Updating post from Reddit.
Just reading an article in my free local magazine and come across this. If I am understanding this correctly, min term (6 mths etc) will be a thing of the past and a tenant can move out anytime giving 2 months notice. Is this correct ? When this coming into play?
I’ve been a landlord for 30 years, during that time I have had to evict a tenant through the courts on exactly one occasion and that was for rent arrears which would still be allowed under the new legislation. I have also used an s21 notice once when my daughter wanted to live temporarily on one of my properties - this would also still be allowed under the new legislation. S21s are misused by greedy c*nts who screw tenants through unreasonable rents and retaliatory evictions if tenants complain about badly maintained property. I don’t think there will be any significant effect on my business and if cowboys are driven out of the market then so much the better.
Broadly agree, but I think cowboys will ignore all of this, as they already do, and that there will be an endless supply of tenants who will pay rent to them, out of desperation.
It will, basically, achieve almost nothing.
Cowboys who ignore rules are planning on following this?
Like you say - they'll just have yet another rule to ignore.
Enforcement, not additional regulation.
the penalties for breaking these laws are quite severe, especially since the defendant will have assets, or be impacted if they have to declare bankruptcy.
“People already break the law, so there’s no point in changing” isn’t a convincing argument
Of course cowboys will ignore this, but the introduction of the landlord register should make it easier to report, keep track of and ban cowboy landlords from (legally) renting at all.
Removing S21s and running on periodic tenancies is an absolute win for Tenants (so long as landlords are held to account when evicting for selling, moving or renovating purposes).
While you have had a relatively pain free experience, the changes compared to current rules negatively impact landlords. How will the courts be able to cope with the volume of hearings required ? Even right now, it is taking minimum 6 months for a hearing.
no fixed terms - means more uncertainty. More uncertainty, means higher rents to compensate for that (more void periods due to more changeover in tenancies)
Extension of rent arrears period from 2 to 3 months and possession notice period doubling from 2 weeks to 4 weeks means at least 4 months vs the current 2.5 months. This might be acceptable if the deposit limit is increased from the current 5 weeks max to reflect the additional rent arrears from this rule change.
Do away with fixed terms for landlord but instead gives fix term to tenant (min 1 year for notice) ?
I'd argue the opposite on 1. This should lead to a longer tenancy length a majority of the time. It should also reduce fees to landlords overall. We operate a light management service from £30/month, not set up for, but seemingly perfectly in line with the intent of the RRB.
On point 2, there are means around this to keep tenants in a property and landlords paid through one off (and occasionally slightly longer term) payments. This can reflect changes of circumstances and delays in benefits etc. I routinely do applications for these, the vast majority are approved, and it's then a case of assisting tenants to ensure they stay on track. The issue is that most high street agents don't have a clue on how to effectively manage this.
If you want to increase rents due to perceived increased risk, that's your choice. There are still decent opportunities out there without the consequences many fear for those who know what they're doing.
Yes I have an interest in a UK rental as well as managing property for others.
for point 1 you argue the opposite but you don't explain why or justify ? How is it that this will lead to longer tenancy length ? Also how does it mean reduced fees ? More changeover means more fees being charge by agency no, finding tenant, drawing up tenancy contract ? I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Point 2, no one ever wants to even get into the situation of rent arrears, going through the courts to evict is the last resort and is just too much hassle and cost on top of the rent arrears.
Increasing rent due to higher risk is the clear and obvious effect and majority of landlords will due to the increased uncertainty and risk.
How about the banning of upfront rent ? I can understand the reason somewhat but that means certain demographic of tenants like international students or international applicants moving from abroad will have very little choice.
On point 1, how do you see increased changeover?
Most tenants we work with want long term security. We have taken on management of a number of properties where S21s have been issued by a high street agent when one side doesn't want to go to SPT, presumably so they can gain more in fees from LLs. The one mistruth that sticks to memory is that the tenants will have no valid contract if the agreement is left to expire.
Agents not wanting tenants to go onto SPTs is a much larger issue than you may imagine, the RRB removes the problem of renewal fees (routinely about what we charge for a year of management) from landlords for running a few pages through a printer and opens up low cost professional options.
We have 2 properties as rentals within the family (I own 25% of each). One has been converted to HMO and is largely used by air crew, they want 2-3 years on average. A few stay a little longer, a few move faster, however in general its quite a senior base for both large airlines at that airport in a high cost of living area, so those who are there typically are either very junior First Officers being sent where crew are needed or want to be there long term.
