes on to the statute book. My approach has always been to charge a slightly lower rent than the rest of the market on the basis that the tenants know they are getting a good deal, there are rarer voids but if this bill will make rent increases more difficult to implement I suppose this strategy is less than brilliant.

    #2
    Tenants have the right to challenge s13 rent increases already. The only difference I can see in the proposal is that the tribunal won't have the right to increase the rent above the landlords proposal.

    Comment


      #3
      Interesting, I didnt know that, but my bizarre philosophy has been that you actually make more money (and have less agg) by charging slightly lower rents!

      Comment


        #4
        What i have read on another forum is of even more concern, that of any eviction going through the court becoming discretionary as apposed to mandatory, even if the reason is to sell the property, i understand that Scotland will be bringing this in.... how long before England sign up !!! That would really be the end. The whole thing appears to be coming in with worries from all landlords but without any real day to day understanding of how it will affect us all.

        Comment


          #5
          The government really don’t know what they’re doing.

          Comment


            #6
            I have just read an article (The Telegraph) in which it is stated that the NRLA are in full support of Government and his idiotic white paper. That’s news to me I thought the NRLA was there to support it’s members. The article is Landlords warn ‘wave’ of evictions to come before rental reforms hit

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Hudson01 View Post
              What i have read on another forum is of even more concern, that of any eviction going through the court becoming discretionary as apposed to mandatory, even if the reason is to sell the property, i understand that Scotland will be bringing this in.... how long before England sign up !!! That would really be the end. The whole thing appears to be coming in with worries from all landlords but without any real day to day understanding of how it will affect us all.
              Scotland already has. All PRT grounds for eviction are now discretionary.

              Comment


                #8
                As already stated, tenants can already challenge unreasonable rent rises the only difference will be rises must use a S13 notice & be done 2 months ahead - not really a problem.

                You cannot be forced to accept a pet - just have to give a suitable reason to say no.

                You can always charge a tenant more than their deposit and issue a MCOL if they don't pay for any damage incurred.

                I am not in favour of this bill, but much of its contents sounds worse than it actually is. We are going to have to learn to live with it. Given that one of the reasons to evict will be selling the property I will be continuing to rent & selling it there is a problem.

                The introduction of EPC C is a much bigger worry for me.

                Comment


                  #9
                  The basic question should always be, if I had the opportunity that I had that led me to decide to be a landlord, would I have made the same decision with the proposed new framework?

                  EPC C and all reasons to repossess would have changed my decision - the latter possibly not at the time, but if I was deciding now.
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    #10
                    In the South West of England (where I fortunately don't live) I have seen adverts for properties saying "No Unwaged". I'm on disability benefits and have been for the past 20 years. I dislike being made to feel a 2nd class citizen for a health condition I didn't chose and not being able to go out and work. However, I question how the reforms, if even implemented, will prevent landlords saying they don't want tenants on benefits, tenants with dogs. Surely, it will just be a case of the landlord saying "oh I let it to another tenant, I'm sorry". The rental sector is already dire with a shortage of properties. You should see my inbox: full of rejections from letting agencies saying "landlord won't accept dogs at his home" and "unwaged are not allowed".

                    Comment


                      #11
                      And if i were in your position i would feel exactly the same..... but...... as landlords our 1st and only priority is to ourselves and our families, and if that means we only take on those with jobs and a median income of plus £30,000pa then that is what we will look for, this whole situation is not in the PRS remit to fix, it's down to this, and previous governments who have simply not built enough social housing, the PRS is not a direct replacement for this lack of social housing, sorry to be so blunt but no amount of legislation will change this...... we will simply sell up and sail/ride off into the sunset.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        KevinB47,

                        You can thank the tenant with a dog I did let to in the past for now being reluctant to let to other people with dogs and probably cats too.

                        The fact your income comes for 100% benefits isn’t a hard no though as long as you are able to pass affordability.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by KevinB47 View Post
                          You should see my inbox: full of rejections from letting agencies saying "landlord won't accept dogs at his home" and "unwaged are not allowed".
                          Currently it is not an issue for a landlord or letting agent to have a "no dogs" policy.

                          Not letting to people on benefits has been found to be discriminatory, and you should complain about the responses relating to the "unwaged".

                          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I think I can see why Kevin can't find a home. Any damage his dog does will have to be sued for. But even if his landlord wins, Kevin being on benefits means he would pay £1 a week, or something similar.
                            To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by JK0 View Post
                              I think I can see why Kevin can't find a home. Any damage his dog does will have to be sued for. But even if his landlord wins, Kevin being on benefits means he would pay £1 a week, or something similar.
                              I agree.... in a bubbling and crazy market where landlords have the choice between 30-50 people all who want your property..... you will pick the absolute best of the best, and i am sorry to say but that is no kids, no pets and no benefits, end of. Like it or not that is how a great many of us think and given it is our asset and our decision that is the end of the story. The only way out of this disaster is for millions of social houses and flats to be built, that is the truth of it.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X