New FREE court service for tenants risks more landlords facing big eviction costs

63
28336
evictions

The new Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service that went live this week could result in more landlords fighting – and potentially losing – expensive court battles.

There are fears that the threat of a £15,000 legal bill if they lose their possession claim hearing could be enough to dissuade some from taking legal action.

From 1st August, tenants facing eviction or repossession can get free early legal advice on housing, debt, and welfare benefits issues before appearing in court, as well as continuing to get advice and representation on the day of their hearing. It replaces the Housing Possession Court Duty Service which only offers ‘on the day’ emergency advice and advocacy.

Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Felicity Buchan, says: “I want to ensure we are giving households all the help and support they need to stay in their homes.

“That is why we are spending £1 billion through the Homelessness Prevention Grant which can be used to work with landlords to prevent evictions. At the same time our Renters (Reform) Bill will give tenants more security in their homes by abolishing Section-21 ‘no fault’ evictions.

“This new service allows us to go even further and ensure tenants are getting the right legal help and support – all part of our wider work to prevent homelessness before it occurs.”

Unintended consequence

paul sowerbutts

But Paul Sowerbutts (pictured), head of legal action at Landlord Action, tells LandlordZONE that while it will mean more tenants get advice earlier, the likely and unintended consequence will be more tenants also getting full legal aid, so that landlords end up fighting more lengthy and costly court battles.

He says costs of at least £15,000 for a one-day trial are not uncommon. “This scheme makes it more likely for a case to go to a full day trial – tenants can cause more mischief and are at a significant advantage,” says Sowerbutts. “If they lose the case, they don’t have to pay costs.”

More difficult

He adds that the upcoming reforms and this new scheme will make it more difficult to be a small landlord, although it should encourage a better relationship with tenants as landlords try to pre-empt problems.

One worried landlord tells LandlordZONE: “It seems very unfair as tenants don’t need to be means-tested to get help while we have to pay for representation, which is a lot for someone who only has one or two properties. The system is really weighted against landlords.”

Primary causes

nathan emerson fraud

Nathan Emerson (pictured), CEO of estate agency trade organisation Propertymark says: “We recognise the UK Government is seeking to support people facing hardship or eviction, however, there needs to be an equitable system in place which is responsive, fair and progressive for all parties involved.

“We encourage the government to work more closely with landlords and agents to provide support or at least take measures to reverse the primary causes which sees many landlords selling and having to potentially evict tenants from their homes in the first place.

“It is also vital to consider the flip side of the coin whereby many landlords are also dealing with increased costs making it challenging to operate.

“Any new system must prove fair, sensible and workable for landlords, agents and tenants equally. We welcome the idea of having procedures that address concerns, keep pace with fast moving legislation and bringing swift resolutions on an individual basis.”

Read more about the Housing Loss Prevention Services.

63 COMMENTS

  1. Another reason to stop letting on a long-term basis.

    What LL apart from very rich ones could afford £15000 Court costs.

    Very few LL could afford to risk incurring such litigation costs.

    I presume there would be some form of addition to LL insurance policies that would enable LL to risk legal action.

    If not then letting on a long-term basis wouldn’t be viable.

    No normal LL could risk incurring such litigation costs.

    Effectively the risk of such enormous litigation costs would render the PRS unviable unless there was suitable LL insurance to cover those litigation cost.

    • Admittedly I am a tad cynical, but I think this is just another unspoken Gov policy designed to prevent evictions at a time when ‘there are no homes’ for the growing homeless.
      The more the Courts are bunged up, costly, insanely complex, and time delayed makes evictions all but impossible. Fewer evictions equals less political fallout.

    • Absolute twaddle.

      You seriously can’t be a LL making such a ridiculous statement!

      LL cannot risk a tenant being decent.

      They hope they are but if not then LL face a massive unviable risk.

      Unless LL are able to achieve insurance then it becomes unviable to let.

      The risk of a tenant litigating makes letting far too risky.