The other is a 3 bed, let to a family with a child with disabilities. They are likely to stay 10+ years and the rent is kept deliberately just above LHA rates.
There is very little risk of a tenant staying 2 months every time, moving is expensive for them too. My advice in general is that if a tenant isn't happy in a property, it's generally good business to allow them to move on as a small minority will cause major (and very expensive) issues.
Many relocating from abroad have (or can get) company guarantees when it comes to professional workers. My employer offered this when we were forced to be relocated (we were cash rich enough to be able to meet mortgage requirements, probably due to not living in the (capital) city we were based in previously), however I've seen in the case of many sponsorships for even things like care workers rent guarantees being offered. Students can be a little more complicated, this is agreed.
I therefore still disagree that your perception of a significant increase in risk is in any way proportionate to the overall market although do take some of the points you make on board.
I'm all for long term tenancy, works out great for both tenant and landlord. But it just means now, the notice could be at anytime compared to the current security of an AST where you know you have certainty and the notice can only come at a certain time. That is the uncertainty part.
So taking away that certainty period from landlords and then on top of that, give it to the tenants minimum 1 year certainty but at the same time also gives them the flexibility of 2 months notice period anytime even within that 1 year. How is that fair and equitable ?
You have managed to secure an agreement that is quite unique for aircrew so that is not a norm.
I agree, not worth it to keep tenants who want to leave.
All I'm saying is the RRB isn't a fair / balanced one with some significant downsides for landlords and no solution for the long waits for court hearings.
Also, no real justification for extending the rent arrears period ? Just allows exploitation at the landlord's expense.
I fear the one major change this will introduce is a rent increase across for board. Not for any good reason, because as you say, most decent landlords wouldn’t be affected by this change. But many landlords will almost certainly say “we need to increase rent to provide additional security as a result of the recent changes in legislation” and that will, in turn, drive up the average rental price.
What drives up average rent prices is the fact that there are far more people needing to rent than there are properties available.
Rent increase does not add security for landlords, quite opposite in fact as it makes the property less attractive. It'll be used as an excuse to raise the rent, but almost anything else can be used as an excuse.
Decent landlords won’t be completely unaffected. Despite registration being compulsory, we are apparently going to be charged for the privilege.
I've had 3 tenants previously, currently on my 4th. I used on my second.
Why?
B cause filing a section 8 saying they've trashed the property and disturbing the neighbours would have:
taken longer
caused more fluid action, and potentially further damage
taken more time and persuasion to get people to agree to giving evidence
been more risky as a result of relying on other factors
How does that fit with your suggestion that it's all greed? For context, the deposit was about 800, and they caused well over £2k in damage before I got them out on relatively good terms.
Oh, and there was 2 days of cleaning on top of that.
Edit: sp
> the deposit was about 800, and they caused well over £2k in damage
That’s for small claims then 🤷♂️
Sure.
If I can get an address to send the summons to. But given that they refused a forwarding address, can just change their number, etc is it worth the hassle? Compared to a chunk of DIY and taking the deposit?
Plus not all of it was apparent immediately.
Ultimately my point is there's already a lot of exposure, and a lot of additional admin expected for "free" (ie the labour for the investment).
To suggest wanting to minimise those damages is "greed" is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.
A s21 and managing the situation on a more personal level is far better than putting it in writing that they've damaged to the property so much you are evicting them on that basis.
It's a sure fire way to aggravate someone who is already not the more rational or sensible.
So you made it back within what, 2 or 3 months of the tenancy after that?
Mate, every business and investment has some form of risk, you've just made a post highlighting that yours is extremely low risk as even the most serious situation is recouped within 6 months
You want to rent people living space for a profit, but you also want the profit to be massive and there to be no risk on your part, and you feel entitled to that... wake up mate
Far from it.
Capital isn't free, and there's running costs of the business.
Also, this is far from "the most serious situation", this is highlighting that s21 allowed me to reduce the risk of a more serious situation. Something I made very clear if you read my comments.
Ie aggravating a tenant (by basically telling them they're a slob/unreliable/aren't taking good enough care of the property) who already isn't making the most sensible decisions (lying about pets, ripping curtain rails out the wall etc doesn't happen if you are being sensible) is a great way to get malicious damage.
Like a kitchen being ripped out (which has happened to people I know), which would be looking at more like 5 figures worth of damage.
My point is that using s21 here isn't about greed. It's about managing risk and the human side. No one wants to be told things that aren't nice.
By upping the risk, what do you think will happen?
