Angela Rayner tells Shelter: Labour will ban no-fault evictions

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 05/06/2024 - 10:59
"It ain't necessarily so"
By voting tactically we could well get a hung Parliament which would make it more complicated for Ms Rayner.

Shelter is a business, profiting from the crisis. They hide under the word charity which helps them claim grants from the government and donations from the public. They deliberately spread hate for landlords. If you comment on their Facebook page with anything that defends landlords or a post that isn’t telling the whole truth they will delete it..only providing ones that make them look good. Im all for charity but this is no charity. I assure you. They are a hate spreading organisation making things worse and they know it!! 160,000 landlords have sold up and many more to follow! Being all in favour of the tenant is a dangerous game.. it’s not rocket science! They know these figures but won’t address them!! As their donations won’t be as good!!

The government has a choice.
1. Encourage landlords to remain in the game. Encourage the next generation (who will probably inherit rental properties) to continue letting the properties to tenants. This can only be done by making it a viable business. Unfair taxation and over-regulation is not the way forward.
2. Force landlords to hold on to their properties even when they are making a loss. This will build resentment and could see landlords becoming bankrupt. Facing significant losses, desperate people often do desperate things.

I wonder what the politicians reaction would be if, once you were elected to public office you were never allowed to retire. Ban retirement for age, health and personal reasons. Salary cap so ministers were paid the same as MPs - why should there be any variation, everyone should have access to the same wage. Throw in some legislation, preferably written in "wingdings", which if they fail to adhere to could subject them to unlimited fines or even prison. Don't forget they have to be available 24/7 in the event of an emergency. If their constituents damage something it's their personal responsibility to ensure it's rectified, often within a gameshow style timescale. Forget offsetting operating expenses against tax, I mean that's just unfair for them to be able to do that so we need to level the playing field.
There will of course be a few ways to leave your office which on paper look achievable, but will be totally dependant on a "throw a double six to start" game of snakes and ladders. Oh, and don't forget the person you are playing with will take a random amount of time, up to 6 months, to take their turn.
So now the only real way to get out would be to be voted out, but what if no one wants to be voted in to replace you?
Gosh, that sounds awful, how would any Government allow a significant section of it's population to end up in that situation?
Pure fantasy, I know!

Reply to the comment left by Stella at 05/06/2024 - 11:10
They already have 1 foot in the door, it's practically done. Agreed , Rayner in charge is going to be unthinkable. Question is, what else will they come with other than section 21 withdrawal, NI on unearned income ?, unlimited landlord fines ?, nationwide selective licensing ?, wealth taxes ?, widescale compulsory purchasing at land value ?. What with landlords exiting at the rate they are with no signs of it stopping, uncontrolled legal and illegal immigration, the government may soon need to redefine ' housing crisis ' to national emergency.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 05/06/2024 - 12:01
Unfair taxation is the only way they know. Over regulation is a tactic they will continue use in a bid to convince the electorate they care and are actively helping people in need and they certainly will have no interest in making btl viable. I believe the goal is to gradually dismantle the private sector entirely whilst blaming landlords in the process. Not exactly sure how they will be able to force landlords to hold on to their stock other than by raising capital gains significantly, and even this would only deter the old guard where properties were purchased decades ago for next to nothing ?

Reply to the comment left by Trapped Landlord at 05/06/2024 - 12:52
and if they did call a Housing Emergency' then I am expecting it to trigger a whole lot of other things...rent caps, eviction bans etc....just like Scotland....

and we all know what happened then...

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 05/06/2024 - 13:48
Labour will be a disaster.

I would not be surprised if they also give succession rights to tenants in addition to the removal of section 21.

We had this pre 1988 Housing act.

We will not own anything!

It seems to me that every Government is failing landlords and not just a generation of renters as Rayner alleges.

There is no recognition of the issues we face: -

Rent arrears
Late payment
Serious Damage
Anto Social Behaviour

to name but the tip of the iceberg.

There is no such thing as a “no-fault” eviction: no landlord evicts a good tenant and where there is an eviction, there is often good cause.

If, as I understand, evictions will all have to be done through a Section 8 and a court hearing, which we know is impossible as already, the current system cannot cope with the workload, this will identify the grounds for possession: often to the detriment of the tenant.

Am I right in thinking that these will be public documents whereby the grounds for possession will be disclosed rather than hidden, through the current S21 process?

I think it is about time that Governments started to appreciate that there are two sides to the Private Rental Sector and the problems do not all lay with one or either party: whilst happy and willing to offer protection for tenants (no matter how bad they are or what they have done) the same benefit is not extended to landlords who have to endure the problem and use a costly court system, already failing (through no fault of the staff) and incapable of dealing with the proposed changes unless it is upgraded to deal with demand.

There needs to be a balance, which there clearly is not now and it is not in favour of landlords.

Perhaps," if" Rayner "was" a landlord, she didn’t suffer the issues we do?

The more the government interferes, the more damage they cause. They will well and truly shoot themselves in the foot removing section 21. Currently, we use Section 21 because it's easier and more straightforward, no other reason, not because I wake up in the morning with the desire to evict good tenants. The tenants then take the section 21 to anyone who they think will help / house them and lie about the reasoning behind being evicted and very often new landlord may buy it. Now, when they will have no choice but to present a the section 8 all red faced and quiet just to be told , NO, sorry , not today thanks. Oh the irony.