    • Speaking from experience of being a good Tennant recipient of a rogue landlord with criminal intent, the intended support framework will be positive for both landlords or tenants of honest and lawful conduct .Any LL fearing high costs and insecurity over their fulfilment of statutory duties, clearly have suspicious reason why they are concerned. A rogue tenant can be determined at the first hurdle by any housing legal professional.

      • Unfortunately you are wrong with the statement about “any LL fearing high costs etc is suspicous” (I paraphrased a bit there).
        LL only indication of a dodgey Tenant is if they have a CCJ from past misbehavior. To take a rouge tenant to court you need so many months rent arrears followed by waiting for a court date, and then you have to wait for the bailiffs to be available.
        It take a business under if a LL has outgoings (loan paymnets), or needs the income to live off. It is why so many LL are leaving the game.
        Most LL live in fear for one or more of their tenancies, whether we are honest or not. I know I do, and that was before all of these proposed changes.

      • A tenant can trash the place, run serious rent arrears and move on to the next place. A landlord who did invest all his energy, money and time in providing a home for tenants is always at a receiving end of unpleasant consequences, and events. Any tenant living anywhere that is ‘not fit for purpose’ can always find somewhere else to move to. To the best of their knowledge, most landlords are dong their best to keep their rentals in a good condition. Landlords are becoming the real victims with all these discriminating regulations and laws that are siding with tenants. The system is becoming unjust.

    • It’s the bad and rogue tenants that is the problem. Again gov are further reinforcing landlords renting is not welcome by their actions and landlord should sell up and invest in friendlier investments

  2. It makes sense why back-stabber Gove calls it a RENTER’S REFORM BILL and not a Landlord and Renter’s Reform Bill.

  3. these are the mistakes of the rulers who, without good solutions, blame housing problems on landlords and tenants. By building high, for example, beautiful four-story buildings, the demand for housing would be quickly met. You clung to funny cottages with a garden in Great Britain, now it’s blunt for horrendously high prices. get a grip. Five times as many babies are born in a year as you build houses. In addition, dealing with legal matters takes from 3 to 5 months, as in the Middle Ages in Europe it takes a week or two. Law Firms Keep Your Money in Savings Accounts!!!!

    • Completely right. We can’t solve the housing problem by building semi and detached houses. Smaller multi-occupier 4 story buildings would be a very good compromise. See these everywhere else in Europe.

      • A perfect place for riots and unruly behaviour. As we saw in Brixton, Toxteth, Cardiff, Tottenham and many places in the 80s.
        As they say in a TV show, I’m out!
        The government is.meddling too much into everything that we do. Everything is now state controlled, including would you believe waste disposal.

      • Don’t talk twaddle.
        Any tenant can turn into a Rogue.

        LL simply cannot risk rent defaulting and litigation at £15000.

        It renders the small LL business model unviable UNLESS there is suitable insurance to cover the risk.

        AFAIK there hasn’t been any UK LL insurer that has invented an insurance policy to cover this litigation risk.

        There is no block insurance that covers this risk.

        So flat owning LL would need to purchase a standalone policy.

        Without insurance this litigation risk renders the PRS business model unviable due to the fact that the average small LL doesn’t have £15000 of available resources.

        It is my belief that the vast majority of LL haven’t a clue about this very real threat to their livelihood.

        LL insurers should introduce an emergency policy to cover this risk or to have it included in LL insurance policies.

        Nit sure whether this litigation risk would be covered.

        Really need someone from the UK Insurers to advise etc.

        • Paul, you need to forget about insurance full stop as being any use. They will simply try an get out of it or just give in as long as it is less than £15k. It’s quicker, easier and cheaper for them. The fact that this encourages more rogue tenants didn’t bother them as they just increase yours and other people premiums. Furthermore if they do fight it out solicitors just increase their fees which will put up £15k to £20k all the sooner.

          Just look to vet fees as an example. People took out insurance, made claims, vets put up their prices, insurance companies agreed them and followed suit and now vet fees are extortionate. Or look at US market where health insurance is sky high.

          Well that’s my take on it.