Why have you decided that me using a way to reduce issues successfully is representative of the "most serious situation"? Are you incredibly naive or just willfully acting so to try and make a point hoping that you won't get called out?
It's an odd choice.
Sell your properties and go get a normal job, doesn’t look like you are cut out to be a landlord… guaranteed you bought everything for peanuts and claim your some real estate gura. What you are is a parasite
Half of nothing is nothing and you got to find them first
[deleted]
But you can still evict (after 12 mo) for selling, moving in (including family) or renovating
[deleted]
New Rules. Landlord cant do it in the first 12 months of a new tenancy however.
[deleted]
Not really.
Section 21 was just ending a tenancy beyond its initial term (6/12 months). As such, it was used when they wanted to sell the property or move family in, etc. It was never designed for that, or even requires the landlord to give the reason.
Now they have to give a reason, and the government has created new "grounds" under Section 8 for such scenarios. Such as selling or moving the family in.
It’s just the new rules; those are the conditions that you are still allowed to evict - outside of following procedure for a problematic tenant.
So if I need to take back my property because I want to either A live in it or B sell it, I can still do so with a section 21 after the 1 year period?
Just asking because I became a accidental landlord but I'll be looking to take bsck my property after Jan 2026 so I can sell
Wouldn’t be an S21, but yes you can take back property to sell with two months notice after 12 months of a tenancy.
I would assume the 12 month period would be pro rata from the start of the current tenancy rather than from the point of the bill being introduced but I’m not sure.
I did hear it was pro rata from the start of the current tenancy but I'll need to double check
That makes sense.
I opened the comments to find a bunch of greedy landlords who want to squeeze every penny from renters.
I’m glad people like you are about
Well thats one experience. Meanwhile, in the real world of a significant increase in defaulting tenants…………
https://closedbridgingfinance.com/buy-to-let-repossessions-skyrocket-is-the-landlord-dream-over/
It’s so weird how increasing rents above inflation year after year has led to more tenants defaulting.
Totally unpredictable outcome….🙄
Right? It's not some increase in bad tenants, it's that people just can't afford their housing costs anymore.
The reforms don't address that at all, so per the main comment this doesn't change much fundamentally in the current market landscape.
> The reforms don't address that at all, so per the main comment this doesn't change much fundamentally in the current market landscape
It looks like the reforms will make it harder for people to turn a profit by simply increasing the rent over and over again by indirectly punishing that behaviour. Hopefully this means more landlords start valuing stability from long-term tenants and price gouge less due to the increased costs and problems if they price out their current tenants.
That does rely on landlords being smart enough to actually realize the benefit to doing that, and as a cohort they’re not exactly known for that, so we’ll see how much of a difference it really makes.
Well quite. I was a property manager a long time ago, we were a small family run agency. We always advised keeping long term tenants over increases for the sake of it because a month or two vacant period and bam your increase has gone.
So yes, I should have said that may be the one benefit for all concerned if landlords view it that way! I was in my last property 7 years no increase, redecorated the entire place and due to that it re-let immediately as they were inundated with enquiries.
Current property I've been in 4.5 years and again I'm slowly redecorating what was/is a very tired and dated property (with permission). Good tenants are worth a lot more than 10% increases and vacant periods between yearly tenants.
Ikr, they literally did nothing but buy houses for peanuts and then have been profiteering of the fruits of other peoples labour for years. While they sit at home picking their arse. Not contributing whatsoever to society
Still, kicking out someone to put your daughter is reasonable but still a c*nt move.
That person lost money having to move in and move out because of you.
4 months of no paying seems way too generous though. I don't get why they're extending from 2 months to 3 months
Hi I just want you to know that my landlord issued us a section 21 so he could move his son in temporarily and it “temporarily” ruined our life, I hope you’re happy and your son is enjoying wonderful privileged life! I hope he never finds himself suddenly facing the prospect of looking for a home while trying to study or work :) take care x
Question: We live in a badly maintained property and it’s causing health issues but we can’t afford to move. We’ve asked so many times and the landlord just ignores it. Is there a way we can make him do the repairs that wouldn’t put us at risk for retaliatory eviction under the new rules?
You used a section 21 to move somebody out so your daughter can move in. You're part of the problem. You changed somebody's life because you felt you could. Shame on you tbh
Parts of this is wrong. It's in an ideal world where 4 months of rent is lost. Actually my tenant stopped paying in October last year, put the notice in the first week of Jan, court date is next week. So I've lost 6 months rent so far and that's before these reforms. I can see it being nearly a year with these new rules in lost rent before they can be kicked out. What a fucking stupid law change.
