An influential think tank has called for ‘no fault’ evictions to be abolished in England.
The Institute for Public Policy Research, a registered charity, says that England should follow the lead of Scotland, where no fault evictions were banned in December 2017.
The Institute wants to see Section 21 abolished and replaced, as in Scotland, with open-ended tenancies, along with other radical reforms.
These would include preventing landlords from evicting a family for the first three years if the only reason is to sell the property – a step that goes considerably further than in Scotland, where wanting to sell is one of 18 permitted grounds for eviction.
In England the reform would mean that landlords would still be able to sell within three years of a tenancy beginning, but only with a sitting tenant – meaning that they could only sell to another landlord.
The Institute’s new report also calls for rent controls, with rises limited to once a year and capped in line with the consumer price index.
Landlords, agents and mortgage lenders should be prevented by law from banning tenants on benefits.
Among other reforms, it wants tenants to be allowed to decorate their homes, and to keep pets.
It also wants to see a national landlord register. Local councils should administer a property MoT scheme, which would be a mandatory criteria for landlord registration.
There should also be a specialist housing court, with access to legal aid.
While the left-leaning Institute also calls for a review of all taxation relating to private landlords, it says that tax reforms would be to ensure “socially responsible landlordism” and the promotion of a high-quality rented sector which “challenges wealth inequality”.
The Institute held a number of focus groups and also commissioned polling as part of its research.
It found that 53% of the public believe private renting is unfair for tenants, while just 19% think the system is fair. A majority (72%) want the Government to do more to regulate the private rented sector, and 61% say that private renting does not give tenants a long-term or stable home.
Darren Baxter, IPPR research fellow and co-author of the report, said: “Despite the growth in private renting, the regulation which governs it is unfit for purpose.
“Families are exposed to expensive, often poor-quality accommodation and tenants face the threat of a no-fault eviction, with significant costs and practical impacts, including school moves for children.
“Increasing security for tenants through an open tenancy and preventing landlords from evicting to sell in the first three years of a tenancy will give much greater stability to families who rent privately, enabling them to make better homes.”
The report, Sign on the Dotted Line? A new Rental Contract, was supported with funding by Nationwide Building Society.
The full report is at:
https://www.ippr.org/files/2019-01/sign-on-the-dotted-line-jan19.pdf
Sounds like a wish list prepared by tenants to me .. shame it’s recommendations would crash PRS as most landlords would run a mile.
Government better get building homes fast if they propose to implement this
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
If only dear old Maggie hadn’t sold off all the social housing stock to make some quick cash back in the 80’s we might not be facing the housing crisis we are in the depths of. Surely no sensible person would assume a BTL investor should not be allowed any freedom to realise their asset by selling it and to lock them into three year tenancy terms by default with no ability to end via S21 sounds like a plan by this think tank to stop all private landlords investing and make the entire rental sector either social funded or BTR, neither of which is great news to the huge numbers of landlords that have invested in property since the 90’s in a mistaken belief it was a good pension alternative. Maybe this think tank should actually think it through before commenting again in the future!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Even with all the recent tax changes an asset that is showing a 22 year compound growth of 6.9% and annual yields in excess of 5 or 6%, that’s inheritable and not subject to any convoluted regulations about what % a landlord can realise at a certain age means, like many other people my age and circumstance, PRS investment is far more beneficial as a pension than a managed fund that grows at 2% with the fund manager taking 1%.
Mrs. Thatcher wasn’t after cash she was after votes, she believed giving people the opportunity to own their home was a great thing to do and that would make her popular with the bit of the voting public who despised traditional Tory politics.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Where is the balance? Where is the proposed register for good or bad tenants?
I dont think any landlord/letting agent would be against rent increases limited to RPI but only if everything is limited to RPI. Utility companies, council tax etc dont find themselves restricted so why should it be any different for landlords.
As i have said before, the system isnt broken it works just fine, the problem is legislators haven’t given local councils, trading standards enough staff and money to deal with rogue agents and landlords. Any forthcoming changes will be exposed by those seeking to be gains at the expense of others just like the system is now because there will not be enough enforcement.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Where is the RICS and ARLA when comes to promoting the benefits of PRS and defending the role of S21? Pathetic representation for huge fees!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Good point. No-one has done a impact assessment on the CUMULATIVE effect of measures to date, plus the tax changes yet to fully bite, plus local licensing, plus the effect of the tenant fees ban.
THEN assess the impact of any new ideas such as ending s21.
Because “we all know” the BTL PRS landlord is already starting to exit. But if you want to speak to Government, show your evidence. Demonstrate, prove, that these measures will cause people to lose their homes. That the housing benefit bill will rise at tax payers expense
If you want to be taken seriously, show your workings. Statements without hard evidence are just opinion. And given many in industry just deliver self-serving rants, those opinions count for little.
Evidence, evidence, evidence.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I have just visited a property and the bathroom is in a disgusting state. If the tenant does not start cleaning I will evict via section 21.
If section 21 is removed then it will be near on impossible with section 8.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
And here’s why Government is happy to kick the PRS. So it’s reasonable to make someone homeless because the bathroom is disgusting?
Just think that through for one minute.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Agree with RC97. The government is trying to rid the PR sector of small minded landlords who shoot from the hip….and quite rightly too. Another reason to bring private Landlords in line with all agent regulation. The sooner the better.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
James, I think you will find they are trying to get rid of the PRS completely. I know of a lot of private rental landlords that have far better ethics than some agents including the big boys who have caused the fees ban.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Fair point and certainly you are right when it comes to the will of Government to drive away the small landlord. The point I was trying to make was that you shouldn’t be giving a tenant notice because the bathroom isn’t clean. There are many excellent Landlords but there are also fickle ones too; in some cases ridiculously fickle.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Its not about the bathroom not being clean, it was said to be in a disgusting state. If it is mouldy, stained, damaged, neglected, guess who gets the blame? Ah yes, the landlord. It will be the landlord fined £30,000 as a summary fine at the will of the local council for each supposed ‘misdemeanour’. THAT’S why landlords will be looking to evict in ever-increasing numbers.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The bathroom was rented out in a clean condition.
It is not acceptable for it to be left with crusted limescale in toilet taps etc and black dirt left covering sink and bath.
The tenant as the choice he can maintain a decent standard of cleaning or not.
Why should a landlord have to put up with this? It will lead to permanent damage and then the tenant will be liable for the costs
Why can’t they clean?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Correct tenants need to do the basics to look after a property or where does it stop
the cost of reinstatement can be extreme due to neglect .. leave that tenant for 10 years and you have a derelict property needing thousands spent on it.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You will also lose rent because you would not be able to do viewings until the tenant is gone and the property put right.
A tenant would not rent a property in this condition but some are happy to cause the condition once there
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As usual my answer to these so called charities who really are just another voice for the commies is “if you think it’s such a good idea, your directors and staff should trial it for 5 years. If it works we can talk but I suspect that a few years into the trial, you will have come to your senses”.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Section 21 is a legislative part of an assured shorthold tenancy, it is the notice that makes it clear the tenancy is…. short.
If there is a demand for stable, long tenancies how about the think tank and government recognising that driving the suppliers of the provision away from the sector will reduce supply. That does mean the most able tenants could become owners but that won’t add any overall addition to quantity of accommodation.
Perhaps this influential think tank should be putting their efforts into accepting that some people have more than others and with the correct and balanced incentives could be encouraged to provide, long and secure accommodation to decent tenants who recognise and accept there is no obligation on any private property owner to make it available for rent.
How about a capital gains tax exemption for landlords who have had long term tenants (5 years or more?) or who are selling to their tenants of a year or more?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Excellent point.
In my opinion the government could do with having a look at Air BnB, there are large parts of City Centres where landlords are renting out on a day rate using Air BnB properties which otherwise would have been let on an AST. No idea what the solution is because I firmly believe that a Landlord should be allowed to rent to who they like with their property but anecdotally I think its an issue which further restricts the supply of property to the PRS.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There is a business/investment/social good opportunity available to those who are willing to think a little differently. Ultimately the pressing necessity for a solution will force think tanks to think rather that sit around group thinking what they’ve thought before.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
In other parts of the proposed reform, landlords will also be expected to: pay their tenants for kindly living in their home, visit and cook their meals for them, and perform any and all housework.
Failure to do so will result in the threat of fines and possible demonstration by Shelter.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You forgot “Groom of the stool”.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
****** jumped up Corbyn loving Whitehall droids with no experience of the real world. Make these people work in a lettings agency for a couple of months before they are allowed to express an opinion on the matter.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Maybe we could ask 6 MP’s with rental properties to trial these ideas for 3 years and let us know how it works out.
Am I paying for these think tanks? If so no one asked me why I paint the (inside of) the exterior walls of my older properties in specialist mould paint to ensure that there is no condensation mould and for this reason I am cautious about re-decoration. Generally speaking my landlords don’t mind tenants decorating as long as it’s neutral and carried out to a good standard and therein, as ever, lies the problem.
To be truthful I might accept some of these ideas but these combined with Government interference such as the size of the tenant bond versus allowing pets makes them ludicrous and unfair to good tenants. Even if I were a charitable organisation trying to ‘fix’ things it couldn’t be one sided so much as to reduce the PRS. Certain Countries for instance insist on a professional clean on leaving with no arguments. How good would that be? How about they say we want to do this and in return we’ll give you this.
Not sure about the re-distribution of wealth comment as we won’t have any left soon!