  4. So, we have Shelter, who’s basic mantra is that all Landlords are “B’s” or are Rogue Landlords – and who’s very existence relies on monies derived from the public purse, and now, with the introduction of this HLPAS, who’s funding is derived from that same “pot of money”, we have yet another “organisation” who’s very existence is on the basis that all Landlords are “Rogue Landlords”.
    I am sure many Landlords will agree that we have no problem with Tenants receiving advice – including legal advice, guidance etc in regard to their legal rights – in order to actually protect against the rogue element amongst Landlords who I would suggest are in the minority.
    However it is a fact that there is a finite percentage of Tenants who are very adept at presenting themselves as victims and who can and do lie about anything and everything in order to present a totally distorted “picture” of what is the factual situation and who will present themselves to Shelter and will similarly present themselves to the HLPAS as being the victims, when in actuality they are the fundamental cause of the problem/s – whether it be associated with rent arrears, disruptive or threatening behaviour etc.
    As is often said, good, decent Tenants have little to worry about.
    Yes there will be Landlords who will need to sell their properties legitimately whether it be due to financial reasons/pressures, and/or due to the ever increasing level and complexity of legislation surrounding the housing market, much of which has considerable costing implications. So the conundrum for them is do they sell – thereby relieving themselves from the associated headaches and potential problems, or do they increase the rents in order to compensate for the additional burdens and financial implications. It is so easy to be more righteous than thou until you are in that position.
    I can recall attending various Landlord seminars over the past 10 or more years where it has been stated that – say – in Wales the introduction of – say – Rent Smart Wales was a necessary move to effectively make it impossible for rogue Landlords to operate. How naïve was that, nothing has changed in that facet, they are still operating except they are operating “underground” with a certain element of tenant. So no matter what impositions and/or legislation has been introduced it is, in the main only affecting decent landlords who are – despite the general media garbage – in the majority.
    As usual those who are responsible for increasing the impositions, whether it be legislation, environmental aspects or otherwise, on all Landlords – are failing to look at the complete picture.

    • Yeah but there’s “presenting yourself as a victim” and winning a legal battle. These two things are quite far apart. I don’t understand why LLs are so worried about losing a legal battle, why are you not 100% that you are following the law?Maybe you should be, and maybe that’s the point? I’ve had many landlords screw me over and very little by the way of evidence to legally do anything.

      • DONT be ridiculous!

        You must surely be aware that everything is on the side of tenants.

        No sane LL will wish to risk such litigation no how good a LL they maybe.

        All LL know the system is against them.

        It simply won’t be worth the risk.

        LL have enough problems as it is with feckless tenants.

        Being exposed to such litigation costs make being a LL even a good one pointless.

        Most LL follow the law but even so feckless tenants can still cause issues for good LL.

        With this litigation risk it really is pointless being a long-term letting LL.

        If I was still a LL I would be removing long-term tenants and selling up or perhaps converting to FHL.

        This is the effect of making things one sided

      • You are clearly clueless as to the realities if the PRS or you wouldn’t post such rubbish.

        Tenants lie and cueat and the Courts do nothing about their perjury.

        You are an absolute fool who understands nothing about how feckless tenants manipulate the system.

        You have no experience of the lies etc that feckless tenants perpetrate.

        I have which is why I know your contentions are RIDICULOUS.

        The ONLY way a LL could continue with long-term letting is to have insurance which would cover the LL when tenants engage in vexatious litigation.

        I DONT know whether existing LL insurance policies would cover a situation where a LL lost a vexatious case and was liable for the £15000 example costs.

        It is highly unlikely a LL would lose a vexatious litigation but LL simply cannot afford the risk of losing so insurance protection is VITAL.

        The mere idea that if you are a good LL as you suggest then you have nothing to worry about just proves your complete IGNORANCE and NAIVETY regarding these matters.

        Good Ll simply can’t risk £15000 of potential litigation costs.

        Tenants are invariably liars and the new legal system will now support their perjury.

  5. Shelter can stop slagging us off. The legal system is screwing us over . There is no chance for PRS anymore. Run for the hills. Sell and sell quickly! Get out now if you can. Though it’s probably too late.