And court date isn't final eviction date they still get like another month and that's if the judge goes in your favour.
Yes I know, but considering the amount in arrears the law binds them to issue eviction
Yes and no turns out tenants can pay rent arrears to bring it under 2 months right before the hearing which means your judge will give them more time to continue and basically puts you in square one. Then they can claim breathing space to buy more time.
If they stop paying again then the second time section 8 will be more successful but effectively a year to 2 lost.
Thankfully the judges see straight through that BS and offer discretionary eviction on the ground that mentions inconsistent payments
Not first time around unfortunately. Judges always side with tenants if they come to fight it and bring it to just under mandatory grounds. I was advised this is a common tactic to buy more time.
I have that base fully covered, but thank you.
Yep it’s so ridiculous.
i have a good friend that worked for one of surreys biggest rental agencies and she’s seen the eviction process take up to 18 months, all while they get free accommodation and screw over the landlord.
What happens to the individuals once they are evicted ? Black listed ?
There’s no blacklist due to data protection.
Worst case scenario you get a ccj, and it’s difficult to rent again.
How often is a ccj handed out?
You would need to pursue one specifically.
Oh no. That poor 'biggest rental agency' however will they survive?
What do you mean?
I've just been through an eviction process for non-payment of rent. It lasted 15 months of the tenant living rent-free in the property. 4 months would have been a dream compared to the losses I've incurred.
The big problem isn't the law, it's that the courts are so backed up and slow.
I think this is at the heart of the issue. If we had a separate fast-track system set-up for housing issues then there would be little problem at all with these changes.
Remains to be seen how this alternative resolution system is going to work
Then maybe don’t be a landlord.
Put your house for sale, and sell it to someone who will actually live in it if it’s too much trouble.
Do you not have Rent Guarantee Insurance? Surely that's a must have to cover cases exactly like this?
Used to have it but the cost of it isn't worth the expense, and it's a difficulty to claim off it when it does go wrong
Damn, this is a tricky bill for both the landlords and tenants. Definitely makes being a landlord alot more unattractive than ever though.
>Definitely makes being a landlord alot more unattractive than ever though.
Only if you're a scummy person.
If you're of sound moral character, then this bill changes nothing for you.
Lol. I’m not a landlord but that couldn’t make less sense.
How on earth does ‘moral character’ come into one’s exposure to financial risk?
Cos nothing bad happens to good people? What dream world are you living in?
>How on earth does ‘moral character’ come into one’s exposure to financial risk?
Well, first of all, and in my own personal view, a person of sound moral character won't try to make a 'dirty dime' off of people's livelihoods.
If you're a bad tenant, you're still gonna be able to be evicted, same as before. But you shouldn't uproot someone's life and risk making them homeless just because it suits YOU. Wanna sell? Tough shit! People live there. Talk to them first like a decent person SHOULD do and see if you can reach a mutual agreement. Some people can't just pack up and go.
So, in essence, the financial risk is the same. It just stops you fucking with other people's lives.
In what sense does the law changing such that “there will be 4 months of rent arrears at least” in the case of a tenant deciding not to pay rent…
(which btw is almost impossible as the obligatory court hearing would have to happen instantly for that. So in reality, it would more likely be like 6 months minimum of zero rent) …
In what world does that constitute “no change to financial risk”?
There are tonnes of scummy tenants out there will take advantage, pay no rent for 6 months and then just go on their merry way to the next home to do the same.
Plus it says you can’t even give notice until they’ve been there a year so you’d be looking at potentially a year without rent!!
The periodic tenancy part- sure that’s a good thing, but the other bit I’m not sure is fair.
Such a rule just makes it worse for landlords, makes them leave the game, increases rental prices for the rest of us due to supply/demand and benefits scumbags who plan to not pay rent. If you don’t have savings to cover rent (in case you lose your job) then that’s on you- rent somewhere cheaper so you can save.
Good
Tenants do realise that this would work both ways. It’s just my opinion but most of the tinkering that has gone on in recent years has actually made things worse for tenants
It's catastrophically worse for tenants. There's a shortage of rental properties as it is, rents have shot up, and now landlords are going to be so picky about who they rent to, that many people will find it almost impossible to find a place. Sadly, these will include people with CCJs who will never be able to get a mortgage.
