Agents have expressed concern at proposed reforms to the possessions process in Scotland, which they fear could have an adverse impact on the rented sector north of the border.
Propertymark has questioned whether the intention of proposed reforms to the possessions process in Scotland is to strengthen homelessness protections for tenants struggling to pay their rent or to simply delay it by ‘tripping up’ landlords.
A Scottish government and COSLA consultation is proposing to make permanent the temporary pre-action protocols landlords must follow before starting possession proceedings. They were introduced during the pandemic as further protection for tenants who fell into rent arrears as a result.
In its response, Propertymark questions the motive and timing in the absence of a full analysis of the effectiveness of the protocols and a commitment to reintroduce financial support for tenants.
Daryl McIntosh, Propertymark’s policy manager for the UK devolved nations, commented: “Most agents and landlords are following these protocols anyway and enshrining them in law has the potential to become a stick to beat them with if a possession case goes before the First Tier Tribunal.
“At that stage there is a real danger that judgements may be made based on whether landlords have adequately followed the protocols rather than whether they have attempted meaningful engagement with their tenants to agree a way forward.
“No analysis of the success or otherwise of the pre-action protocols has been published.
“Until we see this evidence and without further financial assistance for tenants, we are concerned making these temporary requirements permanent will simply trip up landlords and delay the process as opposed to benefitting and supporting tenants.”
Great words Daryl, some of my notes:
Simple one for u, who does it help when the Judge chucks it out of court cause Landlord has no proof he gave boiler certificate 6 years ago? And he’s had new boiler since so it’s completely irrelevant certificate for old boiler. It helps that ONE tenant. But u know afterwards, when the Landlord has spent another £1000 on court fees & solicitors & he eventually gets his house back, he sells the ruddy thing & the next Landlord don’t take any less than perfect working tenant again & charges the earth.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Not sure this position holds up but thanks for trying to defend us landlords Daryl.
If most of us are following the protocols anyway why would it matter that they are enshrined in law? And if we are attempting all meaningful engagement to try and agree a way forward then we will be following the protocol, no? A pre-action protocol helps to set out a clear and consistent framework for action deemed meaningful by all landlords. It shouldn’t be for us to decide what this meaningful engagement looks like. This will look different for each landlord. I do agree that we should not be asked to do anything unreasonable though. What we’re expected to do to try and agree a way forward should not be disproportionate to the damage caused by any tenancy breaches.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
MiHomey
“why would it matter that they are enshrined in law?”. If you remember the story of Gullivers travels, you’ll recall he was tied down by hundreds of tiny threads. Each thread on its own wasn’t a problem, but the accumulation of lots of little threads can stop the market acting as it should to provide housing for the homeless. Each law might seem harmless on its own, but the collective effect of restrictive legislation can have adverse and unforeseen consequences.
I recommend reading the economist Thomas Sowells book – “The Housing Boom and Bust” It’s a small book, but it neatly explains how seemingly simple and harmless looking rules, later fail to adapt, causing havoc and devastation for the very people the rules were intended to protect.
If, “most of us are following the protocols anyway” then it obviously does not need to be enshrined in law. People argue for laws for a host of misguided reasons. Some reasons are selfish, such as thinking it will harm their competition, or thinking it will protect them. Some reasons are well-meaning but from people who are just badly educated, such as thinking the laws will benefit the groups that the law is stated to benefit regardless of the actual real-world consequences. But some reasons are just malicious, such as would-be-lawmakers wanting to throw a spanner in the works out of revenge for their life not being meaningful enough, in the hope that by influencing the creation of laws, it will give their life the meaning they crave and the feeling of power they desire, all while pretending to help the downtrodden and bearing no cost for the actual negative consequences of their actions.
Law-makers are not necessarily virtuous or wise. Most are acting out of self-interest and will throw the common person under the bus to benefit themselves. All under the angelic cover of “helping the downtrodden”.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I think the metaphor presented by Gulliver being tied down by all those ropes is a lot more complex and probably doesn’t help defend our position as landlords in all fairness, but I do see the point you’re trying to make. Too much regulation while not balancing this with other measures e.g encouraging/increasing investment and just building more homes will not help in the grand scheme of things. Your second point was far too deep for me to fathom so I’ll leave that one with you
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Take a look at Wales where government has tinkered with PRS. On principal many landlords have left and many new landlords are not engaging in the seen to be “control mentality” resulting in horrific housing crisis.
Just because you can, does not mean you should. Something bureaucrats’ never listen to.
PRS Landlords are starting to live in fear and not healthy for the industry.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Politicians don’t seem to understand our industry or the economics of the housing market (or don’t want to). In my opinion this shows they don’t really care about tenants.
We tell them that a Tax on landlords is a tax on tenants, as it reduces the number of landlords, which pushes rents up, but they don’t want to listen to it.
There is a misconception out there that if a landlord leaves the market and sells the property, it has no effect on the market because a tenant can buy that property as a first time buyer.
This forgets that landlords build to rent, convert land and buildings (such as commercial buildings) into residential accommodation for tenants. In other words the amount of housing available is not a fixed number. Accommodation is not a zero sum game, the size of the pie can change.
It’s a bit like when women entered the workforce in the 1950’s. People worried because it looks like a woman can take the job of a man, just putting a man out of work, but jobs are also not a zero sum game, there is not a fixed number of jobs. Less women in the workforce does not benefit men. You can see this in countries where women are still kept out of the workforce. The situation there is worse for both men and women.
A women can replace a man, like a buyer can replace a tenant, but that’s not the whole picture.
In short, any tax on landlords (Financial or legislative) that encourages landlords to leave the sector, is actually a tax on tenants. Perhaps politicians do understand this and are looking forward to homeless tenants voting them in to provide a housing solution? However, the solution to too much government interference in the market is unlikely to be more government interference in the market, but then, I’m not a politician so I can only speculate as to the incentives and restraints that politicians work under.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
In short, any tax on landlords (Financial or legislative) that encourages landlords to leave the sector, is actually a tax on tenants. Perhaps politicians do understand this and are looking forward to homeless tenants voting them in to provide a housing solution?
I think the politicians know exactly what they are doing. Some do not care of the repercussions as long as it looks like they are doing something for the needy (tenants) i.e. political ideology. More likely on this story (pressure groups love this one), recognising landlords will be putting tenants out on the street, so make it as difficult as possible. They don’t want the problem of homeless people being left on their doorstep to sort out but they are only delaying the inevitable and as Wales has seen reducing stock compounding the problems for tenants unnecessarily.
The stories tile should read
Landlords, Agents and Tenants concerned about proposed reforms to the possessions process.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Probably some of the most interesting discussions I’ve seen on PIE in a long while.
The mentality of “the poor tenant” and the “evil rich landlord” that the governments spew in England, Wales & Scotland is merely exacerbating the housing crisis. Instead of coming up with solutions so solve the issue (i.e. BUILD MORE HOMES) they simply slap a plaster on the wound by introducing more regulations in a pathetic attempt to offload their liability on to existing landlords/developers, further exacerbating the crisis by encouraging landlords/developers to leave the industry.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register