  6. This is a very easy way to make money if you are sitting on the other side of the fence I would say. If shoddy legislation makes it unviable to be a LL, who wins?
    Cynical maybe but it must be said with the current lots track record, appalling is far too kind.

  7. I think the PRS can remain viable for its traditional remit of supporting professionals, just unfortunately requiring all the more selectivity. I try not to rent to shysters and beatniks, so I am curious how landlords who serve these sectors will proceed in view of this. The minutiae of the reform bill selling up option could be important in defining whether it is even possible to get possession to sell up if faced with this level of adversity.

  8. They are sending a very strong message. YOUR INVESTMENT TO HOUSE PEOPLE IS NOT WANTED. Just carry on with your housing crisis you fools.

    • Yes it is wanted, but for Gov to control not you. The whole point of the hostility toward the PRS is to effectively sequestrate private rental property. Why? Because Gov, gets folk housed, takes your tax, and forces you via CGT and the like to remain a LL and a puppet manager of your tenants.

  9. Landlords need to be told with a kick up the arse that unfair evictions are illegal upon good tenants and that the word of bullies / anti social nbrs ganging up on oneself without any actual proof and evidence. Landlords always believe them to protect their property as an excuse despite seeing past good references and payments made. They should believe the tenant or pay the moving costs for the tenant from no missed rent payments. Tenants need this law and more protection from landlords overall.

    • Absolute twaddle you spout

      You clearly haven’t got a clue as to the business dynamics involved with being a private LL.

      Why are you even posting when you clearly aren’t a LL displaying your ignorance as to what is involved in being a LL.

      Everything you state is incorrect.

      The last thing that tenants need is more protection.

      The result of that would be even more LL aell8ng up or moving from long-term letting.

      Then what does the tenant do when there is a massive reduction in long-term letting properties!?

      The ONLY way to persuade LL to return to the PRS where rent defaulting occurs is for LL without any court process being required to personally remove those tenants after 45 days.

      That would include 2 missed monthly rent payments and 14 days NTQ.

      Without this LL will continue to leave the long-term letting sector.

      It is the completely EXISTING dysfunctional repossession process that is causing Ll to go.

  10. I’m positive there is a business opportunity here for anybody so inclined (I’m about retired and don’t need the money anymore) around supplying a ‘blacklist’ of these prats. I’m sure we’ve all had them. No matter how well you treat them they will abuse you and your property.

    The blacklist would simply be a list of these little charmers and the landlords would state whether they would rent to these people again. If the answer is ‘No’ then other unsuspecting LL could just make their mind up. There would be no reasons stated and nothing libelous involved. I would gladly subscribe to a list of people that other LL wouldn’t rent to again!

    • Unfortunately what you suggest has Bern tried and it failed.

      Was called Landlord Referencing Services.

      It failed as LA refused to upload their tenants good and bad.

      This was because the vested interests of LA in their commercial relationship with Homelet.

      So even though LRS could have Bern more effective the commission of the far worse Homelet service meant that LRS was ultimately unviable.

      LA aren’t interested in sourcing decent tenants.

      They just want the commission from Homelet for sourcing any tenant.

      This is why there will never be a blacklist of rogue tenants.

      LL relying on LA referencing are just asking for trouble.

      LA are useless.

      Far better for LL do use other providers for their referencing.

  11. Its a stitch up and a complete nonsense, when you have joint Tenancies, they come and go all the time and you have to do a new Contract.
    Now you have to keep offering lifetime Tenancies again & again repeatedly in a matter of months.

  12. What many of these bent MPs want is for LLs to surrender give their houses free to these waste orifices (one say that about this part of the anatomy as it expels all the waste from the body) while taking £90K + expenses from the govt. & having failed to build houses flats for the increasing population. Then we get a lot of faeces coming out of the mouths of social housing & Council rotters.

  13. It is now wise to move out any tenants that have been in arrears, anti social or a problem in any other way. Get them out before section 21 is removed. The government and the highly paid commies are promoting homelessness with the actions they take.