I'm looking for a new rental because the downstairs neighbours make too much noise, and there's barely anything nearby. A nice place popped up on Rightmove and I called it immediately to schedule a booking for the very next day. The agent then emailed me the following day saying my booking was cancelled as they already picked someone :'(
Got a viewing for a place next Wednesday which frankly is a bit too small but clearly I don't have the luxury of being picky. I'll also likely have to offer to pay lots of rent up front in order to be competitive...
People celebrating these changes are morons and will just keep crying "landlords are evil" as things get worse and worse.
It wouldn't even surprise me if places go before they get on Rightmove ATM.
That’s crazy, are you in a big city?
Not really, that's part of the problem. When I was looking 18 months ago it was also very competitive and properties would go fast, but new places also popped up pretty fast. Now it just seems really dried up.
If they can’t get a mortgage or a rental with CCJ, I wonder what they do.
Most evicted tenants do not get a ccj as it isn't automatic. The landlord has to throw more time and money at it by that point they don't.
That WAS the way with Section 21, since they have to prove fault anyway for rent arreas now with Section 8 its just a few more boxes. The CCJ's could shoot up.
Bingo
If you're going to court anyway, may as well do it all at once
Mine was a section 8 I ticked the box for money judgement etc but no ccj was added. I don't understand what more I need to do to get one added.
When applying for a possession order under Section 8, the landlord can include a money claim for the outstanding rent arrears in the same court application (using Form N5 for possession and specifying the arrears).
It sounds like yours was processed wrong by the court?
Potentially the outcome was money and the property but I have been told this isn't a ccj
Many people have CCJs for reasons completely unconnected with none payment of rent though. Going forward, landlords will have to be extremely wary of anyone with a poor credit history I think, if they aren't already.
This is why homelessness is increasing, both in terms of rough sleeping and families in temporary accommodation. If you live in a city, you must have noticed rows of tents in city centre locations which have sprung up in the last year or so.
Lots of tenant communities seem to think that landlords selling is good, b cause it will either go to other landlords (no impact) or owner occupiers, which is good.
They forget that 300 properties 200 renters is shit, but 200 properties for 100 renters is a lot worse.
And that's assuming none of those had people house sharing...
Rent prices go brrrrrrr ✓
House prices go 📉
Home ownership by the working class go 📈
And prohibiton of rent in advance; self-employed tenants, students, and others who don't have a traditional 9-to-5 won't be able to pass referencing even if they could pay for the whole tenancy agreement duration upfront.
These measures aimed at "protecting vulnerable tenants" are in force in France and obviously they had the opposite effect in practice.
Well at least it'll only apply in England...
Except in France the government guarantees rent for students and people on low incomes
Visale is a great initiative indeed, but private landlords often look down on it. It's also not available to the self-employed. Good old CDI is still king. Yet another reason why people won't start businesses.
Even here, using a LISA to buy outright is not permitted. Got to be using a mortgage. So it's difficult to rent AND it's difficult to own if you're self-employed, even with large savings.
You know fixed term contracts are banned in Scotland already right? And it is bloody brilliant
There’s a few things that are done better in Scotland for tenants
Unsurprising that our landlord overlord class are telling us it’s going to be awful and everyone is going to be homeless and dead
Scotland is facing a serious rental crisis characterized by increasingly unaffordable rents, dwindling availability of affordable housing, and rising homelessness.
SNP realy messed it up, not sure this was the tipping point but its certainly not "brilliant".
Why is it bloody brilliant? For who ?
Tenants. Much greater freedom, not locked in to staying in a place for more than needed. Want to take a job in a new city? Easy, hand in your 2 month notice and off you go.
Imagine as a tenant getting a place and realising it's a complete shit, the agent lied to you, the landlord is unresponsive and you locked for a year there. Happened to us. Being able to get out of this would be bloody brilliant.
This is awful for landlords
And tenants
Boo hoo.
It appears the bill will not be bad for either party over all. As a landlord/agent more dialogue and vetting is required and as a tenant the prices will go up.
If in doubt there's always routine inspections and candles
I think it's due to come into force in May.
October I'm hearing.
My LL association suggested Oct.
If you’re selling you can still take possession. Rent arrears is where tenants will take the piss. Consistent late rent payments will be more common as they flout the legislation. I imagine you won’t be able to evict due to late rents now.
You can - but it’s now 3 months in arrears, while before it was 2 months (under section 8) so you basically have to wait an extra month in order to file the eviction.
Pointless why not just leave it at 2.
It allow greater flexibility. But also higher rents.
Flexibility? How?
A tenant was tied in for a term, so if they had to move for a job they were "stuck". Now its just a short notice.
