Landlord leader Ben Beadle has given Shelter a run for its money during a parliamentary committee evidence session on the Renters (Reform) Bill.
Beadle, who is chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, wondered out loud during the meeting whether campaigning groups like Shelter would only be happy once private landlords were ‘publicly flogged’ or ‘waterboarded’ if caught flouting the new proposed eviction legislation within the bill.
He was referring to earlier evidence by Shelter’s representative at the hearing, Tarun Bhakta, during which he repeated the organisation’s recent claims that the bill contains loopholes that will enable landlords to circumvent its tighter Section 8 notice eviction rules, and called for tough sanctions if landlords are caught doing it.
Intention
These will require landlords seeking possession of a property to move back in or sell it to prove their intention in front of a judge.
“The landlords will have to be satisfied that the landlord is telling the truth about selling a property – for example – and last time I checked, if you lie in court that’s perjury, which I think is a pretty strong disincentive,” said Beadle.
He went on to criticise Shelter’s suggestion that landlords should be fined severely if they relet a property following an eviction based on the assertion that they want to sell up or move back.
Housing minister Rachel Maclean (pictured), who gave evidence after Beadle, was asked what her Government will do to stop landlords gaming the system in this way.
Read more about the Renters (Reform) Bill.
She replied that tenants would be given access to the courts if the eviction was found to be illegal; that the new PRS ombudsman to be created for tenant/landlord disputes would also handle such complaints; and that the Government and local authorities would ensure private tenants understood their new rights.
Watch the hearing in full.
Considering it’s council policy at the minute to view any one who reports a slum landlord as intentionally homeless. The entire game is rigged, this bill will do nothing to improve the quality of life in the UK. It will just force landlords to be even more dodgy and people on low incomes or benefits will be left homeless. I speak on this from personal experience, a nod to Harrow council here for showing me how deep the rot lies.
Even more dodgy? Some people are bad….some landlords are bad. …..some tenants are bad
Landlords gaming the system , what ??? Why should I be forced to jump through any hoops in order to lay claim to my rights . Its my property I’ll decide who lives there and if and when I want to sell it . These entitled left wing idiots seem to be under the misapprehension they have as many rights as me , they don’t. My house , my investment . There is now an industry set up to profit from making landlords lives a misery , this is why the likes of Shelter continue to saw on the branch they are sitting on . So far all this landlord bashing has done is reduce the amount of properties to rent, increased rents by 50% and meant tenants I would have considered rentung to five years ago , I would never consider now .
You along with ALL BTL Landlords are trading a good that is people’s homes and lives.Your comments only serve to highlight how disgusting the business is. This sorry industry’s days are numbered. The entire housing stock needs to be Nationalised. I believe it will be. I would exit ASAP if you don’t want to lose your ‘investment’. Usurious Interest Rate Arbitrage is not an investment. It’s simply a legalized form of embezzlement. Unfor for modern Society.
*unfit P.s. ‘Landlord’ is also a preposterous title that needs to be replaced with ‘Property Owner/Mortgagee’ … Should help reduce the delusions of grandeur.
The term LL should be replaced by the descriptor
Private Rental Accommodation Provider
So PRAP’s
That describes perfectly what those who provide private rental accommodation.
No lording over anyone.
It describes the service that property owners provide when they let them.
Accommodation services are just some of the goods and services that are part of the UK economy.
It is irrelevant if the PRAP assets are used as homes.
No occupier has the right to that property or any share in it’s value.
Only the OWNER has such rights.
You need to improve your LinkedIn profile. I note you are a failed drop out. Please don’t quote Bill Gates; it is insulting to him. You have little to be proud of and your comments are those of a bitter individual.
No he speaks as it is and you know that
Nope, John Blackwell is one of life’s losers who spouts nonsense.
It’s not peoples homes though is it John , the tenant doesn’t own it the landlord does. If a renter wants a property forever they need to buy one
Agree, but I was referring to the vitriol of John Blackwell. If I were him, I’d be ashamed to make those comments with his LinkedIn profile. Have you read it?
Sorry @Gtim Thought you were responding to me.
Maybe we should all live and work in state camps….this is where you end up woth this nonsense thinking every time.
Nationalise the rented properties… Really … The Conservative government made it law for council tenants to buy there rented house with upto 70% discount if they wish to.
These councils wasted the money they got instead of building new homes, so tell us all you clever boy where will the money will come from to buy them back….. Perhaps they could double our council tax to pay for it.
Spoken like a true idiot Commie!!