  14. “Renters (Reform) Bill will give tenants more security in their homes by abolishing Section-21 ‘no fault’ evictions”

    That notion has already been debunked by those in the legal profession and in fact what WILL happen is that whereas in the past a non payer would just be section 21’d out of the place.
    Instead, it will be a S8 resulting in both repossession AND a CCJ and a money order as a farewell present to the tenant.

    Caveat emptor…
    So now it will be even more important to stay away from the cheap end of the market and vet any potential tenants extremely well.

    I was minded to remain in the PRS as my properties are really nice and attract quality tenants however if the govt are going to incentivise everyone to go to law then I’m pretty much going to quit the PRS.

    I will DEFINITELY be watching how this plays out and if there is any nonsense then through natural churn, I will divest myself of rental properties and put the money in a risk free savings account…with just a quick glance online I found a 1 year fix at 6.1% no effort required, no risk up to £85,000

    This is what the future looks like when the landlords exit the PRS as happened in the 1970’s due to over regulation of the sector.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardboard_City_(London)
    “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”

    The ONLY reason I entered the PRS was to make money, if I leave it will be to protect my assets. Simples.

    • spot on! I had 2 overcrowded properties and tried to get LA help for the tenants. No help at all. Even contacted Polly at Shelter. Got a reply about how they support tenants etc and stats on how bad landlords are. Also a promise of a reply to assist/ help with advice. 5 months later and nothing from LA nor Shelter. If they do not care then why should I?

  15. I thought I was a decent landlord . Un till I found out 4 persons living in nice 1 bed flat for 6months unknown to me. When approached tenant she says what could I do its my daughter her partner and their child . They were thrown out of partners fathers house and no ware to go. I got involved and emailed the Council over overcrowding and young child in the flat with stairs and poor security , also not suitable as agreement states one person only. Wait for it. That was the worst decision I could have made. The flat has been inspected by the housing dept. And require special alterations to the fire door , alterations to fire alarms, EPC cert, EICR cert,
    Gas Safety cert, Tenancy agreement , 3 slates on the roof slipped and a few other items.
    Now tell me how that helps getting accommodation for these homeless people .
    I rest my case

    • Rob…. if you didn’t have a gas certificate you need to join an LL association or guild Fees of less than £100 p.a which you just add to the rent. Learn what the legal requirements are to rent out your property. Things like a tenancy agreement will help to protect you against moments like this, as they state the number of tenants.

  16. So what’s a tenant got to lose? No costs against them, legal fees paid.
    And as for checking tenants out in advance, it’s a lottery in which you have to play it as best you can. The worst tenant we ever had came with excellent references and close links to the Conservative Party (suppose that should have been the red flag, or is that the blue-red flag?). And the best were engineering students on work placement who fixed simple problems themselves, were clean and paid the rent on time, every time.

  17. This looks really bad for landlords and potential tenants, but it really depends on how it is operated in practice. If solicitors act (as they have a tendency to do) to line their own pockets and adopt a hostile approach to landlords (as the legal system tends to do), this is indeed bad for everyone except the solicitors. However, applied fairly and honourably by solicitors, this could work well, eg by solicitors advising tenants the landlord is acting properly and advising the tenant to comply with the notice to vacate, and refusing to threaten to take dodgy cases to court so that the landlord has to back down because they can’t afford the case. With S21 defunct, solicitors will be duty bound to explain that a lost S8 eviction case going through court will involve a CCJ on the tenant’s record. In summary, as long as solicitors behave honourably (big if!)this might not be as bad as some commentators think (though, more likely, it will be!).

    • Still a massive risk for the LL though UNLESS the LL has suitable and appropriate legal insurance.

      I doubt many LL insurance policies cover this issue.

      Certainly no flat owning LL will have any such insurance cover.

      Not sure if a contents policy would provide any kemal insurance.

      It is NOT possible to have block insurance cover and a separate LL buildings policy which may provide kemal insurance.

      If I was still a LL I would be rushing around seeking legal insurance cover.

