Industry body calls for investment over legislation to support PRS

I do not know where these guys are renting I am getting between 20 and 30 within 48 hours and the last two were 65 and 95 .

Arears that used to have lots of stock now have very few properties to to let . It is very difficult for Tenants now that landlords now have no choice but to take full references , Guarantors , and Rent Guarantee Insurance.

Good to see a piece supporting LLs - or is it? It's only looking out for some of us: "Perhaps the more serious portfolio landlords (with 10 or more) properties could be supported?”

These guys they are not reading the room, the statistics or the taxation legislation:

Are they inferring that small LLs (the majority) are not serious? Why just the people with >10 properties, who most likely are incorporated and with that size of portfolio can likely better spread and weather the losses a rogue tenant can bring?

We can do without the likes of Propertymark if that's what they think of us.

Way too late, politicians of all parties are determined to inflict further damage not less.

The central point to all this is “ Throughout the last twenty years, we have seen renting more than double in popularity “
Is this really a popular choice? I would say that the word “necessity” would be more appropriate than popularity. Most people who could actually afford to buy would surely do so. The trouble is that a great percentage of people just can’t afford to buy even at so called “affordable” prices. Landlords are often blamed for “snapping up properties” to the detriment of other potential buyers. However, the properties were all on the open market for anybody to “snap up” if they had the money.
At the risk of sounding like a Monty Python Yorkshireman contrast this to when I was young in the late fifties/early sixties. My parents had their own modest house and a car all bought on and just about managed on an average workers wage. My mother stayed at home with the children, as did the mothers of most of my school friends. The average family just can’t afforded to do this now. Even if the mythical 1.5M houses get built most people still won’t be able to afford them such is the poor state of the country. Landlords will be wary of taking the risk of buying them to rent, and if they did, rents would be unaffordable if the landlord wants to make a decent return. Take a look at the share prices of major house builders, they all dropping, when you would think things should be on the up. They can’t afford to build excess houses that nobody will buy so they won’t build them and just batten down the hatches. Perhaps Ange will sort them out by imposing fines on them like they doing with the manufacturers of electric cars that nobody wants.

Reply to the comment left by Northernpleb at 07/01/2025 - 12:24
Absolutely right on the mark.

They can give renters as many rights as they want, but they can't force a private citizen to enter into a contract and take on a tenant against their will.

Nor can they stop a private citizen from selling property that they own if it doesn't suit them any longer.

And they can't stop a private citizen from occupying their own property if they want to.

It's all designed to drive out the private landlord, but it's not so easy to get rid of something you can't do without, unless you first provide a viable alternative.

Renters Rights means that I have ceased to let my properties. I will sell them instead. 25 tenants are losing their homes and I am losing my business. Thanks Angela Rayner. I think that the growth you keep referring to is going to be in the length of homeless queue outside the Council housing office.