Controversial measures to deal with so-called retaliatory evictions have been approved by the House of Lords.
A Government amendment to the Deregulation Bill would prevent repossession of a private rental property within six months of a tenant’s written complaint about the condition of a property where the landlord had not given an “adequate response” within 14 days.
Failure to give an “adequate response” would allow the tenant to complain to the local authority which could then serve a notice on the landlord, setting out “a reasonable timescale” for work to be done.
The amendment, moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, was challenged.
Conservative peer and private landlord Lord Howard of Rising said that a six-months block on being able to serve a Section 21 notice could easily become ten months if the local authority delayed acting on a tenant’s complaint.
He was also worried that a 14-day time limit for a landlord to respond to a request might not be reasonable, given that a landlord could be on holiday. He proposed 28 days.
He also raised concerns about some landlords not having the financial ability to carry out repair work.
He said: “Where I live and rent out properties, a full repair costs on average 16 times the annual rent, and a minor refurbishment five years’ rent, and that does not allow for any tax.”
Another Tory peer and former estate agent, Earl Cathcart, agreed that the 14-day timespan should be lengthened to 28 days.
He said: “We are dealing with, in this instance, the rogue landlords – who we all dislike and who we all want to get out of owning property – but we are also dealing with, possibly, the worst type of tenant, who wants to be obstructive and has the ability to be obstructive.
“When you make laws for those sorts of people, it is very hard to get the balance absolutely right, because the effect percolates up through all the good people. What you do to the very bad affects the good.
“There is a perception that the Government are moving away from the fine balance that has been achieved and are moving more in the direction of the tenant than of the landlord.”
After further debate Lord Howard withdrew the amendment.
Other amendments to the Bill were also agreed, this time concerning tenancy deposits.
One clarifies that where a letting agent has received a deposit on behalf of a landlord, the letting agent’s contact details can be given in the Prescribed Information instead of the landlord’s details.
A second amendment was tabled following the case of Charalambous v Ng 2014, which concerned a landlord who received a tenancy deposit prior to the coming into force of the tenancy deposit legislation in 2007.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon explained: “The tenancy in question became periodic prior to the date that the tenancy deposit legislation came into force and has continued as such ever since.
“The court ruled that the tenancy deposit legislation should apply to all landlords in this position and that they would therefore need to protect deposits if they wished to rely on the no-fault ground for eviction known as Section 21.
“It was never the intention, either in 2007 or following amendments made to the tenancy deposit legislation in 2012, that it should apply in this way.
“The amendments that we propose will make absolutely clear that, although landlords affected by the judgment will need to protect deposits if they wish to rely on Section 21, they will not be at risk of financial penalties should they fail to protect.”
The Hansard record of the full debate in the Lords together with the wording of the amendments is here
A huge step towards killing the private rented sector…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Good. Bunch of parasites
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
But perhaps they are at least parasites who can spell…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What “retaliatory evictions”…I’ve not had any. What is the real reason for this non-sensical law to be passed.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I completely agree, it almost seems this bill has been passed to respond to some fantasy widespread issue that the media and Stella Cready have dreamt up. In all the years I have been doing Lettings I have never had a landlord try to evict a tenant out of revenge.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Precisely. In general most landlords are not stupid, they don’t want to kick out good tenants, if a tenant pays the rent on time and abides by the terms of their tenancy agreement then there will be no issues.
It’s making good a problem that doesn’t exist.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Bonkers – seriously bonkers. The rouge tenants will have a field day with this one.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
D@mn those Reds! ;o)
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What letter? – I didn’t receive anything?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Put the rent up?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
We issue a Section 21 on commencement of the tenancy. How will the legislation affect us?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Having now read the Hansard transcription I see this “disreputable practice” is to be outlawed!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Good. Serving an eviction notice at the start of a tenancy is seriously nasty. About time it was stopped
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
York Property Company – I hope you mean you serve s21 after the deposit is protected or the notice is invalid
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Under these amendments you will not be able to serve a Section 21 Notice until 4 months after the commencement of the tenancy. In the House your practice of serving notice at the commencement of the tenancy was described as ” small minority of landlords and letting agents in which they serve an eviction notice at the start of a tenancy. This disreputable practice can result in a tenant having to vacate a property with virtually no notice.
I hope this answers your question for you
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It always stuns me to see that the legislators dont know the legislation. s21 is not an eviction notice and is invalid if served before the deposit is protected. If served at the commencement of the tenancy, and assuming it was valid to do so, then the statement that the tenant has virtually no notice is bonkers…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
PS – you have 3 years to get used to this…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Who decides what is, and what isn’t, an “adequate response”?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Jeez I always said the Deregulation Bill could be a tranquiliser gun for common sense but I never guessed it’d come back to bite me in the *ss so soon. Dude this really is a special kind of stupid because “adequate response” is pretty much “better luck next time’ or “there he is get him!” Man, I’d swap out a kidney for an ounce of perspective from these guys because despite the principled intentions all this did was green light the private sectors expiration. I mean what next, three year tenancies and rent control…oh wait. Wow maybe I’ll get back into p*rn, they’re hiring right?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You could indeed and in tune with the article make your performance name Rent.. err.. Boy, hmm perhaps not.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I am at a lose regarding the whole lettings industry!
Can somebody explain it to me, seriously!
From what i can see,
1.We have a shortage of property in the UK,
2.The government do not have anywhere near enough social housing.
3.Property prices to buy in the UK are among the highest in the world.
4. Affordabilty wise to purchase property in the UK is among the highest in the world
5. The state pensions are reducing and we are on a time bomb how long we can sustain.
So in reply to all this we have private landlords, who from what i see
1. Give more housing to the letting market.
2. People who cannot afford to buy are able to rent.
3. Have an investment property to help with their pension.
And unless i am wrong the standard of let property in the UK is very good. If tenants do not like a property they are only obliged to stay 6 months!
Why are they trying to make landlords lives as miserable as possible? they should be applauded!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Are you stupid? Landlords do not”give”their property to anyone. They exploit the housing shortage by renting out their property at extortionate rates. Time for some serious regulation
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Let me guess you are one of the hemp wearing, green tea drinking, work shy, “Life is for living” numpties that works for shelter?
I bet if you also thought there was no private landlords, property would be cheaper?
As for landlords “exploiting the housing shortage by renting out property at an extortionate rate” – You do understand they need to buy the property, probably service a mortgage on it and deal with the ongoing maintenance issues?????
Most landlord do not see a good return for the first 20 years whilst they are paying off the debt to purchase the property in the first place. After that it act as their pension.
but yes as you can see i am stupid!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I agree with Smile Please – here we go with more ‘back of a fag packet’ legislation that seems to be bent on destroying an industry the Country desperately needs to see expand rather than be legislated to oblivion!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Just had to test this – fag
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
From what I see above, our ‘new’ poster should have tried to borrow the name of another old face rather than the one he/she has adopted.
“ObserveR” has clearly proved too difficult to type – so maybe “rEnt’n’rave” would have been a better – and certainly more apt – choice! ;o)
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Perhaps he /she is a vet, though? (ObserVET) Might explain the serious lack of understanding he/she has of the problems this country faces in housing all of the population, especially the under-privileged and the disadvantaged.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register