10:21 AM, 18th October 2024, About 2 hours ago 2
Text Size
Just when you thought Labour’s hatred of landlords couldn’t get any worse comes the alarming realisation that the Renters’ Rights Bill could be so much worse than most landlords fear.
I’m talking about Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook’s interview with the I newspaper that Property118 covered.
Firstly, it’s the usual lefty nonsense about protecting tenants – not landlords, naturally – even though laws are in place to do just that.
But the realisation that he was talking about criminalising something that isn’t even mentioned in the Bill really hit me.
Everyone has missed it but for those of us who have tried valiantly to read the Bill’s details, it’s one simple claim.
The clueless Pennycook, who is another Labour lightweight who has never had a job, says that pregnant women will be protected in the Bill from discrimination.
Landlords who do discriminate will be fined £7,000!
Sounds fine, doesn’t it? Discriminating against a pregnant woman is a hard case to argue against.
But whoa! Hold on. There is no mention of pregnant women in the Bill’s details so either Pennycook is making stuff up as he goes along or, there’s more to come for those the Bill will protect.
I know that those on benefits, families with children and tenants wanting pets are getting the airtime but this is something different.
Are we saying that NO ONE can be discriminated against? Is Labour saying we can’t carry out proper referencing of tenants anymore?
Why would discriminating against a pregnant woman be a cause for making a claim against a landlord if she has a track record of not paying rent, trashing landlord properties and carrying out anti-social behaviour?
Is this going to be another blanket ban because it sounds good?
To be honest, I’m starting to panic now.
He makes clear that landlords who break the proposed discrimination characteristics can be taken to a tribunal and fined multiple times.
Multiple times at £7,000 a throw is the end of a landlord’s investment.
I was among the first to flag up the issue of allowing tenants to object to a rent rise by taking their complaint to a tribunal as a form of rent control by the back door.
The tenant can apply to a tribunal for free – and they’ll do it if they think they have been discriminated against.
In the interview, Pennycook said he wanted to ‘ban rental discrimination against renters with children and those who receive benefits of any kind’.
Benefits of any kind? Am I hearing this right?
He went on to say: “What we’re trying to do through this bill is clamp down on discrimination, for example by [targeting] adverts that say, ‘No people on benefits’, as well as intentional discrimination that can happen in person.”
In person? So, if I don’t use the potential tenant’s correct pronouns, I’ll get a £7,000 smack in the kisser?
No, thank you.
He says the Bill will outlaw discrimination ‘for good’.
Two things, Matt, firstly it won’t and secondly, it will if there are no landlords left to rent from.
So, now we are going to ignore the Equalities Act 2010 because it’s ‘difficult to enforce’. I think you’ll find it’s been very easy to enforce – you obviously can’t be bothered.
Being pregnant is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act as is:
Is Labour looking to extend the Renters’ Rights Bill to cover these characteristics?
Most landlords don’t have issues with any of those characteristics but being FORCED to accept someone simply because they are on a list is an issue.
Imagine turning down a convicted sex offender with a track record in not paying rent, attacking a landlord but turns up to a viewing in a dress.
Are we saying that the characteristic then trumps common sense?
Do we get fined every time this happens?
Has anyone come across this as an issue? I’m guessing having a financial incentive to hurt a landlord might be a game changer.
What if the sex offender then attends 10 viewings (lucky him/her!) in a day and then complains about it? He/she could be in for a £70,000 payday.
But get this – Matt also says that landlords who are repeat offenders could be fined up to £40,000, face criminal proceedings or be issued with a banning order preventing them from letting out homes.
I despair.
This is like going back to Tony Blair’s infamous ‘mission creep’ days with what appeared to be hard to argue against legislation – but which hid a sledgehammer.
Pennycook has the brass neck to then claim: ‘Good landlords have nothing to worry about’ with the Renters’ Rights Bill.
I think we do – and the sooner that landlords wake up to the real prospect of losing control of their property and who can live in it – and how much we can charge – then a fightback might get underway.
Because once this nonsense becomes law, don’t expect politicians to come and save you.
We stood by while MPs, tenant activist groups and the media slagged us off.
We let the public perception of landlords be dragged through the mud and didn’t have a right to reply.
If ever there was a time for landlords to unite and for a representative organisation to start laying out what will happen when this Bill becomes law, then that time is definitely now.
If that doesn’t happen then we will only have ourselves to blame as the PRS is decimated and landlords are pushed into financial ruin because of Labour’s La La land nonsense.
Until next time,
The Landlord Crusader
David
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:42 AM, 18th October 2024, About An hour ago
I don't see sex offender on the list and i think one would have difficulty persuading a judge he/she has been discriminated against but who knows with the loony left.
Anyway there are plenty of other reasons to turn down a prospective tenant such as simply. a preference for someone else so prove i have discriminated against you.For that matter if you have ten applicants and can only accept one does that mean the other nine can say you discriminated against them. No.
This seems to be about total State control, driving private landlord's out so tenants are under the complete control of the government and their cronies and then we may see the hammer come down on tenants.
Markella Mikkelsen
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:03 AM, 18th October 2024, About 51 minutes ago
As an Employer you choose to hire a new employee based on their attitude, skills and how they will fit in with the team.
As an individual, you choose your friends based on their values and how they fit in with yours.
As an Investor you choose who to invest in based on their attitude and their ability to multiply your money.
THEREFORE:
As a Landlord you choose who to rent to based on their risk to you and your asset.
Plus as an HMO landlord, based on how they will fit in with the rest of the housemates.
I would not rent out to a pregnant woman going into an HMO of professionals, because they all have to go to work and they don't want to be up all night because of a screaming baby.
As an employer, investor, friend, you make choices based on your own criteria. Call them "discrimination" if you like. But it's not illegal to make these choices and you cannot ban them.
Why don't they ban lenders from "discriminating" against people with a debt record?
Why don't they ban Universities from "discriminating" against students with poor grades?
And let's start banning some MPs because they make extremely poor role models to the rest of us.