Landlord organisation raises alarm over Renters’ Rights Bill amendments

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 16/01/2025 - 12:30
That's one of the reasons why I have always insisted that they pay me directly. The other reason is that the single mums I have housed have all been moonlighting, doing extra small jobs for cash that they may not have declared. I have never cared about this because (a) it's none of my business what the tenants declare on their tax returns (b) if they pay me directly then the housing benefits people cannot get the money back from me (c) the amounts were small and may well have been below their personal allowances anyway, not that I'd know.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 16/01/2025 - 12:38<Don't be too sure on that point. I had a similar situation a few years ago where a tenant on benefits got caught moonlighting but the LA still came after me for all the rent and pursued me all the way to tribunal.

I had a similar situation a few years ago where a tenant on benefits got caught moonlighting but the LA still came after me for all the rent and pursued me all the way to tribunal.

I have some props in areas where the tenant 'working' pool is limited, and up to now I have had no real choice than to go down the benefit recipient route route. It's going to be VERY interesting to see how the councils are going to be effected by this and see what they are going to do as a result of the RRB if they are going to have ANY chance of getting those on their existing housing lists into the PRS never mind those in the more expensive temp and emergency accommodation...
I see council budgets being blown out of the water, and as a result CT bills increasing, as there is going to be bugger all extra money coming from central government. That's going to really put the cat among the pigeons in all these now new Labour constituencies. Those that pay full CT are going to be up in arms. Not content with paying 100% CT, over benefit tenants who are already being given state subsidies for this, they are now going to be paying more towards costs of housing the exact same people.
Lambeth are already evicting social rent paying tenants in their own properties to shift in those on their temp accommodation list just to save money! Where are the existing tenants going exactly? I bet a number will be back at the councils door claiming homelessness....only to be given back the same property????? Madness.

Reply to the comment left by Godfrey Jones at 17/01/2025 - 07:46
So in this case was the housing benefit being paid to the tenant, with the tenant paying rent to you? Or was the housing benefit being paid to you directly?

Reply to the comment left by Godfrey Jones at 13/01/2025 - 15:00
Be careful about leaving a property empty. We left one of ours empty because it needed major structural works and we didn't have the funds. (My husband was working away for a year to get the funds). At this point the council involved themselves and threatened to take the property of us. Their manner was vile and at this point I was in bad health and awaiting brain scans but they had no sympathy and said my ill health (and lack of funds) was not their concern the property was their only concern. Of course now you will also be penalised with surcharges on the basic council tax as well.

Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 15/01/2025 - 17:13
Exactly. It will surely be the the end if the tenancy agreement has to be signed before we get the money. It will be like the old days when a tenant tipped up with cash.

I don't take tenants who need a guarantor. I have always picked high earners who can be fully vetted. However if guarantors are banned but the tenant has to show documentary proof of affordability this still means most landlords will now only choose gold plated tenants. When the government realises this, will the government then legislate that landlords will not be allowed to choose their tenants and we have to rent to the first one who proves affordability. A bit like a shop who sells to any customer whether they like them or not because they have the money. Will the government then set a law on what they consider affordability to be. (I use a higher affordability rating than letting agents)

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 14/01/2025 - 10:03
Because those that need guarantors are unlikely to have friends or family that would meet the guarantor criteria (that also need to be referenced) - so asking for a guarantor is “unfair” in the Governments eyes.
Only ever used guarantors where there are small CCJs and rent protection won’t cover the risk.
If it’s 6 months guarantors limit and ban on 6/12 months up front (which again some rent protection asks for if they don’t pass referencing) - then I won’t rent to anyone but PAYE well above the affordability criteria.
But to be honest BTL is finished - I don’t have mortgages on my rentals and I’d rather have the money in REITs - higher yield and zero hassle.

Reply to the comment left by city boy at 18/01/2025 - 10:43
Agreed, one the tenants have gone then I will sell (12 sold, 6 left)