All rental agreements becoming periodic will make the market more competitive. Too many landlords getting away with not getting repairs done or delaying them as well as generally beung unresponsive in situations when you need them. Well guess what, now a tenant can leave at a short notice and find a place somewhere else.
Although I have to agree that the Renters bill is a joke. It sounds great on paper but for example eliminating the ability to pay upfront for a tenancy is just going to hit many people who are self employed.
It's the end of furnished let's. You'll be effectively at risk of being an Airbnb host with 60 days tenants
What scaremongering, Scotland has a 28day notice period on rentals and you can still get furnished properties. Wind ya neck in.
You will be good. It's a common practice in so many countries. Normally people don't change homes every 60 days unless the place is shit.
I think, potentially the most difficult thing for landlords to deal with could be the fact that they are going to have to ensure that their rental properties have an EPC rating of C and above. It might not be a problem for new builds, but many properties where I live were built before cavity walls were a thing, uPVC windows have only recently been allowed, without planning permission. It's getting a property up to a C rating which could be expensive and problematic. What makes it particularly galling is that social housing will be excluded from this rule!
I think that is going to be a huge problem, A lot of the time landlords with a flat in a block cannot do things like cavity wall or roof insulation, and may struggle with things like heating systems too. Getting to D is fairly easy, but C, under the current regs, is damn near impossible for a flat built before 1975 - which is most of them where I live.
Even the cost makes no sense. Paying £20k to add significant insulation to a small flat worth £100k, with pretty much no rentable value increase will just mean it's going to be cheaper to sell.
There will be nothing available at the bottom end of the market aside from rooms in shared houses and student lets.
If there's no S21, what happens when a Tennant refuses a rent increase?
You *shoudnt have done that anyway, it was just convenient. You *should have been doing Section 13 rent increase notices. That is what you will have to do moving forward, they removed the shortcut.
S8
Best way to ensure a tenant doesn’t give 2 months notice is to make sure the place isn’t a shithole. Easy 👌🏾
This is very true.
U wot m8, it ain’t free money you know, why should I reinvest my profits to keep the money machine printing free money
We need to sell a currently rented property. This will make it a nightmare as we couldn't issue a section 21 to empty the house to sell as vacant.
You can evict to sell, just not using Section 21.
Can you? This is our one and only experience of renting a property out and it’s not been fun.
Ground 1A under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. This is a mandatory ground for possession, meaning the court must grant possession if the landlord can prove their genuine intent to sell, provided specific conditions are met.
I'm in a slightly different situation. My tenants left as I'm in the process of selling (viewings) so sensibly they found a new place anticipating they'd have to leave. Unfortunately this law has led to a flood of properties on the market so selling has been slow. The agent advised putting a fixed term contract (6 months) while it waits to sell.
If this document is accurate, then that six month contract is invalid. Mixed blessing that the contract turned out to be a disaster (another story) but it would be useful to know what could be done in my case now. It seems I have no choice but to leave the place empty until it sells.
Regardless though, this is way better than the rental laws in Europe so I'm not super complaining.
The main people suffering from the bill will be tenants. Especially low-income tenants. Lower numbers of properties, higher rents. More selective landlords. The smaller-scale landlords will be driven out of business but will end up having made significant capital gains. Same as the tax rules and the new regulations the people who have been cheerleading for this will be complaining at the consequences of their own actions.
The problem with a bill like this?
We will vet our tenants with more scrutiny.
Sell then if you're happy at least, prices of houses will come down now that you greedy lot can't get renters to pay your mortgage
A collection of words that make little sense
Greedy person doesn't understand English what a surprise
Dave thinks they are clever. Nice!
Aww poor diddums, got a bank to lend them money and hoped that they could get others to pay for it, and now that seems unlikely, you're all the problem with housing being greedy I hope you all fail
Nope. I'm seeing rents rise every 6 months. Things are going great
Rent is a sum paid for use and occupation of real estate.
So how are you manging to raise rents every 6 months you must be a dodgy landlord kicking people out early while making the housing market worse for everyone seems you don't understand how the economy works, while you've just proven my point you're a greedy person, that sucks the best from society just so you can be lazy and not work
Wow. More random words. Keep going my rambling friend.
I agree with Dave tbh. Why are you raising the rent every 6 months on someone's home? Seems a bit unfair.
