10:43 AM, 20th May 2019, About 6 years ago 125
Text Size
And so the onslaught against private landlords continues. Earlier this month, we were shocked to hear that a cornerstone of tenancy law in the UK was to be overturned, with the scrapping of Section 21. Farcically, we were told that a consultation would take place after the decision had been made.
This was an unexpected move, as in fact the Government had been conducting one of their ‘post-decision’ consultations on the idea of ‘3-year tenancies’ (something Shelter had been pushing for). Section 21s had not even been on the agenda. Such is the floundering, knee-jerk politics of today, that a completely different policy decision emerged from it.
The abolition of Section 21s had been called for by the anti-landlord organisation Generation Rent. As part of their campaign, they deliberately misrepresented Section 21 by repeatedly referring to it as a ‘no fault’ eviction – such that this phrase is now used by everyone, as though landlords evict the clients they are dependent on to cover the costs of their businesses, ‘for no reason.’
In fact, as we all know, often Section 21 is used because it is the least awful solution to dealing with rogue tenants. The anti-landlord representatives say it means landlords can evict ‘at a moment’s notice’ when in fact, although it is supposed to take 2 months, the average time taken is 6-7 months if the tenant does not want to leave. During this time, the tenant is often paying no rent.
The reason the only other possible Section – Section 8 – is not used as often is because the tenant can raise spurious defences, for example lying that the house is in disrepair. The judge often then adjourns the case and the tenant gets even more months rent-free, while the landlord is pushed further into debt through no fault of their own – some even have to take out loans to cover the mortgage on the rental in which the tenant is living.
This is not only costly financially; a survey has found that private landlords’ mental health also suffers significantly because of, amongst other things, the way that the system is set up to enable these rogue tenants to ruin landlords financially, especially, as it is often the case they also wilfully wreck the property. Landlords’ mental health | National Landlords Association
This can cost landlords tens of thousands of pounds. No-one in Government is looking at this issue at all. The demonisation of private landlords has gone so far, hardly anyone in politics or the media is speaking up for them, despite them facing these gross injustices and the legal system completely letting them down.
And now, if, as is expected, the Government continues with its move to scrap Section 21, ‘charities’ like Generation Rent and Shelter will start pushing for the next punitive measure against landlords; the most likely contender for this is to somehow force landlords to take tenants on benefits, even if this is not the client group landlords wish to occupy their properties.
Shelter has been conducting a campaign on this for some time and various Government Ministers have jumped on the virtue-signalling bandwagon. Shelter has even been bullying landlords and letting agents into removing the words ‘no DSS’ from adverts and they also threatened to sue a letting agent, before the agent settled out of court, rather than face the stress and costs of a court case. Shelter now represents this as a legal victory and claims it is now recognised as discriminatory to specify ‘no DSS.’ It isn’t. Being in receipt of benefits is not a protected characteristic according to equal opportunities legislation. Settling out of court to avoid the stress and costs of a £60 million ‘charity’ hounding you through the courts does not create new law.
As part of their campaign on this, Greg Beales, Campaign Director at Shelter, has claimed that there is no evidence that tenants are benefits are ‘less-good’ tenants than others. There’s ‘no evidence that people on benefits are ‘less-good tenants’, says Shelter spokesman
He said that, given that, landlords and letting agents who do not accept those on benefits are engaging in ‘disgusting’ and ‘immoral’ practices. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/housing-benefit-renting-no-dss-shelter/
Such rhetoric demonstrates his ignorance. Of course as Shelter provides no housing to anyone, they would not have first-hand experience of the issues involved. As landlords, however, we know that there are many reasons why it makes no sense to accept people on low wages and/or on benefits. No amount of banning landlords and agents from specifying ‘no DSS’ will change these facts.
Some of the reasons why it often does not make sense to accept people on benefits as tenants:
This final point demonstrates how various forms of Government interference in the private rented sector are having the opposite results to the alleged intentions. One change causes landlords to not be able to take on tenants on benefits; the next tries to ban them from not taking on tenants on benefits. We all know the next will be rent caps. It is like trying to shove a lid on a boiling pot when it is about to boil over.
And at the same time that they are trying to ‘disallow’ landlords from having control over their own assets, are ‘disallowing’ landlords from offsetting their finance costs, and ‘disallowing’ landlords from choosing the tenants they want, they leave the social sector completely alone despite 61% of eviction notices actually coming from this sector 24housing and despite the fact that this sector also is moving away from accepting tenants on benefits.
