Tenant activists group Acorn has welcomed the draft Tenant Fees Bill, with its ban on letting fees and caps on deposits to the equivalent of one week’s rent for a holding deposit and one month’s rent for a bond.
National organiser Stuart Melvin said: “This is a huge victory and is thanks to the efforts of renters campaigning against them with Acorn and our partners Generation Rent, Shelter and others, completing consultations, protesting at letting agents, and registering 4,000-plus voters.”
However, he urged tenants to “keep fighting” and to sign and circulate a series of petitions.
One petition is for the introduction of rent controls, while another calls for an end to Section 21, which allows landlords to reclaim their properties in what Acorn calls ‘no cause evictions’, claiming that there is an ‘evictions epidemic’.
Other petitions call for a crackdown on rogue landlords, longer tenancies as standard, and more social housing.
I’m not sure I follow any of the logic here. Everything proposed will reduce the supply of rented private accommodation. If rents are capped a few lucky tenants will benefit from long tenancies from which they can’t be asked to leave. Existing tenants will get all the perks those who have genuine cause to protest have campaigned for
The lobbyists might have won a victory but not for themselves. What they are achieving is to encourage corporate ownership of property that is immune from any pressures to release it’s portfolio to sale. Removing stock permanently from the market serves no purpose other than to benefit institutional investors.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
These activists need to be very careful what they wish for. With no obvious sense of history, do they really want to turn the clock back to where private landlords pull out of the PRS as they did under the Rent Acts? Rent controls are a recipe for disaster and to seek abolition of Section 21 is madness as landlords must be able to get their property back. By all means tighten up reasons for invoking it so it’s not used for frivolous reasons. And seeking mandatory long term tenancies is plain daft as many tenants want short lets as they are looking to buy or even move every couple of years. The only sensible stuff is to crack down on rogue landlords (rogue tenants too?) and campaign for more social housing.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ah, the 1970’s. What a golden decade that was.
Just as well none of you demanding these changes were a tenant in those days.
State housing where repairs were never done.
Rents controlled, so no repairs, as they could not be afforded.
Very few private rentals available.
The reason that the Private Rented Sector has flourished is due to the ability of landlords to retrieve their properties if circumstances change.
Over 82% of tenancies are ended by the tenant, not the landlord.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ah yes but if you are a 20 something you will not remember those days and the dreadful impact on housing. Those golden days (as you call them) there were things called Council Houses and council flats a now rare species. It was days before the Council and Government were heavily into asset stripping social accommodation. In the 1970’s you could not move to get a job in another part of the country because simply you could not rent so mobility of labour was appalling. So thachers out of work miners had to stay put!
The current drive by these pressure groups will adversely impact on the people they are trying to help by reducing supply. Most evictions happen because of breach of contract (usually non payment of rent) or a landlord selling up because he needs to move on. But now we will see Osbourne moves where property is sold because of tax changes and a tightening of regulations and liabilities to landlords. Generation Rant and their likes need to realise that a contract is a contract of most tenants would not wish to be bound by a 5 year contract! If you are a bad tenant, dont pay your rent, wreck your home and cause your neighbours problems then you want a five year contract as most landlords would not want you!
Oh to be so young. That takes me back!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Reading the above with dismay. All Mr Melvin, Shelter et al are serving to do is turn investors away and make the housing crisis worse in this country.
The ‘Private Rental Sector’ is just that. Those trying to turn it into a ‘Social Housing Sector’ are barking up the wrong tree completely. The lack of affordable housing will only improve when regional and local government start building.
No such thing as a free lunch in anyone’s world and to think the private sector will act as a beneficiary to the less well off is a pipe dream…. Don’t get me wrong, I have a social conscience and wish it wasn’t…but it is.
Maybe government built housing on long term rent to buy (with large redemption penalties to stop those trying to make a quick profit).
Local Government shared ownership is another idea. At the moment there are not enough shared ownership property available, and when it is, it is often overpriced
There needs to be an all party approved, long term strategy that is based on public sector investment. It’s all very simple. Those who genuinely want a long term solution – please just stop the blame game, take your heads out of the sand, and work for a long term solution; not just an immediate populist one!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Spot on! Politicians don’t like the truth. It does not get them votes at someone else’s cost!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I’ve been saying for a long time – “be careful what you wish for!”
The announcements in the Queens speech this week just prove how out of touch with reality these lobbyists are, campaigning for lower costs is one thing, taking away part of someone’s income is another!
Reducing deposits will make me, as a landlord, very cautious as to who I allow into my properties, no more housing allowance tenants for sure, no more marginal income tenants for sure, no more tenants with a lower credit rating because once upon a time they missed a mobile phone payment. No tenant will be getting any references until that last rent is safety in my bank account and I’ve inspected the property with a fine tooth comb; which may mean that tenants have to check into a hotel for a while before they can be confident of getting that deposit back or the references they need for their next property.
