Giving evidence by video link to the MHCLG Parliamentary Select Committee on Monday, Housing Minister, Robert Jenrick said that, depending on medical advice, the present lettings evictions moratorium could last for another three months and that beefed-up pre-application protocols may be left in place for an extended period.
This will potentially cause severe difficulties for landlords who are waiting to evict tenants who have stopped paying their rent.
Taken together the extension proposals could delay the resuming of evictions into the Autumn and beyond.
The evictions moratorium is presently set to end on June 25th
The decision on extending the eviction moratorium for another three months will be taken in June.
Jenrick also said his department is working with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice to develop a strengthened pre-application protocol.
“This puts a duty on the landlord to work in good faith with their tenant and see if there is a sensible way in which to manage the situation before embarking upon eviction proceedings,” he said.Ben Beadle, Chief Executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, responded to the report of the Minister’s intentions:
“The Coronavirus Act gives the Government the power to extend the moratorium on repossessions to six months if the health circumstances surrounding coronavirus required it.
“Whilst the Secretary of State’s comments about reviewing if this is needed is consistent with this, we would urge him to ensure that the economic consequences on the rental market are also considered.
“If the moratorium were to be extended, a full compensatory package would be required for those landlords who may as a result face six months or more of rent arrears.
“There is a world of difference between reaching agreement with tenants to re-pay three months of arrears compared to potentially six months or more.
In respect of pre-action protocols, Ben Beadle said:
“With the majority of landlords doing everything they can to support their tenants at this time, it is eminently sensible that they should first seek to establish if a mutually agreeable rent repayment plan can be agreed with affected tenants before resorting to an already pressurised court system to repossess a property.”
Comments (7)
The likelihood is tenants who get into trouble with their rent over a prolonged period will just dig themselves into a deeper hole. It is not good for landlords nor tenants and will result in more bankruptcy. Tenants with a six month arrears debt will not be able to pay it off. This is more political nonsense using smoke and mirrors;more political spin. This is not a solution to the problem. Tenants will face bankruptcy and landlord may face the same or at best significant unrecoverable losses. Whilst politicians holiday in their second homes.
With the majority of landlords doing everything they can to support their tenants at this time,
Beadle has no idea what “the majority” of landords are doing. The “majority of” landlords do not belong to the NRLA.
So what evidence have you got that Beadle is wrong? From your statement you clearly believe you know something different. It would be helpful to reasoned and honest debate if you shared it.
The simplest way of looking at this is assessing landlord behaviour prior to the crisis. Some landlords are good landlords, keep their houses well, trust their agents to carry out repairs and respect their tenants rights. These landlords are doing all they can for their tenants at this time.
Some landlords are ok, may question repair costs or require ‘quotes’, may call on tenants without notice and put up rents periodically. These landlords are being generally flexible but want re-assurances.
Some landlords are txxxs; No explanation needed, these are the ones that will not be modifiying their behaviour in spite of the situation. They will want their rent or be enquiring about the eviction process at this time. They will withhold repairs and even more so whilst rent isn’t paid etc etc.
Fortunately seemingly the majority of landlords sit somewhere between good and ok!
The PRS no longer has political support from any party. Any LL knows the difference between “won’t pay / can’t pay”. The notion of discussions with the “won’t payers” to reach amicable agreements is a nonsense. The state will dismantle the PRS by hook or crook and it will be replaced by state run housing so they control the voters. This crisis is an added opportunity to financially cripple landlords. I predict also that when we get back to “normal” there will be a glut of new build houses on the market and a slump in prices caused by the propaganda of a so called housing shortage. Time to sell up.
So Jenrick wants a duty on landlords to work in good faith with their tenants before taking action which the vast majority of sensible landlords would do anyway. But worrying is the lack of a suggestion that tenants should have a duty to work in good faith with their landlords. Private landlords provide homes for over 4 million households. What does Jenrick propose to do for those households when landlords throw in the towel and withdraw from the market?
Just another kick in the teeth for landlords. The government know the PRS is weak in any strong support presentation so see fit to lay the boot in. What happened to fairness , equal tax and principles.