Government is planning to ‘destroy the PRS’

Not just this government but should Labour get elected next time round PRS landlords will be further legislated against.

The losers will be the tenants as more and more PRS landlords vacate the sector and there are no homes to house tenants in.

Tent cities?

"Mr McKenzie said the government was ‘looking to destroy’ private renting as we know it."

Wether by accident, incompetence, or design, that much is self evident, so, given that amazing insight, what does Mr Mckenzie envisage as the objective?

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 20/04/2023 - 11:35
I don't know what Mr Mckenzie thinks but I think the long term plan is for govt's mates to supply sub-standard build-to rent and be immune from standards or even prosecution.

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 20/04/2023 - 11:35The Government has always had a down on the PRS. It might be some sort of jealousy as the PRS is doing a job the Government can’t i.e. providing homes. However, the paper “The Evolving Private Rented Sector: Its Contribution and Potential” paper produced by Rugg and Davies at the University of York Centre for Housing Policy outlines another reason stating;-
” For well over a decade a stated goal for the PRS by successive English governments has been to encourage large- scale institutional investment in new properties built specifically for the rental market” Unfortunately these properties are not for poorer tenants as:-
” BTR often aims to create a ‘new style’ of rental offer, focussing on longer tenancies with a defined process for rent review, transparent access fees, and a level of on-site amenity depending on the scale of the development. Utilities – including broadband – are often included in the rent. There is an intention for developments to look towards community creation, and there is generally an aspirational element to the market”
Doesn’t sound very affordable does it? So is the existing PRS being pushed out to make room for the institutional investors? If so they had better get a move on to keep pace with landlords leaving the PRS.

Unfortunately the Conservative Party has become the Enemy of the Landlord. First they introduced 3% additional Stamp Duty, secondly they removed tax relief on BTL mortgages, thirdly they introduced a higher discriminatory Capital Gains Tax rate, and now they talk of abolishing Section 21. The result of all this? Politicians lacking domain knowledge and street level experience are destroying the market, in the name of populism, and everyone, tenants and landlords, suffers from their disastrous interventions. So much for the Tory Party being the party of free enterprise and achievement. What nonsense. Their maladministration has become the dead hand of government, destroying efficiency and over engineering regulations. You see it everywhere. Now you're about to see it in the PRS.

Reply to the comment left by northern landlord at 20/04/2023 - 16:20
I can see many BTR developments from my window, £1200 for a 40 sqm one bed compared to our £1000/1100 for a twenty year old 60 sqm, we provide HOMES for people to not an extension of a university halls, no gym, no swimming pool, no free coffee but proper aparments.

Re tenancy length, their stand ard model is a six month fixed and rolling, that modek concerns me as you have no control of cashflow/void timing, although redued we have a strong senior student market, the foreigners alwyas ask for a tenenacy ending in July when they all go home, a two to hree month void every year is untenable.

The far greater PRS in this city, the Greater city area, is at the other end of the spectrum, a large HA sector and thousands of older terraced houses where rents are that politically desired "affordable" but inevitably and consequentially not supportive of the EPC ambitions of the fraudulent "climate emergency".

In short, there is no PRS, there are multiple human needs that a dictated one-size-fits-all cannot suit.

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 20/04/2023 - 10:41
How? If a landlord sells the property is not demolished. A tenant may buy or a council as prices drop. The same house would house someone. It would not remain empty.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Brown at 22/04/2023 - 17:07
What I think Judith means is that when a PRS property is sold it will no longer house a tenant unless it is bought by another landlord which is increasingly unlikely. Meanwhile the displaced tenant is unlikely to be able to afford to buy the property they were living in so has to look for somewhere else among a dwindling supply and if they can't afford market rent they will be homeless. . .

Reply to the comment left by Mark Brown at 22/04/2023 - 17:07
"The same house would house someone. It would not remain empty."

It wouldn't house the same number of people. Private renting is a significantly more efficient use of the housing stock.

Not to mention the housing that wouldn't exist without investment from landlords.

The "houses don't just disappear" argument is a simplistic soundbite that doesn't bear serious scrutiny.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Brown at 22/04/2023 - 17:07Judith is quite right in her comment. If a number of landlords wish to sell up, the market price will drop. This will give an incentive for people living with their parents to buy their own home, it will give home owners the incentive to up size, and it will give a disincentive for people thinking of downsizing. The effect of this is less housing available for tenants. This will result in rent increases and more overcrowding and homelessness.