That's how the economy works as Dave has observed
What's going to happen to the thousands of people who will never be able to buy because they can't get a mortgage? Sadly the numbers of landlords selling up isn't significant enough as a proportion of the total number of properties on the market to affect selling prices. But it is significant enough as a proportion of the short supply rental properties to drive rents up.
House prices aren’t falling in the next 5 years
“Tenants will have to be in a property for a minimum of one year before notice can be given.”
Does this mean a tenant can move in, and then not pay rent for 11 months before a notice can be given? Surely not?
I think that's notice if you want to sell or rent to a family member. So tenant gets at least one year in the property before you can serve notice for them to leave.
No. If they are in (3 months) arrears you can evict.
Appears so, isn't there also another regulations that no deposit more than 1 month can be obtained? Seems like a lack of protection for the landlord
It can’t be the case surely? People will just hope from one place to another every year having only paid one months rent on move in.
It will cause mayhem if that’s the case.
I hope not. This will cause the rent to increase again. Hopefully someone from the government can give a proper answer then.
Month to month leases have been mandatory in Scotland for years. Not a big deal.
Im a tenant. I have had to move almost every year for 12 years, always trying to chase affordable rent, with the quality of the the property declining each time i had to move. id much rather sign a years long agreement and stay put in one property than move constantly. I have an agreement with landlady at the money in current flat where I have lived for 3 years. (longest ive lived anywhere since 19, im now 32). If i keep property maintained, she will "only" raise the rent by 5% yearly.
in return for this, ive fully repainted the flat, redone the trims in bathrooms and kitchen, applied new veneers to kitchen cabinets etc.
id much prefer to be doing this to my own home but for now this is the price i pay for trying to stay somewhere stable
Yes. Tenants can move out giving two months notice. & why not. They have lives to live. I have had two sets of tenants who have given me two months notice. One set was buying & the other set split up. They gave this notice period before the renters bill. & I accepted because I am not a monster.
Oh look at me, I bought a flat that somebody else could have lived in and then rented it to them at twice the price. It’s not free money you know, us landlords are always getting shafted
Tpp many silly rules best is gett tennants and cash in hand rent no tax easy money seen people do this for decades
Imagine the type of person you would be renting to…
The sort that can’t complain when you don’t do repairs or hike up the rent as no other landlord will house them.
Would I be right to assume that a tenant can live rent free for 1 year and 1 month a property before a notice can be served? Generally curious and as I'm a bit confused about the last point in which no notice can be given within a year?
No, lol. They can live "rent free" for 3 months before a court order, eviction and ccj etc..
Its preventing a landlord evicting for say selling the property, or moving a family member in for a year. Nothing to do with rent arrears.
It's probably a year and a month as the court backlog is huge. 3 months before you can take them to court, and then waiting for a year will probably take another year, even more if there isn't any paperwork is place
My friend had her property occupied for 2 years now. She had to pay all the utilities, even the council tax, because the court is 'busy'.
Your friend has done something weird and wrong, and you should encourage them to seek profeshional assistance.
It's weird as landlords never pay utilities or council tax, unless its a HMO where it can get weird.
Iq
Re. the last point and having just lost £7k in arrears & repairs, would I be right in saying that a S21 would still be possible if (hypothetically) my new tenant was 3 months in arrears, I didn't want the hassle of the eviction process & £000's more in losses, and wanted to sell up?
I suspect that the 'revenge eviction' could/would come into play, but if I genuinely wanted out of the rental market, surely I'm not legally restricted by the new bill??
Section 21 was never for arrears & damage, it was Section 8 (and will be in the future). Its just that Section 21 was more convenient.
Yes, you can evict for damage, rent arrears or if you want to sell using Section 8 under the new bill. You can not evict to sell the property if the tenancy is less than a year old, thats a new restriction.
Sorry, my first point wasn't remotely clear as I'm aware that it's a S8 for arrears etc, but your last sentence clarifies things in a somewhat frightening way.
My property is likely being marketed next weekend and based on conversations with letting agents, together with a complete refurb to a pretty high standard, it should go quite quickly. And yes, I want the dimensions of the renters spleen this time....
So, if in 6 months I want to sell for whatever reason, I have to wait another 6 before I'm permitted to do so??
EDIT Yes, is the answer to my own question..... https://theindependentlandlord.com/section-21-abolition/
FFS!!
I dont know if its retrospective, so if your quick you could be ok! The new bill is in effect soon.
This is basically what we have in ontario canada
It seems very likely to me that a lot of these rules will be amended in the House of Lords.
Tenants live in landlords home, can't be evicted easily, when not paying rent, sue them if mould appears And laugh at you
Will item 4 be a problem?
