Is it time for landlords to take action?

I proposed when the Renters Reform Bill first rose it's head under the last Government that ALL PRS landlords should serve a s21 on the same day and with the same expiry date 3 months hence.

No-one needed to have followed through as a s21 is purely a notice of intention and not action need be taken.

This would have made the government of the day and local authorities sit up and take note of the service PRS landlords provide as there would be just over 4 million families (just over 10 million people according to Labour statements) in PRS accommodation who could be homeless all on the same day.

This would/should have led to governments working with and not against PRS landlords.

But suggestion was sadly ignored

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 19/08/2024 - 11:31
That wouldn’t have worked. The Courts provide a control mechanism such that the numbers being evicted are manageable. A quick call from the government and hearings would have been delayed for years. The move could have hindered those landlords that genuinely needed to regain possession of their properties.

I’ll wait until I see the White Paper or the Bill before making my views known.

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 19/08/2024 - 11:31
This would likely have had the completely opposite effect to the one desired.

Upon seeing thousands of S21 notices being issued on the same day it would have given the relevant groups enough evidence to show that S21 was being used for malicious purposes by landlords and that it should be removed immediately and retroactively.

With this proof that landlords were being malicious with their evictions they could then act to remove the ability to remove tenants in order to sell or move in.

There is already a bad feeling about landlords out there. It can only be made considerably worse by acting maliciously as a group.

Reply to the comment left by The Forever Tenant at 19/08/2024 - 11:59What is your solution then to landlords having no representation? (But being taxed)

They want to kill the P in PRS that is their plan and it’s working. It’s too late now especially with Labour we all knew this was coming. It’s a business investment so if it’s no longer viable or too much hassle there is only one way out. Sell up and invest in something else, you may suffer losses but that’s the nature of the game. The rules keep changing so adapt or leave.

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 19/08/2024 - 11:31
I completely understand where you are coming from, but any tenant who gets a S21 will not care a hoot that the LL has potentially no intention at the end of the day of using it or now, its the fact they have received it.

We all know LL's are being pushed to the limit at the mo, and the pressure is only going to intensify as the bill starts to progress through the system and the race for accommodation becomes more intense, but for that good T getting a S21, the tables could turn. A good tenant could suddenly stop paying altogether. It then sets good T against good LL.

Then what?

Reply to the comment left by TheBiggerPicture at 19/08/2024 - 12:59
I cannot say what the solution is, it could be that there isn't an obvious way to change public perception.

However if you are seen to punishing tenants, because you are unhappy with the way you are treated by the government, I can absolutely guarantee that is not the way to go.

There’s a single problem, above all others, that is creating the housing crisis.

Net migration is too high and is unsustainable. Labour seem to have even less desire to reduce net migration than the previous Conservative government.

We need fewer people to be allowed to come to the U.K. and/or we need to encourage more people to leave.

We can either provide homes for migrants or we can provide homes for U.K. Nationals. Wi (avera have sufficient houses. Government MUST provide a figure for net migration over the next five years. Without a number, planners have nothing to work to. 1.5 million homes will barely touch the sides of the problem. And of course, there’s no money to build 1.5 million new homes.

As for the RRB, I sometimes don’t increase rents for 10 years or more. With the RRB I will definitely increase rents every year if the market allows. My rents are between 9% and 27 % BELOW LHA rates. They’ll be increased every year from now.

I feel moved to comment on this post and it's replies for several reasons.
I do think there is a real misunderstanding of how and why these things are happening to us.
The thing about being a landlord is that it's a lonely business, how many of us have had "oh you must know so and so, he's a landlord as well". We of course just don't, which means we don't have a cohesive voice. The consequence of this is that when some new tax or hurdle happens there is no unified or high level response and it just happens and becomes accepted. We then have to adapt or die. I refuse to believe there is a plan to kill the PRS .In the current climate that would be the very definition of madness, there is instead a slow creep towards making it less desirable to be a landlord.
Obviously there are more tenants than landlords so more votes to be had from tenants. Anecdotal evidence and TV shows talk about rogue landlords, so more legislation appears which of course doesn't help because the real rogue landlords ignore that as well. Then we have the additional taxes, the country is broke so of course taxes will go up. The net result is the older landlords like me bring forward their exit plans and no one is coming in at the bottom to replace us as it no longer makes sense.
If we want a cohesive voice, what we need in my opinion is a well structured open letter detailing how we would deal with the housing crisis, how various legislation impacts upon us and how we would encourage the PRS. This letter should then be simultaneously sent to every MP by landlords in their constituency and to all the newspapers.
The letter should describe the problems and offer solutions. It should not just be a moan.
For example, developers have to put in a certain number of affordable houses on a development at planning stage, but another legislation says they have to be able to make a certain profit so after planning is passed they are allowed to reduce the number of affordable houses. Screams loophole to me. My suggestion is scrap both and put 5% VAT on newbuild houses on developments of 3 or more.
Ring fence that tax to be used for affordable housing.
Section 24 needs to be reversed especially with higher interest rates. Or delayed on new BTLs to enable new landlords to get a foothold. SIPPS need to be able to invest in residential property.
I'm sure if we put our heads together we can bring up the problems and suggest solutions. It's no good simply saying someone must stop immigration or someone needs to speed the courts up. Explain the problem and offer a solution is the only way forward. Doing it en masse carries weight, but a moan is just a moan. A solution might just grab traction. Especially if one of the other parties latches on. We need to write a policy and offer it up.
If enough agree lets see if property 118 will lead the charge.