As for not being able to sell your own properties how can that possibly work?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I haven’t read the report but the summary in the article above indicates that it is a pure tenant-centred approach, but one which will backfire on tenants. I found the following point bizarre: ‘the promotion of a high-quality rented sector which “challenges wealth inequality”. Since when was it landlords’ job to challenge wealth inequality? Anyone who advocates ‘wealth equality’ as this think tank appears to do, is simply advocating communism. If people are to have their wealth re-distributed to others so that everyone has the same, the wealth creators simply won’t bother. As for some of the specific proposals such as open-ended tenancies – which are usually only open-ended for tenants, who I assume will be able to leave on a whim – these would create havoc in the sector. Landlords in fact often want long-term tenancies and paradoxically these left-wing proposals on tenancy length usually advocate one to three month notices for tenants to terminate. If they have to initially sign 6-month tenancies and then had to give 3 month notices (depending if they could give the 3 month notice in the initial term), landlords could face taking on tenants they believe are in it for the long term only to face voids after 6 months. There are a lot more complications – such as housing students and mobile workers, foreign nationals, ERASMUS students etc., who wish to be housed for short periods. The authors assume everyone is a parent with children in school. Only a minority of my tenants fit that category. They then propose a one-size fits all solution to the whole sector. In fact, I remember research which indicated that most tenants are happy with the current 6-month or 12-month terms and then having them roll on if all parties are happy.
Also, we should be calling out Nationwide for funding this extremely biased research, which advocates anti-landlord policies.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Yes I have never had a tenant ask for a long tenancy. It’s always been 6 months then monthly there after. My longest tenant was 17years on this arrangement
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I can very nearly equal this having had one tenant for 16 years. Sadly he passed away so kittygirl06 still retains the record.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
My longest one was 18 years, and they chose to move out as he needed assisted living aids and accommodations made to the property which were physically impossible. The Tenants had looked at it and realised it made much more sense to leave their home of nearly 2 decades and move into a bungalow.
I have one who has been in for about 12 years, and we will probably end up getting her and her husband carried out.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The govt and this unthinking IPPR clearly don’t understand that the average tenancy is 4.3 years and overwhelmingly ended by the tenant (90-93% depending on which EHS you read). So in reality, tenants stay as long as they want, they control when they leave and their rents rarely rise or when they do so, it is below inflation. So, hilariously, this think tank want increased rent rises and shorter fixed tenancies!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Maybe Shelter could re-distribute some of their wealth?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
There was a story I heard years ago about these type of people. A communist was asked what he would do if he had two houses?. He said I would live in one and give one to the state. And what would you do if you had two cars – he replied I would use one and give one to the state. Again asked what would you do if you had two chickens? He answered but I have got two chickens! Perhaps he became a member of this so called think group!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Most agents and their landlords want long-term paying tenants who take pride in their homes. Everyone’s life is made easier by this type of tenant.
We have many such tenants in our properties because of the way we structure our business, but even the best tenant can have a sudden and impacting change in their circumstances, especially when things like Universal Credit are rolled out too quickly, causing up to 12 weeks delay in HB payments for example. The stress that causes them is passed on to the agent and ultimately the landlord.
No doubt some areas of the PRS need some reform, but what about reward?
As independent agents who have grown through nothing more than word of mouth in an already saturated market, and who have applicants waiting to get into our managed properties, plus below 0.5% rent arrears year on year, we must be doing something right, and there must be others like us.
The attack on the sector is unfair to good, honest agents and landlords. Sadly it will end with it also being unfair on tenants as only the big players who caused this mess survive. Not because they offer fantastic service at competitive rates, but because there’s safety in numbers.
Career minded politicians with no connection to housing need to stop adding their tuppence worth too. Their Twitter feeds are not policy worthy, they say anything to gain to attention and promote themselves, even if it is damaging to the people they supposedly represent.
Parliament needs to start treading more carefully generally, it is fast becoming more of a dictatorship than a people’s democracy.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Reform Lettings, Reform Lettings, Reform Lettings.
I think I will change my company name to Reform Lettings, it will get us to the top of Google without any effort from me!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Brilliant Peter, best laugh all day!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
These so called charity organisations are leaches on society. They use funds which could be spent on housing paying overpaid so called researches and CEO’s to express far left lunatic opinions which will harm the rented housing market and those they purport to support. They have discredited the true charities and merely play the system for financial benefit and they should be abolished. They try to give credibility by use of their invented titles.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ok, allowing Tenants to decorate the house, yes, as long as it is done to a high standard, and in neutral colours, or properly returned to neutral colours when they leave.
Pets, depends on the pet, property and any property restrictions. Higher deposits, carpets cleaned and charged for fleas etc if needed. Except the current plans are in place to stop the higher deposit and requiring a tenant to clean carpets, so no. No pets.
