Angela Rayner launches £1 billion scheme to tackle evictions

Me again! Unfortunately with tenant demand increasing and the number of properties available in the PRS reducing landlords will not naturally choose to take on tenants that are going to be, Shall we say, more difficult.
This could be due to domestic violence anti social behaviour, having loads of kids. Having been previously evicted. Being an ex con etc.
there will be many, far more suitable tenants who will pass referencing more easily and will be accommodated.
The others need to be cared for by the council. Not by kindly 60 year old landlords in the private sector who will receive a very tough ride.
So chucking in a BILLION quid to force change in sensible behaviour is not only hugely unfair, but plain silly.

Reply to the comment left by Julian Lloyd at 20/12/2024 - 10:47
Thank you your open comments. We need more like you contributing!

Another billion or two will be needed to compensate for the fallout after the RRB and abolition of S21 has come into force.

Any additional security of tenure will be for those relatively well off tenants who meet the criteria landlords will expect in this changed market.

Doesn’t affect me as only one left, existing tenants welcome to stay as long as they like but will not be re let by me at any price under any circumstances.

If I was starting out now I wouldn’t take a tenant with so much as a late phone bill on their record - but back in the 1990s/2000’s I’d consider CCJs and various other negatives if there was a positive such as previous LL giving them a bona fide reference.(If I didn’t I would have had a lot more voids in the area I was in).

I wonder how unintelligent these politicians need to be to fail to see the problem isn’t the S21 it’s the simple fact that the market dynamics are wrong. S21 never made any headlines until George Osborne started his war on landlords. That was a quarter of a century after it came in to effect.

RRB will be as effective in helping those who in a previous era would have got council housing as sawing the bottom three rungs off a ladder would be in helping short people become window cleaners.

These are all lunatic ideas. It seems to me there are more useless people in UK, like civil servants, train drivers, tenants, NHS staff, who do not prove their worth and get paid huge salaries or want something for nothing, some sort unfair rights, which this government is trying to make it legal. Why? They cannot accommodate their own citizens, as they are anti social behaviour or want to have 4 or 5 kids (believe, the government is responsible for their children upkeep and welfare).
There are people who continued working to make their life better, whether they enjoyed work or not. This government has money to feed and accommodate illegal immigrants in hotels and pay for stopping rightful evictions because the tenants have breached the tenancy agreement. However, they don't have money to pay £300 annually for winter fuel and cannot take their responsibilities to reimburse the landlords for the tenants behaviour, did not wish to take their responsibility for their own citizens, so pushing landlords to do their job without any recourse is flounting illegal laws.

Maybe Angela Rayner should be putting effort into encouraging landlords to keep their rental property, by reducing or removing all the reasons why landlords are selling up, especially government policies.

Labour are doing everything to incentivise private landlords to sell up and so evict tenants, and now they give taxpayer funded cash to councils to bribe the fewer landlords left to house these tenants and so driving rents up . You just couldn't make it up.

Everything we see happening is as the globalists have meticulously planned and pushed for.
They want us LL's to feel aggrieved to a point where we do sell up.
This allows the large portfolio buyers to add to their stock and many of these are companies that hold hands with those 'politicians' mentioned above.
It does not take much of a brain to see this and correlate it with the impending legislations that will hugely differ between PRS LL's and council or social Housing organizations.
Sadly we have no other option but to sell up or risk our properties becoming someone else's with no way of eviction/repossession in the future.
A national and international government that would rather line their pockets than look after their own, economy cog-turning citizens, and then expect the PRS to fork out and suffer for it? Not for me, thanks!
'You will own nothing and be happy.'
They have stated their desires.

This policy should be challenged under race discrimination laws. Let me explain…

Current tenants are more likely to white U.K. nationals. There’s a disproportionate number of newcomers to the U.K. in hotels, migrants camps and temporary accommodation.

Preventing landlords from evicting current white tenants means properties won’t become available for our new best friends from around the world.

I recall wishing Homes Under The Hammer where a landlord of Indian origin was buying properties only to be let to people arriving from India. Will anti-discrimination laws being brought in by the much-loved RRB apply to him?

No, I thought not.

There is so much I can say to this but it’s pointless because she/ they won’t listen. But here is a interesting nugget, if you go to say serco or mears or the other one who’s name eludes me, you can rent out at least, if not more than, market rates with guaranteed 3-7 yrs income plus all repairs done by them. They outbid councils etc from what I hear. 1000’s properties already in their portfolio and growing. And with eg my council charging 100% council tax as I try to repair a now vacant property due to a lot tenant damage if they think I’m renting to them ie council , think again. Never. If you keep kicking us down and just keep kicking eventually we say enough is enough and rest is history.

Typical government, throwing money at it, rather than providing a solution.