Oh, and the rent will be paid on the day that suits me which is before my mortgage payment leaves my account not the day that suits tenants, no more subsidies!
And, in a couple of years time when the tin shaking placard bearing tree hugging lobbyists start whining that “it’s not fair and they wanna go back in time to before that nasty government changed the rules for tenants ” they better be ready for some pretty hefty up front costs, stricter tenancy rules and an easier life for landlords when they want to get their (yes their!) property back, let’s see how long these ‘charities ‘ can keep paying directors more than the country pays the Prime Minister!
“Be careful what you wish for! !!”
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
By God, these people want saving from themselves! So, a one week holding fee? That means nobody can reserve a property more than a week in advance! A one month deposit? Landlords just tighten their criteria and make prospective tenants jump through hoops. As someone on here said, no more ‘pay on the day you choose’, a policy I’ve always previously operated. But as for this ‘eviction epidemic’ – it’s a fallacy! The eviction rate is NOT 82% tenant as stated above, it is 93% tenant! Yes, just 7% of tenancies are ended by the landlord and the average tenancy is now 4.2 years, so where are they getting the idea there’s an epidemic?? And why is nobody challenging them?! Shelter know damned well what these figures are so why do they persist in telling lies that are easily disprovable? They really do make themselves look really, really stupid.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Unfortunately, Joe Public is only seeing/hearing the biased headlines put out by the likes of Shelter. We need as strong a voice to put out the true facts in the wider public domain, which is easier said than done, and by some-one of standing who can spell out in simple to understand terms the medium and long-term consequences of bashing the PRS in the proposed manner. Perhaps pointing out a few history lessons to those too young to remember what the rental market became (i.e. a disaster for would-be renters) due to the old rent and housing controls. They also need to be helped to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch; i.e. property is expensive whether buying or renting, exacerbated by the Governments failure to assist the market to build more (significantly more) housing for rent or purchase in order to accommodate the rapidly expanding population. You can’t magic accommodation for 3 or 4 million extra bodies out of thin air! (Unless perhaps you’re Jeremy C!)
It would be nice if the RICS, RLA and other major property representative bodies could get together and shout at the Government, Shelter etc with one strong voice, spelling out the message that a vibrant PRS is an important part of the solution, not the problem, and also to ensure that the public hears that voice as well. They urgently need educating as to the true facts of property life. If housing costs have to be subsidised, that is the job of Government, not the PRS suppliers.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Maybe letting agents should stand outside their offices and protest against them for a change! Oh wait we don’t have the time because we are out there trying to scavenge as much stock as we can to help house the many people who need a home in many cases directly attributed to poor government actions!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
All the talk around Section21 evictions. The reason landlords use this route is to get the non paying and tenants that damage property out as quickly as possible. Section8 takes longer.
Tenants evicted for damage and arrears are not going to admit to Shelter or the likes this is the reason they will just say Section 21 the landlord wanted the property back.
What the government should be doing is stamping out all the problem tenants who cause untold damage and misery for Landlords and neighbours. Interestingly very few neighbours unstand how difficult and expensive it is to remove a bad tenant they just blame the landlord.
The tenant gets away in many cases with unpaid rent and damage to the property, they just move into another landlords property and it is repeated, If this was stamped ou,t good tenants rent would be cheaper , neighbours would be happier and landlords would not lose thousands in money and the stress of having to deal with them. It would be far better for society as a whole.
All the evidence is there for the government and shelter just ask the tradesmen who have togo in and repair the damage or speak with neighbours when a bad tenant is in the property for months .
The asnwer is get rid of rogue landlords AND the rogue tenants and make both parties pay for their failings.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Indeed- mixed objectives here wanting to apply social housing structures to private renting. The fact remains that the government is exclusively to blame for every aspect of housing failure however they & the media are very happy to keep the spotlight unfairly focused on both agents & landlords. Let’s not forget that whilst championing rent controls they also want increasing legislation & standards whilst also paying less. There is still a common perception that landlords & agents alike are rolling in cash- when this is usually far from the truth. It is incredibly sad that there is currently no single voice (figurehead or organisation) trying to educate & redirect public frustrations especially given the size of our sector and various bodies already in existence. I am hopeful that one of them may yet ‘snap to’ or that fledgling CIELA may get the support it needs to attempt this. Sadly however both of these appear increasingly unlikely as established organisations would have to dramatically change tack & CIELA is being crushed by nay-sayers & those who have been let down so many times before, that they want to ‘wait & see’ which will ensure it never gets off the ground.
I genuinely believe that, at this moment in time, the greatest hope & opportunity for our sector is the (quality) tech that has, is and will emerge. However, that too is predicated by its adoption by an increasingly cynical industry.
Despite sounding rather apocalyptic I do think there are exciting opportunities ahead for forward thinking/looking agents and landlords that will deliver a better sector calming much of the vitriol.
Good luck one & all!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register