The reality is that rent controls and over regulation in the 1970’s brought about the collapse of the PRS eventually bringing about the wholesale Reform in the 1980’s that ushered in the AST’s etc that we have today which worked perfectly fine until about 5 years ago when the likes of Shelter started bending the ear of Govt…
Two quotes that everyone should think about…
1. “There was a need for new houses in 1919 for various reasons. The majority of the existing housing stock, especially in the big cities, was old and many of the properties were in a poor state of repair not only because of their age but as a result of rent control which had limited the supply of income available to landlords to carry our repairs”
Makes very interesting reading and echo’s the current debate around regulation of the PRS.
Seemingly no govt has learnt any lessons in over 100 years of failed housing policy.
2. For the small army of tenants that are complaining about the PRS this is what the future looks like for you when the landlords exit the PRS
“History. Cardboard City was first occupied in 1978. In the mid-1980s the site, in the pedestrian underpasses under the Bullring roundabout near Waterloo station, was home to up to 200 people sleeping in cardboard boxes”
You believe all privately owned rental stock will be nationalised! Thanks for giving me a laugh. If you want to live under this kind of economic debacle move to Venezuela my friend. It’s going great there.
I’m a northern working class ex-squaddie builder that’s got 3 rentals to fund my pension. And I’ve worked my ar*e off to get out of renting houses and own my own place. Socialists like you want to take what other people have worked for. I only want to keep what I’ve earned. I’m very curious why you’re so bitter.
You may genuinely believe the government will provide better housing for tenants. I’m certain they won’t.
Mr Marxist, you need to get off your low horse and get real. Housing won’t be nationalised. You can put that in your pipe and smoke. If you aren’t so ignorant, your have realised that private landlords aren’t the problem at all. Your twisted shortsightedness isn’t allowing your to take the right campaign to your fellow Marxists and socialists to build more social housing and stop selling social housing stock! Hello!!!!
And all those who use property investment as a pension suddenly stop paying income tax and start living off the state. As if the country didn’t have a big enough deficit.
Obviously been to university and been indoctrinated into the left way, what you have just described is pure communism ,theft of private property by the state
Spot on!!!
Mr Marxist, you need to get off your low horse and get real. Housing won’t be nationalised. You can put that in your pipe and smoke it. If you aren’t so ignorant, you’d have realised that private landlords aren’t the problem at all. Your twisted shortsightedness isn’t allowing you to take the right campaign to your fellow Marxists and socialists to build more social housing and stop selling social housing stock! Hello!!!!
Reply
Sell Sell Sell. As a landlord renting for me is a professional business. if you can’t make a decent profit you should get out as fast as you can. I have just spent a couple of days colating evidenvence for my solicitor to take to court and hopefully evict a tenant under a section 21. Its not easy its a worry and can remove any profit you hope to gave. Shelter the Goverment and it seems every other do gooder putting there oar in. They do not own my house, share any loss or grief and certainly do not care.
There is now far to much interferance As I said Sell, Sell, Sell up invest your money and have a good nights sleep
I will have to convince a judge to let me get my house back? Lord have mercy!
Not much privacy in the PRS! Aren’t these tories supposed to read Ayn Rand books and stuff?
The reality now for many is to ‘live in the pod’ – councils put them in the few remaining hotels, and they have to sit there sweating Openrent as an exercise in kafkaesque futility. “What do you mean I can’t afford it, you said DSS allowed” they will say if engaged with. The pushback against landlordism is really about the failure of the state, which seeks ever more reform to cover its last mistake. The oligarchs try to suggest it is a failure of free market capitalism, but there was no free market, for it was they that controlled it!
I am a single property landlord and agree processes need to be fairer and speedier both ways. Tenants can cause damage, interfere with lives of those living around them and fail to pay rent. On the other hand landlords can fail to keep properties in good condition and charge unfair rents. When I became a landlord LHA rate gave a yield of 10% gross on average 5% net after repairs, tax etc. When interest rates on savings was none existent was worth the risk. Now LHA yields less than 8% gross still managing 5% net but only because tenant stayed so less costs however could get higher interest in bank without risk or effort. When accusing landlords of profiteering need to consider alternatives. The property is in socially deprived area so to date have kept rent at LHA rate. I fear if this does not go up will be forced to increase rent. My neighbour is on benefits and has to top up over £200 a month. LA are paying more than LHA to housing assoc. Tenants should be level playing field. I can honestly say I repair and maintain property better than they do.
Not sure I agree with the term unfair rents. Rent is set by the market and this is where worth is set. The normal law of supply and demand rules. Shelter killing the private rented market have caused rents to rise by reducing supply. Perhaps we should thank them; as supply falls and tenant demand rises it even gives you a larger pool to choose your tenant from. The real losers are poorer tenants and benefit tenants the very people shelter claim to help. Not sure I would want shelters help !!!
You are an idiot LL.
Please advise as what you consider is an unfair rent!?
If it is being paid then it must be fair or the tenant would have vacated.
