The much-delayed Renters (Reform) Bill is finally returning to the House of Common today.
The Bill will receive its second reading with a number of amendments, including a review of the courts before Section 21 is abolished for existing tenancies, to ensure they can cope with a higher workload.
In addition, tenants will not be able to give two months’ notice leave until they have been in a property for at least four months, for fixed term tenancies, while Student housing will be given a new ground for possession to ensure student landlords can retain the annual cycle of student tenants.
Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, said: “This Bill delivers a fair deal for tenants and responsible landlords. In the interests of certainty for the sector it is now time to ensure the Bill passes through Parliament.
“For renters, the Bill will abolish section 21 repossessions and fixed term tenancies, introduce a Decent Homes Standard for the sector, a new Ombudsman and Property Portal which landlords will have to join as well as measures to protect families and those in receipt of benefits from discrimination.
“Going forward, it will always be for the courts to decide if landlords have met the threshold to repossess a property based on a series of legitimate reasons. This includes tenant anti-social behaviour, serious rent arrears or where a landlord plans to sell a property.
“That said, the tenant group, Generation Rent, has rightly warned that landlords selling properties is ‘a leading cause of homelessness.’ The only answer to this is ensuring responsible landlords feel confident enough to stay in the market. Greater security for tenants will mean nothing if the rental homes are not there in the first place.
“A number of the amendments proposed to the Bill enact recommendations by the cross-party housing select committee. Taken together they would ensure a balanced Bill that protects tenants and ensures it is viable for responsible landlords to continuing renting properties out.”
The Renters (Reform Bill) has been described as a ‘once in a generation opportunity to improve the rental market’
Sam Reynolds, CEO of Zero Deposit, commented: “The Renters Reform Bill and the latest proposed amendments is a once in a generation opportunity to improve the rental market to benefit tenants and landlords alike, providing both with greater protections and ensuring a more harmonious rental sector.
“That is, of course, when it finally comes to pass, as so far it’s been subject to lengthy delays, largely due to the abolition of Section 21 notices and fears over the ability of the courts to manage with an increase in demand. But issues within the market are proliferating and need an urgent and viable response.
“As one of the most significant proposed amendments, it’s likely that it will continue to prove problematic. However, it is vital that landlords are properly protected and provided with adequate means to regain control of their rental property when the basic obligations of the tenancy aren’t being met.”
“The tabled amendment preventing tenants from giving two months notice until four months of the fixed term has passed will also be warmly welcomed, largely because the alternative was so unattractive. While greater flexibility for tenants is needed, it’s simply unviable for landlords not to have a certainty of rental term, so the guarantee of a six month minimum term should help reassure landlords and prevent them from exiting the sector.”
But not everybody is impressed with the existing proposals, including some of the amendments tabled.
Anthony Kyriacou, CEO and founder of krispyhouse, believes that the Renters (Reform Bill) is failing the UK rental market.
Kyriacou said: “Despite the plethora of amendments suggested by government MPs and the Labour Party, the Bill in its current state still does not strike the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. The intention is noble, to give tenants better security of tenure, more certainty over their future in a tenanted property, while trying to ensure the Bill does not make the private rental market so unattractive that landlords don’t continue to leave the market as they have been doing for the past few years.
“Now spanning more than 112 pages and set for a second reading in the Commons tomorrow, the Bill still fails in its purpose to streamline the needlessly complex property market, while also not meeting the real needs of both tenants and landlords. As drafted, I fear that more landlords will decide to leave the market, leaving tenants in a worse position as stock diminishes, prompting a further rise in rents.
“While ultimately well meaning, the Bill fails to address the real problem of supply and demand which faces the UK rental market. With more than 25 tenants now competing over a single property in the UK on average, change is clearly needed, but this is not it.
“Properly addressing the challenges facing our rental market requires a solution which benefits tenants, landlords and estate agents alike and what’s needed is greater investment and a much more accessible and streamlined rental arena matching people’s fast paced lifestyles.”
Darren Baxter, Principal Policy Adviser at JRF, believes that in its current form, the Renters (Reform) Bill will be a failure.
He added: “As it stands the Renters (Reform) Bill prioritises placating landlords and backbenchers over strengthening tenants’ rights. The Renters’ Reform Coalition is right to highlight the serious inadequacy of the Bill, which has been repeatedly watered down. While its primary aim has been to end no-fault evictions, it offers no clear timeframe or commitment as to when this will be done, reneging on promises made to renters over five years ago.
“There is still time to do the right thing. Ministers must table amendments to the Bill that reverse the delay to ending Section 21 or no-fault evictions. The Bill must also limit in-tenancy rent increases to the lowest of either inflation or wage growth to prevent landlords from pricing tenants out of their homes.”