What if they move in and just don't pay rent at all?
All legislations like this do is reduce rental property availability and push the price of rents up as a result. Why are they increasing the amount of time people can get away with not paying rent? It’s ridiculous.
I have one residential property in my portfolio and I've been trying to get rid of it. The tenant is as journalist and in arrears by underpaying just enough so that they hit the limit by the time the tenancy is finished
Goodbye residential landlords and properties.
This clueless government are going to ask why there are so few properties available and why home buying demand is down so much. Since hearing about those, I've been trying to get rid of the last residential in my portfolio.
I agree with the removal of the Section 21 notices as they were used to just evict someone when the rent could not go up as much as the landlord wanted. P.S i own my own home but previously rented . However with regards to the rent arrears it should not take 4 months to evict someone who is not paying their damn rent. No payment two months consecutively should be a simple eviction end off. Pay your rent is a basic requirement for occupation of a premises.
We have a shortage of rentals.
The UK should make being a landlord easier. More landlords = lower rents + higher quality
Tenants should be allowed to leave early. They should also be guaranteed a minimum stay.
Tbh the current system is pretty fair. Shafting landlords removing them from the pool is illogical and will harm the country down the line.
Rent insurance
Comprehensive referencing
Pass on anyone that doesnt qualify for the above or request a high earning guarantor
My contract already preempts this. Both can give 30 days. Never had to do it myself, but my tenants did (albeit after the min 6 month even on a 12 month contract).
In the same, as a tenant myself overseas (different laws), it was originally 6-12 months and i'm not running on 24 months. I even signed a fake contract with my landlord to cut his tax and we work on the original payment with a flexible schedule where I pay in advance sometimes and fall behind (by agreement when traveling) at other times. Obviously. that is not UK.
Get rekt
None of this seems that much of a big deal?
No big deal, never is. Just a pain and more costs.
Now I only rent to tenants who can provide a home owning guarantor.
It’s the only way left to protect my business.
No guarantor, no tenancy.
[deleted]
It’s not unreasonable to not trust a stranger with what could be your only source of income and sole asset.
LLs are free to protect themselves however they seem fit. They’re not all mega rich people that can afford a mistake
Choosing to concentrate your whole net worth (with leverage) into one single income-generating asset is your own decision.
Would happily rent to you if you can provide that sort of reference.
That's very reassuring. I know there are some landlords out there (my previous 3 LL and my current one) who took me straight away based on a solid history.
I had one 1 deposit dispute where a previous LL tried to claim hundreds for dust on a skirting. Whilst not pleasant on my references I doubt it will have much damage as I have always paid early and left when the tenancy is up. A professional clean is something I opt for now going forward to avoid any deductions
Good tenants are hard to come by. I have had several and were very house proud. Those are keepers. Sad to see them move on.
I have one rental property - accidental landlord. Same tenant since 2015. They are with out doubt the best tenants you could wish for. In a decade they haven’t missed a single rent payment and have essentially renovated the entire place to a great standard. I have offered to pay for items which would fall under my remit but they won’t take it. Property has now doubled in price and well, over a grand a month in rent since 2015! One property has very much set me up !!
I would not accept your application, no.
You can label it unreasonable, I would describe it as necessary and well reasoned.
Past performance doesn’t guarantee your future actions.
I won’t be the only landlord that implements this pragmatic approach.
The government has actually disadvantaged those in your situation, potentially freezing you out of the market.
I do agree. That's ashame. As I have good rental references and never not paid the rent. I worry for the future when securing properties.
One of the proposed amendments to be debated in the House of Lords shortly, if passed, would make this illegal.
Wow, thanks for sharing.
I was not aware of this proposed amendment.
Fortunately, looking deeper, it doesn’t ban/outlaw guarantors:
“This new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a landlord can request a guarantor.”
Worryingly it does limit guarantors liability to 6 months rent.
My last council tenant cost me 20k in repairs - I won’t take council tenants again!
> My last council tenant cost me 20k in repairs - I won’t take council tenants again!
Why couldn't you simply bill this to the council?
They do everything to wash their hands of any responsibility.
They said I could keep the deposit and that’s it.
£1k was a drop in the water to what was needed.
An interesting unintended consequence of this will be more holiday lets.
Surely this only works for younger people.. most people in their 30s or 40s wouldn’t have anyone,
Correct. I dont think MPs thought this through. However, if this is the trend their will be guarantor / rent guarantee insurance services that pop up to charge tenants a fee.