There are no fair or unfair rents.
There are market rents.
They are the fair rents.
Rents lower than market rents are below market value.
A LL is ENTITLED to charge between these rent parameters.
They have to be careful how far they push all this. The tenants need rights, of course they do but so do landlords. I rent properties in Teesside and have seen more and more landlords asking for 12 months bank statements, and 6 months rent in advance…just to be sure they have tenants that have good jobs, affordability and not over spending at BetFred etc. So in this case if more landlords take extra precautions in case they can’t evict the tenant they took a chance on…where do all the benefit tenants and low income tenants go? On the street?
haha of course landlords will attempt possession saying they want to sell or move in when they have no intention of doing either, hence why they need to prove it. is ben beadle really that naive as to how dishonest people are?
A LL may move into the property.
No letting may occur to tenants.
However there is nothing preventing the live-in LL from letting to lodgers.
After 1 year of letting to lodgers the LL may move out and convert the lodgers into tenants at higher rents etc.
There is massive demand for spare rooms by aspirant lodgers.
If tenants wish to retain their tenancy then they have to accept paying higher rents.
Many LL are issuing S21 as they fear being unable to achieve higher rents with existing tenants.
Tenants should offer higher rents in an attempt to retain the tenancy.
Nationalised housing stock? Being a good idea as the government are doing a great job of everything else in their management.
If you ask the public what shelter do the will tell you “provide housing” as that is the implication in the name. Reality is it is far from what they do with the support of politicians In my humble opinion even their name is manipulation accepted by the political fools who seem to have a remarkable ability to get most things they touch wrong. Yet politicians have good use of the language and ability to manipulate the reality a bit like shelter. This is of course my very personal opinion that some others might agree with.
My son was recently kicked out of a hmo on a NO FAULT section 21…which left him homeless and hes started suffering with mental health issues due to anxiety and depression bought on by this traumatic and worrying time …he has eventually been hospitalised ( in which he’s still an inpatient) due to this negative experience he’s endured all through a NO FAULT EVICTION ….he’s currently being seen by a homeless officer to try and assist in finding a home …it appears most end up in hostels in which my son doesn’t wish to be due to the amount of narcotics in which we are all fully aware of takes place in these establishments…
So you believe that a LL should compromise his business for the sake of a tenant’s potential mental health issues!?
What a quaint concept!!
Your son wasn’t kicked out on a No Fault S21.
He was removed with a S21 No reason S2.
A tenant being issued a S21 does NOT imply fault.
Though rarely is S21 issued without a reason which is usually a fault hey the tenant
This fault is usually rent defaulting.
That would be the usual reason for S21 issuance
It is NOT the fault of the LL that your son has had difficulties since vacating.
Obviously unfortunate by definitely NOT the fault of his LL. Your son must surely have realised that he might be asked to vacate.
The PRS can never be a secure form of accommodation.
Tenancies are entirely correct in the gift of the LL
Tenants must understand this simple concept
Perhaps you should take your support n into your property until he recovers from his mental distress.
We don’t know the reason for the eviction – as others have said, it isn’t NO FAULT, its NO REASON GIVEN. Could be loads of reasons – perhaps the mortgage payments got so high along with utility payments in an HMO that the LL was in financial difficulty? Whilst I am sympathetic with your son’s issues, which you allege to be attributable to the eviction, what would you suggest the LL do? It is not his or her responsibility for all tenants at all times – that’s more of a parent’s or societal responsibility – your indignation about his eviction appears misplaced.
I find it incredulous that so many people believe that Sec 21 is a ‘no fault’ eviction process. ‘No fault’ doesn’t mean no reason, There’s always a reason but it doesn’t have to be a ‘fault’.
For example an increasing number of landlords no longer wish to be landlords and want to sell their property and leave the sector. There’s no ‘fault’ but there is a reason.
Those obsessed with finding ‘fault’ need to look no further than to Gov and loud little lefties like Shelter.
Indeed tenants need to realise that they do not need to be at fault for the LL to decide to sell up or change business model.
LL MUST always have the flexibility to do as they wish with their property assets.
I believe many tenants see themselves as victims when a LL decides to do things differently.
At the outset of a tenancy the tenant should be aware that the tenancy could well ended by the LL with no fault from the tenant
Business dynamics change and tenants need to be aware that such dynamics can terminate their tenancy.
LL can give limited forward guidance to tenants but events can occur in the PRS that mean such forward guidance is made redundant.
Like S24
Like EPC regulations
Like the RRB
Like the very real threat of a Labour Govt and their ridiculous Renters Charter.
Like massively increasing IR.
Tenants need to realise they are not immune from PRS market dynamics.
The ultimate results of which could mean the tenant is made homeless
.Such is life!