If passed as drafted and with the amendments tabled; one of a group of students in a shared student HMO (not a PBSA block) could decide to give two months’ notice to end the tenancy (for all) after only four months, in order to drop out of uni/ live with a friend etc.
A new tenancy may then not be permissible if the new minimum term would go beyond the original planned end date, because the next year’s cycle of student tenancy is already scheduled to begin.
Students (their parents and guarantors), the landlords and agents of student HMO shared houses all want the security of knowing when a tenancy starts and ends.
Advice received (from lawyers, member bodies etc. not practitioners) seems to indicate if the RRB is passed as is the student model will revert to room by room letting, locked bedroom doors, no responsibility for communal shared areas, locked kitchen cabinets, isolation etc. etc. a return to the grim old days of bedsit student letting.
No one in this part of the industry wants this, regardless of political colour. Group think is directing us down the wrong path!
The RRB needs a specific Student Ground which allows for: fixed term, joint and several student HMO shared accommodation. It’s what all the players want.
Are we sleep walking into the bad old days?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Guarantors!!!?? Read the small print…
Prohibition of requirement for rent guarantors – This new clause, being proposed by the Labour MP Alex Sobel, would prohibit landlords from requiring prospective tenants to provide rent guarantors or equivalent upfront payments, and prohibit them from prioritising prospective tenants who offer them over those who do not.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This is the part I’m worried about. We don’t have a general requirement for guarantors the way some of my competitors do, some insist that all UC tenants have one. We don’t, unless their income is borderline or they have credit issues, and it is on a case by case basis. So are we no longer allowed to ask for them if this passes? And what about a tenant who offers the rent up front? This is going to be like the fee ban with deposits. I have had so many tenant, even now, who say that they do have pets, but they are happy to pay a higher deposit and I have to say that they can’t. So when I give my Landlord a market price, I ask will they accept pets? If they say they will consider it on a case by case basis, I add £25 a month to the price, even if we end up going with a tenant with no pets! I can’t take it off the advertised rent as then its discrimination.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
If we feel that we need to ask a potential tenant for a guarantor but can no longer do this we will just not rent to them but find a more beneficial tenant. Removing guarantors will also mean many will not find a rental. We have already had a tenant completely smash one of our flats including the porcelain in the bathroom and the whole kitchen. Fortunately his mother was acting as guarantor. The tenant himself phoned the police when we informed him that the flat was now uninhabitable. Eventually the police gave him a choice…pay for the repairs or face prosecution as it was criminal damage. However, the police did take some convincing.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The part i am really driving at is that if we end up with room by room letting on periodic tenancies, we could have three nineteen year old student girls ending up sharing with a fifty year old man because a landlord wants to fill a vacated room. No one thinks this is suitable. Has the NUS really thought about the process and how it will play 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 government said it would end ‘no fault’ evictions, and this Bill will do that… in due course.
They also said they would end leasehold, which ruins the lives of up to 10 MILLION leaseholders, and have bent to the will of the ground rents lobby. We may have ground rents capped at £250. They will claim they have done what they said they would do, but phased over 20 YEARS!
All the rhetoric, consultations and recommendations from the CMA will come to nought.
Compared to leaseholders, renters have it easy. No responsibilities except to pay their rent on time and maintain their homes, and every protection under the law. Whereas, leaseholders can actually lose their homes, even after paying off their mortgage, and have to suffer unrestricted service charge increases regardless of ability to pay, and with zero protection under the law.
Renters who say they can afford to save a deposit to buy because of high rents, need to reflect on what they would be letting themselves in for, because leasehold would likely be their first step on the housing ladder.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Oops! I meant to say ‘can’t afford…’ But you knew that.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, says: “This Bill delivers a fair deal for tenants and responsible landlords. In the interests of certainty for the sector it is now time to ensure the Bill passes through Parliament.
Whose side are the NRLA on exactly?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Not landlords, that’s for sure. Notice how he ALWAYS uses the adjective RESPONSIBLE for landlords, but never for tenants.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Wow Generation Rent who forced landlords to sell up through their landlord bashing campaign now blame landlords who did sell up for the housing shortage. I cannot imagine how a private landlord will be able to evict a tenant for anti social behaviour in less than 2 years. A tenant will have to be found guilty of ASB through the courts before a landlord can proceed with an eviction. No landlord wants to leave his property empty for 3 months. S21 is the only way to evict for ASB.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It took me 15 months to evict my feckless tenant, at a cost of £20,000+. Anti-social behaviour didn’t come close to what he was doing and he ended up in prison [I didn’t get any of my money back!]. But I was advised by my solicitor not to even consider a S8 for ASB because it would need Police involvement and they weren’t interested [at the time]. It would be interesting to know how many landlords have obtained an eviction for ASB.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As far as I am aware the only landlords who evict for ASB are the local authorities. They don’t really care how long it takes or if the property has to remain unlet for 3 months.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register