Restrictions on Housing Benefit are also put in place by insurers. But if the LA systems were done in such a way as to work WITH landlords then I don’t see the problem with accepting them, especially with a guarantor and/or the Council being responsible for contributing 50% minimum of any damage not covered by the Deposit.
A Housing Court with access to legal aid for both sides is a good idea.
And also, it is a property owned by the Landlord. If s/he wants or needs to sell the property at any point, that is their right to do so.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“A Housing Court with access to legal aid for both sides is a good idea.”
CountryLass, with your sense of humour you should be on “Live at the Appolo”.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I said it would be a good idea, not that it would actually happen! I try to be optomistic, not downright delusional…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Some freeholders refuse pets.
As for decorating, you wait – all the landlords that produce beautifully decorated houses will now just offer plain white boxes, maybe even just bare plaster, with the expectation that the tenant will now be covering the decorating costs.
And if this idiotic thinktank believes in Section 24, as I’m sure they do, then surely they WANT landlords to leave the market? So why prevent them from selling? Doesn’t that all-important FTB REQUIRE that exact house?!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Would you trust a tenant to be a good decorator? The one I allowed to make a feature wall got paint on the surrounding walls, ceiling and floor.
I’m blocked from taking HB tenants by my local council – the rents are too expensive compared to LHA so the council won’t let the tenants move in.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I had a tenant paint the upvc windows pink
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I had one that attached sheets from a wallpaper sample book as a mosaic on a wall. Used PVA glue too – so was good and stuck. 🙂
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
…. what? Why??
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I understand the proposal specifies that landlords, agents and mortgage lenders should be prevented by law from banning tenants on benefits. How does that fit with a Lease that specifies, as in the case of St George’s Imperial Wharf development, under The Eighth Schedule, Covenants Enforceable by the Landlord, Alienation, 25.4 “not to underlet the Demised Premises to any family individuals or group of people all or some of whom are on housing benefit or any similar financial support from the Government or any other body”? How many other developments have similar clauses in the Head Lease?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
If it were to happen, it would just become a null and void clause.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Why do we need to these new think tanks and complicated suggestions. All the politicians need to do refer to Hansard, check all the rent restrictions brought in by Labour under Harold Wilson and reinstate them. Everything will be dealt with at a stroke ad as before any private landlord with commonsense will stop having any involvement in the letting market. The number of lettings will dry up within weeks. Tenants will have nowhere to live and presumably everyone will be happy.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
”Families are exposed to expensive, often poor-quality accommodation”
This really frustrates me. Poor quality compared to what!? Every article about the PRS says that there’s often poor-quality accommodation but I myself rarely see one. Not many people live in Ritz standard properties even when they own it themselves, but MEES should be stopping properties that aren’t heated effectively and the HHSRS dictates how safe a property should be before being put to market. I don’t dispute that there are rogue landlords doing despicable things, and there are cheap properties that I myself wouldn’t want to live in, but surely people realise that the size, condition and local area all determine how expensive a property is and that people who rent properties that are not deemed to be ‘so nice’ are generally compensated by having to pay less rent for it than a property of the same size but in better condition.
I do agree that renting a property is expensive, it’s more expensive than having to pay a mortgage on the same property, but then you aren’t having to do any maintenance and you didn’t have to find thousands of pounds to put down as a deposit and you haven’t taken on a 25+ year debt. I don’t own my own home, I rent. It’s frustrating having to pay rent. But it’s also the way of the world – I can’t afford to buy and it’s no ones fault but my own, no charity is going to convince me that it’s a landlord’s responsibility to re-distribute their wealth. And having a lot less properties to choose from when I rent is not going to help me either because I still won’t be able to afford to buy but the rent will be even higher on the properties that do still exist in the PRS.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I see that 3 year time period has popped up on the radar again. I was only warning about it over the last couple of weeks and was first muted by Labour some years ago. The fallout will be horrendous if this nonsense was allowed, so many landlords would leave the market either from personal dislike (particularly those that have a bad experience of rogue tenants), lenders conditions, landlords with leasehold conditions … the mind boggles on that one and agents refusing to deal with any tenant getting a property that have the slightest risk of misbehaving. The “exceptions” that would be needed in the legislation to allow eviction would eventually end making it same as a Sec 21. But as we are seeing the ball is rolling down a steep slope with regulations, not a care in the world about reality and who gets knocked over.
The market would be starved of rental properties, supply and demand would increase rents ….. Oh dear …. halfway their already with fee ban and restricted deposits. Next would be to cap rents …. ladies and gentleman, do you think that is likely? Labour also wanted to do this some years ago.
British Politics is in a state of crisis. Time they were all kicked out and replaced with people who live in the real world and most importantly accountable, just as they want to inflict on others.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register