Hardships tests, EPC ratings and a Section 21 ban – is this the death knell of the PRS?

bang on!

Totally agree. Even tenants are beginning to get it

With regard to the hardship test, let’s also acknowledge that it would create a disincentive for landlords to keep rents below market, as many do for their long standing, good tenants. Doing so would place the landlord in more danger of not being able to serve a notice if they need to sell, as indeed, the tenant may be unable to find a property for the same rent. Yet another perverse unintended consequence, leading to what? You guessed it, higher rents. Mind boggles!

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 16/08/2024 - 10:39Spot on!
IMHO if laws like these that are so heavily skewed in favour of the tenant were enacted it could potentially be even worse than the bad old days of the protected tenant.
On top of all the legislation/compliance which we have already got to comply with this could be the final nail in the coffin.

The train due to arrive at platform one is the RRB. After its arrival will all LL's please refrain from exiting their carriages, and hold on tight for the legal rollercoaster ride once the train starts to move on. Any cash or valuables held should be handed in to the guards as soon as possible.
All other passengers (Tennants) will not need to purchase any more tickets, and seats will be severely restricted, including standing room only passengers.
The next stop will be chaos central, where
Passengers will need to push the train along the tracks to save energy and lower carbon emissions. The LL's will need to exit and lay in front of the train to be run over in the intrests of allowing more passengers onto the train, and to ensure proper lubrication of the tracks.
Finally when the train runs off the tracks at the end of the line, passengers may then freely disembark and pick up the pices of their lives, homes and prepare to get on the next train to Here we go all over again!
This service has been provided by your Govenment, funded by your taxes, and your stupidity in voting for them. We hope you have a pleasant journey, and enjoy the ride.
All complaints will be ignored, and complainants punished financially.
Thankyou for travelling with Marxists trains. We know best for you!

The NRLA needs to stand up to them, but I don't think they have it in them. I suggest people cancel their membership as I have done. My managing agent has asked for a sit down with our local Communist MP to discuss Landlord concerns, maybe others could press for local industry figure heads to do the same? RICs need to amplify their voice, as do other significant organisations that interact with the PRS - Mortgage providers could state what their position would be re lending with 2 year rules and hardship rules in place.
Don't do nothing. Act of get someone to act. Without massive PRS descent, they will get away with murder.

Hardship test will only mean those on benefits or insecure employment will be sidelined and a home owning guarantor becoming necessity .
This will indirectly discriminate a lot of tenants as landlords cannot risk losing their property and future pension provision.

This PRS industry was created for a reason in 1988. Its not a complicated reason.

There was massive homelessness, especially in big cities in the late 1980's.

Councils had stopped building council housing.

Inversters were not investing in residential property because they had very few powers to get their property back if they wanted it back pre 1988. REGULATED tenancies gave all the rights to tenants pre AST. There was a critical lack of property available to rent because LL had lost their rights to their own property.

The result was the 1988 housing act, creating a more positive environment for private landlords investment, with the introduction of AST's.

The result of that AST creation was that in the following 36 years, some 11 million people are now housed in some 4.5 million homes, provided by the likes of me with 20, with zero help from any part of successive governments.

By far the greater proportion of which WERE good quality affordable houses.

That sounds like a good news story for the vast majority of LL and Tenants alike.

Then enter people who were not born in 1988, who have no recollection of the uk homelessness in the 1980's.
Their aim is to once again strengthen tenants rights and remove landlord rights. Forget whether you agree with that aim for now, that is the stated aim of the likes of GR and Shelter. To strengthen tenant rights. Thus inevitably weakening landlord rights.

Now, read again the first 8 sentences of this post above. SOUND FAMILIAR?

Why is anyone surprised that, given the attitude of successive governments to the PRS, there is a lack of supply of rental housing in the whole of the uk? When the governments removed the attractiveness of the residential housing sector that created the 4.5m homes currently in the PRS since 1988, what did they think would happen to supply, and the inevitable subsequent rise in rents.

The harder you hit private landlords, the more you will find that they leave the sector, and that far fewer new landlords will replace those leaving, because the sums no longer add up. YOU, LABOUR, will end up exactly where the UK was pre the 1988 Housing Act. I remember it well. It was not good for tenants. My first tenant moved into her home in June 1992. She has lived in her home since that date. I have given her 1 year to find somewhere else to live so that I can access my own money. She has been evicted by the Tories actions, and the future fear of what Labour are talking about doing to the PRS.

LABOUR, If you do want rid of the PRS then please make sure you get an alternative in place FIRST. 11 million people in 4.5m houses are relying on you. That's 16% of the entire population of the UK who live in the PRS, that you are taking back to the pre 1988 system of regulation that failed so miserably.

It's not rocket science. The PRS is not a charity.

Stop biting the hand that feeds you.

1987 and 2024 are beginning to look increasingly similar from where I sit.

Ade.

Reply to the comment left by So simple at 17/08/2024 - 08:33
Ade, well said but my take-out from your post is the innocent tenant being evicted after 32 years, that’s really harsh. It’s exactly that kind of story that’s fuelling the RRB. As you rightly say it’s your property but it is her home. I hope you’re trying to sell with tenant in situ, even if it means a small hit.

I’ve been investing since 1993 and am still buying, despite the anti-landlord rhetoric. Short lease properties are my current purchase of choice…leasehold reform will aid leaseholders, and that will surely have to include landlords.

I have no intention of exiting, so CGT is irrelevant…though IHT is when they pass to the kids. That needs more thought…and I’m burying my head in the sand on this tbh.

BTW one of my best properties has had the same tenant since 1941, when she was 2! I got it at 2/3rds of vacant OMV at auction. Rent is set by the Rent Officer every two years and paid direct to me by the council, and is a great yield, though the model does eat capital (last time I looked, max 50% LTV, if you can get it). I have little responsibility for maintenance except gas safety etc. so it’s not hard work. And the tenant is lovely. Not all bad!

So simple
You are spot on!
This was exactly the situation that I remember in the days before section 21
We have massive homelessness today and instead of this government encouraging investment in the PRS in order to solve the homelessness problem they are hell-bent in demolishing it.
Pre 1987 all over again!