Ben Beadle claims Renters’ Rights Bill’s Section 21 Ban is “not a big change”

Landlords who want to sell could first try and sell with a tenant in situ. When this fails to sell at a realistic price they just get a letter from their estate agent saying that the property needs to be sold with vacant possession. If relevant, the agent could add that it is the kind of property which could appeal to a first time buyer..

Hi Guys,
I think this bill is infamous, not because of its contents which I follow anyway. I allow pets for the most part, my houses are good, well decorated, safe, warm properties, my tenants are all long-term tenants who have been with me for many years, at least 70% of whom are DSS or receive some form of govt or council assistance, I do only increase the rent once a year anyway (landlords who do not at least have a rent review every year, in my mind, are just building up trouble for themselves).
I, of course, do not agree with the ban on section 21 for many reasons not least the fact that this will harm tenants, who will now be faced with a section 8 eviction instead, which will remain on their record (serves them right I suppose), instead of being just able to move to another landlord. The database is just going to be a costly pain in the ar$e and will end up hiking the rent to be able to pay for it. So these are the only 2 things that I tend to disagree with, in the bill.
However, all that being said, the Government is trying to take control of MY properties, telling me who I must at least consider letting my properties out to, telling me that I MUST allow tenants to keep possibly destructive animals in my properties. It's not right, I do not mind reasonable concessions to tenants to keep pets as it is in my interest to try to make the tenant comfortable in the property, and saves me the hassle of trying to find another tenant to replace them, but it should never be the right of tenants to do so, either they should find a landlord who will let them keep a pet, or they should buy their own house. Every tenant to whom I have permitted to keep a small dog has gone on to take the pi$$ and keep multiple animals which they didn't have permission for, in one case keeping cats, rats, fish, and parrots as well.
If they are so keen on being able to keep track of us monstrous landlords who are trying to make a modest return on our significant costs and investment, why are they not just as interested in keeping an eye on the lovely tenants who destroy our properties or who do not pay their rent, or do not behave in a reasonable manner.
Yes, it is a travesty that there is not a database where LLs can check to see if the people they are about to let in their property are not criminals or deviants, the pendulum should swing both ways.
I believe that this awful bill will cause the immediate rush of LLs to evict tenants who the LL believes will be a bigger problem once section 21 is gone, I know I would.
We will just have to see where we are when this grossly unfair bill becomes law.
I am positive of 3 things though, it will cause LLs to exit the market in larger numbers, it will prevent a lot of new LLs from entering the market, and will be the cause of higher rents.
Still, thank God that the NRLA is defending our corner LOL.

Way to go, you socialist tw*ts.

We all know its going to be a nightmare, like many I’m starting to sell off, its time to have a life outside of hassle and courts

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 11/09/2024 - 11:53
The "masterplan"?
Government does not believe in the PRS and wants to scale it back. Most decent tenants to be forced towards owner-occupation because it will be cheaper than renting. Tenants that can't buy - to eventually be put in social housing when it's built. In the meantime they 'hold' the tenants who can't buy in the PRS by making it nigh impossible to get rid of them and by increasing CGT, to stop landlords selling. Once the social housing is built then they allow us to sell to more owner-occupiers, who will be the only buyers by then.
I really feel there is a lack of facing up on this forum to the fact that government does not really want the PRS or at the very least wants to scale it back over time. It's the only explanation that makes sense.
It may take several years to phase out/reduce the PRS but Rachael Reeves is working on securing funding for the new social housing from the private sector. So we know this is happening.
I just wish we were having the right conversation but of course there are only hints from government and they won't play their hand because they need to keep us there for a little longer until they can replace us. They are not too worried if the RRB works long-term for landlords because they don't need it to. It just needs to lock enough of us in for a while.
Sorry if this sounds cynical but I honestly believe all the pieces fit for this to be what is really going on and we need to face up to this.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 11/09/2024 - 16:23
Nailed my own thoughts completely.

I saw this and thought
What a load of rubbish !!!!
We are selling our rental property
Don’t need any more stress , had a really bad tenant which, made us realise it’s not worth the hassle being a LL although we also had some very good tenants
Tenant's have always had more rights and they know it .

Reply to the comment left by Jack Jennings at 11/09/2024 - 21:48
it will be factored into the rent! Tenant will always pay.

Reply to the comment left by Dennis Forrest at 12/09/2024 - 10:14
who the hell is going to want to buy a property with a tenant in situ? Most landlords are getting out now, planning to get out or sitting tight to see how things pan out. I see no private LL's buying tenanted properties now, given the number already on the market....

Pity there is no 'section 21' to evict Chief Executives who do not represent the interests of their members..

Polly would have been gone years ago! If only she really understood the damage she has done. ! Very sad . But give her a peerage - she deserves it! lol.