      No way could I afford to lose an eviction case.

      But the knock on effects are that few LL will wish to risk doing their own evictions.

      More LL will start using the professional eviction companies.

      But yet again Govt supporting the feckless like they do all the time!

  18. So if what I am reading is correct the Goverment will lose from both sides. They will be paying the tenants solicitors bill, and they will be seeing less taxable income from the landlord. Seems like they have increased their costs and reduced their income! Only our government could plan a lose/lose situation and claim a win!
    The strange thing is that the poor legal aid lawyers, are not likely to be the best match for the landlord funded seasoned professionals, that they will be fighting.
    The legal profession have offered advice to the government that keeps all parts of the legal spectrum employed. It is also increases the burden on courts and Judges, so that whole legal industry is kept securely employed, while the rest of us just die under the demand for more tax income.
    Hardly a society that promotes growth and opportunity, unless you work in legal system, of course.

  19. Corruption and enforced injustice by Law the intended consequence now the order of the day.
    Private Landlord’s who House 11m Tenants voluntarily off their own backs with their own finance, pay billions in taxes from rents collected, now forced to House Tenants against their wishes in perpetuity.
    Tenants never had anything to fear until Gove’s Corrupt Renters Reform Confiscation Bill kick started landlord exit or switch by the thousands creating a deliberate Housing Crisis by reducing the amount available but now they need another corrupt £15k a pitch law to stop LL exit as the big boys are not quite
    ready yet but coming fast.
    How can any Tenant believe that the Government is helping them by driving up their Rents which they have done by 20 / 30% since Gove started this fraud and injustice.
    Clearly it’s not a Tenant / Landlord issue at all, it’s Government corrupt interference at the highest level for their Corporate Chums to take over.

  20. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE TIME FOR ACTION. Instead of writing complaints here, why don’t we all join together to fight the government? I am willing to do my bit if Landlords join me. Relying on the NRLA is pointless to get us out of this mess. Are you enough men/women to join me in this fight?

    • I don’t really agree with modern unions, (in my opinion union bosses should be on the same wage as their members), but if someone sets up a union for LL I would join. Notify the government in advance of our plan to go out on strike for a day. Advise all tenants that they need to leave the properties for a day because service is being denied as is our legal right to strike, anyone not complying will be served an S21 which is still available.
      I bet just the setting up of a union, and then the notification of the strike day would get the government back off their holidays to rush through emergency legislation to deny us the right to strike.

  21. bob
    I should have pointed out , I do have all the safety certificates. My point was the council are not interested in overcrowding, only , has the landlord got everything in place. also I am in RLA, now NRLA
    Rob

  22. Message to all Tenants;
    How are you going to find a flat to rent? There have been thousands of Landlords sell up. This means all those flats / houses are not available for tenants to rent.
    Every day that goes passed, more and more Landlords are selling up.
    With such a shortage of flats to let, it has pushed up the price of rents as well.
    Can you seriously blame a Landlord for putting the rents up in time for when the rental reform becomes law i.e. A Landlord will only be able to put the rent up by a small amount that is why Landlords who WERE charging under market rates of rent have now increased their rents to bring them in line with market prices.

    What makes this Government so much more clever than The Government of 1988 who brought in Section 21. That Government did not bring it in for laugh, they brought it in to entice people to become Landlords because their was such a shortage of flats to let.
    Pre 1988 there were very few Landlords and very few properties to rent.
    This is why the previously mentioned Cardboard City became a reality AND IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO FLATS TO LET.
    When Countrys, Citys, Towns introduce unfair laws against Landlords, there is one consequence:-
    Landlords sell up and if you don’t believe me look what happened in Berlin, Scotland and the USA
    In Berlin it only lasted one year and they then had to back track and revoke the laws as NOBODY could get a flat because all the Landlords
    Had sold. Businesses were closing because the staff could not find accommodation. No accommodation = no flat = no staff.
    There was a sarcastic saying in Berlin if you were looking for a flat;
    “Good luck finding a flat”
    In Scotland, prospective Tenants are now in bidding wars to get a flat. Whoever can pay the highest wins.
    All because Landlords are selling up.
    Just the rental reform bill alone is making Landlords sell. In this bill it says one of the reasons that a Landlords can evict, is anti-social behaviour. Well how is a Landlord supposed to prove anti-social behaviour. The other tenants in the block are not going to write anything down for fear of reprisals.

    There is no doubt in my mind that all these unfair laws against Landlords will lead to thousands of people becoming homeless.

    Beryl Williams mentioned;
    “I BELIEVE THIS IS THE TIME FOR ACTION”
    I would like to know what kind of action in detail. What can we do?
    Threatening to sell up will go nowhere as we are doing that already.

    All these Landlords selling will affect people that do not rent e.g
    Parents with teenage sons or daughters who want to leave home but can’t.

  23. get real – there is nothing we can do. This is not apathy. I once suggested posting on every news article a comment on the media report blaming it all on the Landlords. Deaths/racism/woke items excluded. The idea being that when everyone read it was slagging off landlords. Simply to show by over stating that when anyone read anything Landlords were getting the blame for it. This is because we seem to be in that position in society right now. Someone stated that I could be blamed for anarchy and prosecuted for enticing a rebellion’ that may crash the internet. As it would possibly overwhelm the internet with replies. We cannot strike. We cannot issue wholesale S21’s . It hurts the wrong people. Plus do we trust each enough to all issue S21’s and do not forget there are large corporate landlords just waiting in the wings to pick up the fall out. We are not a group nor a company – this is not union. We have no body to support us. We all compete with each other for tenants. The government, shelter, genrent, crisis etc and all the media landlord bashing rest (Telegraph/ sun/ mirror, Mail etc ) know this. They do not have to divide and rule – we do it ourselves. The government can change the basis of our tenancies simply by making it law. Eg no evictions during the pandemic. A simple stroke of the pen and our contracts with tenants are worthless. No rent increase – or limited rent increases are already close. Just think what they could really do and be grateful that at the moment you are still owning not only your own home but perhaps a few more. This will not continue for ever. It is time to go. Leave the PRS to the corporate bodies. Pay the CGT and get out before your health suffers.

    • I’m certainly taking a very cautious attitude at the moment, definitely no expansion of the portfolio and I have reduced it somewhat over the last few years already.

      I entered the PRS to make money lain and simple however the risk/reward ratios have changed dramatically over the past decade rendering much of the PRS as unviable when compared to other investment opportunities.

      CGT… I’m not really sure why people are unhappy… SURE no one enjoys paying taxes of any sort but if the property has risen in value overtime simply due to shortage of supply in the market, then its just a tax on what is effectively free money in the first place.

      The clear indication is that CGT allowances will be abolished in the next parliament and I expect it will be equalised with the current income tax rates/thresholds.
      Further reducing the rewards and increasing the risks on investment.
      Which in turn will, I suspect increase the flow of money out of the PRS and into other avenues that carry lower risk.

    • An even bigger motivation to leave the PRS is the Labour Party has avowed that it intends to tax wealth.

      Now most people know that most wealth is wrapped up in property.

      Well Labour can’t do much to owner occupiers.

      However this does leave a rather exposed number of those who own second properties.

      Most of them are owned by LL

      A small amount are 2nd homes or FHL/AirBnB.

      Now Labour can’t borrow to give to the feckless welfare classes.

      So it has to find another source.

      LL seem to fit that bill nicely.

      Attacking LL won’t be electorally damaging.

      So if you were Labour why would you not tax LL till the pips squeak!!??

      If you were a sane LL why would you bother being one when you know what the Labour Party has in store for you.

      Is there anybody out there that seriously believes the Tories will be the next Govt at the forthcoming General Election!?

      LL you should know Labour are gunning for you.

      So no moaning when it all happens.

      You’ve been warned.

      Make your preparations accordingly.
      I have.

      I’ve sold up!!

      LL still in the game need to be afraid; very afraid for what is to occur very soon!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here