As an expert on this said: “Shelter and the National Housing Federation are engaging in deliberate known deceit in their combined campaign over NO DSS in the private rented sector – A campaign that is so superficial it shames them both…Social landlords… do routinely operate affordability tests and they do refuse to accommodate the benefit tenant and thus they operate the same NO DSS practices as the private landlord.” https://speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/dear-polly/
Where is the hue and cry about that?
No. They turn a blind eye to this, because they are fixated to an almost manic degree on private landlords; a fixation which is already starting to wreck people’s lives by pushing them out of housing.
Mick Roberts
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up6:54 AM, 13th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 13/06/2019 - 01:49
And when HB made errors, u could quite often get 'em rectified in weeks, sometimes days, sometimes minutes on a phone call & email. With UC, the complaints process to get it rectified is over 18 months. If they sorted this, UC DWP would be bought to book much sooner. And things would get changed quicker.
As it is, the person making the mistake knows he ain't gonna' be looked at for 18 months & by that time, he's moved department.
I urge everyone to fill in that survey Annie has put, it's a few mins & seems very 'I want to listen to Landlord-We may have got it wrong cause our previous way wasn't working'.
https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=gCAAK3_gpE-WU1S_fGTCqzxrEb0UDJpGmnzCaV4D_EVUQ1AwWUM5VDNBNTJXQ0VQRllJQ0tOSkxMWS4u
MoodyMolls
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:06 AM, 13th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 13/06/2019 - 01:49
If only this was possible .
Once they leave the property you cannot get attachments on their benefits unless they agree.
The tenants can cancel the right for you to speak and have information on them anytime.
I have tried everything
CCJ moneyclaim
Sheriffs bailiffs
Into court to disclose earnings
freezing bank accounts
Until the government allow landlords to have an attachment on their source of income direct from HMRC which I bel is possible then we have limited chance of recovery.
In fact by not doing this and letting these tenants get away scot free the government is actively encouraging this behaviour.
If they found it would come out of their money you would see a reduction in damage and rent arrears.
Ian Narbeth
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up9:47 AM, 13th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 13/06/2019 - 01:49As you acknowledge, Amelia, you have been very lucky. You also have a large portfolio so one problem tenant/family is a problem not a catastrophe. If you are a landlord with only one or two properties and see programmes like the one on Monday night about Nightmare Tenants (oh and they had to find a slum landlord at the end for "balance") you may take the rational decision that you can't risk letting to impecunious people. The problem is exacerbated by the shortage of affordable housing. In the past (15+ years ago) tenants could find alternative accommodation more easily. Now they can't and so want to stay put. I am sure this is one of the factors in the abolish s21 campaign.
Of course tenants who are not on benefits also cause problems but they (a) are statistically less likely to do so (b) won't be causing so much wear and tear as they are out at work and (c) are more likely to be worth pursuing for arrears and damages.
Neil Patterson
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up10:15 AM, 13th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 13/06/2019 - 06:54
Thanks Mick and Annie,
I have added the survey as a separate article as well 🙂
>> https://www.property118.com/shelter-ask-for-landlords-views/
Big Blue
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:12 AM, 13th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 13/06/2019 - 01:49
So you haven’t even replaced a cupboard door in 22 years?? One can only imagine how outdated your properties must be! What about your carpets or decor or styles - the decent homes standard says a kitchen mustn’t be more than 20 years old and a bathroom 15! Mine get full and complete refurbs at great expense on a fairly regular basis, interesting to see that yours don’t.
ameliahartman
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up20:37 PM, 13th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Monty Bodkin
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up22:07 PM, 13th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 13/06/2019 - 20:37
"We now have 37 properties"
"We make on average £30 profit per property per month, at the moment. All of our properties together make our income"
Just to point out the obvious;
37 properties x £30 = £1,110 per month income.
Chris @ Possession Friend
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up23:45 PM, 13th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 13/06/2019 - 22:07
' Unbelieveable ' !
Luke P
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up23:45 PM, 13th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 13/06/2019 - 22:07A small interest rate rise would wipe that out. And it’s hardly worth the stress of it all. Work in the local shop would be more fruitful.
I’m not sure you’re genuine, Amelia. Do you wanna convince me somehow?
Whiteskifreak Surrey
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up6:25 AM, 14th June 2019, About 6 years ago
Reply to the comment left by ameliahartman at 13/06/2019 - 20:37
With such a small profit how are you able to remortgage? I am assuming you need that, but maybe you just have all your properties mortgage-free. Banks apply strong lending criteria to portfolio landlords. I am not sure you would pass their stress test...