NRLA queries plans for a government ‘hardship test’ for landlord possession claims

It would be interesting to see the repercussions of introducing this 'hardship test' into legislation. Overall, French law and German law are fairer than the proposed UK negative rhetoric and bombastic approach toward landlords.

Secondly, the public confidence in politicians' ability to carry out their promises is at an all-time low. For example, I don't understand how the Labour Party will build 1.5 million homes in 5 years, as it equates to around 35 homes an hour, of which they haven't started building any yet. Yet despite not building any homes yet, they are still selling off council homes through council right-to-buy schemes - over 2 million homes sold off and 47 billion pounds of social housing sales revenue gone, as our deputy prime minister will be fully aware of. Gone where one might ask? 47 billion pounds is a lot of money. One could almost forgive if 47 billion pounds had gone to the NHS, but no - into yet another mysterious hole of government non-transparency and media silence, starting with propping up immigration and for the UK's desire to poodle along with the US with their for-ever-wars. This stream of wet UK governments continuing their sycophantic throwing of political heart and soul to the US in the hope of a few breadcrumbs is incumbent on a string of national leaders with a total lack of any ability to make money other than through taxation of their citizens to the point of civil war.

Speculation?? The Housing Minister is on House of Commons record openly stating it;

Matthew Pennycook _145

Clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground
1 if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the
circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by
granting the order than by refusing to grant it.””

I would rather they we stating an outright opposition to such a suggestion rather than a weedy ' query about '.

I’m a Landlord getting on for eighty. I’m charging less than the market rate to my tenants themselves saying they cannot afford more.
I’m in a sticky position here. Due to my age and low income I cannot borrow to improve the property any more than it is now. ( it is in good condition)
Therefore I cannot afford to keep the property any longer. I’ve been told by estate agents to put it up for sale I have to evict the tenants.
Anyone know the Labour Govts. position here ? or any other advice ?

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 13/08/2024 - 08:12
well if that's the case then I'd love to see the courts decide in T's favour if the LL is seeking possession because they can't get to an EPC C and therefore will be letting illegally if they cannot evict....

Total stupidity - good old Labour.

how is any judge going to define 'greater hardship'?

As far as I know the rule of law is supposed to be followed in courts, not moral interpretation based on the political situation of the day!

How can a LL be stopped from possession on the basis that T will not have secured themselves alternative accommodation having being given at that point all notice according to the law (which might be 2 years if Labour also have their way on that).

What's the point in any tenancy agreement at all if this is the case?

Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 13/08/2024 - 09:09If the NRLA represent the views of their members why do they not completely oppose a hardship clause.
Should we not be entitled to have our property back when we need to sell or retire?
With getting rid of section 21 and the prospect of a hardship clause we could be sure of never getting the property back and perhaps if they get all this through parliament then the next step may well be the introduction of succession laws.

At some point, I may well end up in a care home suffering dementia. If I’m unfit to be a landlord, the properties will all need to be sold.

Labours plans will ensure that the exodus from the PRS, started by the least conservative of the Tory parties, will continue apace. If I can’t find another mug to take over the tenancies, what am I to do?

There needs to be a legal option to remove tenants, even if it is with a fairly lengthy notice period (perhaps 12 or 24 months) because without one, illegal methods will be used. Prison can’t be much worse than a care home and would be considerably cheaper.

Angela Rayner clearly stated that a hardship test is what Labour will be instructing the courts to carry out.

I remember posting on here, can't remember the date but was prior to July 4th 2024

If you are a tenant in a property and decide not to pay the rent then any eviction would make you worse off as you would either have to pay rent elsewhere (worse off financially) or you would have to live in council accommodation (worse of due to type of property) or live on the streets (worse off as no roof over your head).

This is absolutely ridiculous. Once a tenant decides not to pay rent they can only be worse off so any judge will have to let them stay in the property, even if they do not pay rent.

The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum!