Landlord organisation raises alarm over Renters’ Rights Bill amendments

BTR sector has no interest in high risk tenants unless of course the Government underwrites them (i.e. acts a guarantor) or gives them a large backhander ooops sorry I mean "subsidises" them.
Even then they'll be reluctant as it it'll lower the tone of the development.

Starmer had a meeting with Larry Fink the CEO of Blackrock in the Cabinet Room back in November. I believe the Build To Rent student sector is specifically excluded from the abolition of fixed term student tenancies in the Renters Rights Bill ? Says it all doesn’t it.

Reply to the comment left by Peter Merrick at 13/01/2025 - 09:47
I think that "professionalising" the sector means getting rid of the small portfolio landlords. The problem with that is that it drives out investment, restricts choice for tenants and removes a source of supply thereby increasing rents. That isn't a problem for larger, incorporated landlords because they know how to maximise rents and have the resources to deal with problem tenants and offset the additional costs of dealing with problem tenants by imposing these additional costs upon the majority of tenants who don't cause problems and do pay their rents.

RRB control-freakery will penalise the majority of tenants.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 13/01/2025 - 12:06
Corporates are not interested in the semi-detached house in Macclesfield or Middlesborough renting for £875 a month. Only PRS landlords are. Even if, as Dylan Morris says, Blackrock are in contact with Labour, they are just not interested in "secondary" or "tertiary" quality properties.

Let’s be clear, the changes all make it easier for migrants, with no credit history and no guarantors, to secure a rental property.

The government needs the PRS to house migrants and those that cannot buy an home of their own. Our own young adults are expected to stay with their parents.

I’ll never let to new tenants again so I will not be fouling foul of the anti-discrimination laws.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 13/01/2025 - 13:04
The changes do not make it easier for migrants to rent my property. No credit history, no renting history, no guarantor, then no tenancy. There are plenty of working individuals with a good history for me to be ultra fussy.
I currently only accept gold-plated tenants, with the proposed legislation I will only accept solid gold tenants. Take it further, and I will limit my tenants to solid platinum quality.

If the bill becomes an act without considerable amendment, then property to let will become as rare as Astatine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP8jJgzEmwE&t=12s

I'm both glad and sad that I had to let my hard-working gold plated tenants go recently. After providing a well decorated large semi-detached house with a garden and double garage close to amenities and good schools for many years always below market rates, it has become too much of a worry for me. I'm not in the best of health and I refuse to be forced onto some pointless Register or pay for a license nobody wants. I agree there are always going to be some rogue Landlords but those 1% are who need addressing not the rest of us who try and do a good job. If anything: a Register for Tenants would be much more useful but then there isn't any money in a Tenant's Register is there.
And what would I actually get for my money by paying a license fee? If a Tenant wants to report you they can already do it directly to their LA.
So long story short: yet another very decent rental property is now off the market 100% over Gov proposals and the unfair attacks previously launched on Landlords. I'd rather it stand empty and hope the property increases in value - if Rachel from accounts and brainless Raynor don't destroy the housing market with the ridiculous non-thought-through things they are doing.
The Rental Market in general has always ticked along pretty well relying on market forces i.e. supply and demand. But with an additional 10 million people, and counting, over the last 20 years and Gov interference since 2016 that's where the problems lie.
Anyway, I'm done. I'm out. This Gov will not earn one more penny out of me through letting.

Reply to the comment left by Godfrey Jones at 13/01/2025 - 15:00
That does encapsulate the problem: You are (or were) like me a small-portfolio landlord and like most small landlords we try to do a good job.

Small-portfolio landlords were attacked by George Osborne's changes, landlords in Scotland are under attack from the SNP, and all landlords are now under attack from labour and the RRB. And it isn't just labour. Carla Denyer (Green Party) just had a go at 'landlords treating renters like cash cows'.

https://metro.co.uk/2025/01/13/im-sick-landlords-treating-renters-like-cash-cows-22349173/

It's not landlords that are treating renters like cash cows. It is government that is treating small-portfolio landlords like cash cows when in reality most small portfolio landlords do a good job.

Reply to the comment left by Godfrey Jones at 13/01/2025 - 17:05
I think that lots of political attention-seekers are going to be opening their mouths as the bill is looked at this week.

It's all very well people like Carla Denyer, the Green Party and other people who don't know what they are talking about having a go at landlords putting in above inflation rent increases without looking at the reasons why they did it. Government policy on the BTL sector has been inflationary for years: Stopping landlords from being able to offset their finance costs against rents is inflationary, especially when interest rates rise dramatically; many landlords will have had to raise rents above inflation to avoid making a cash loss on their properties. Driving small-portfolio landlords and the competition and choice they provide out of the market is inflationary.

And many landlords will have been putting in below-inflation rent increases in the past and holding rents down slightly to encourage long-term tenancies before George Osborne's changes, the changes to the electrical regulations and all the proposals to mandate EPCs above band C. All that nonsense increases the risk of investing and drives out competition and choice.