NRLA says the Renters (Reform) Bill ‘delivers a fair deal for tenants and responsible landlords’

Slightly off core argument here but I cannot for the life of me understand why the RR Bill does not contain any provision to compel rogue tenants to comply with a court order to VACATE a property that cannot be labelled " their home" when the Order is effective.

All this headline grabbing nonsense from MPs and others of influence is galling when the core values of democracy are being swept away. The Socialist /Communist doctrine of Marx is well to the fore here in the UK.

This creature Beadle and his cohorts in Shelter, Generation Rent et al need to be despatched and despatched NOW.

Carchester.

Reply to the comment left by Carchester at 27/04/2024 - 09:41
They do have to comply with a court order to vacate BUT if (when) they don't you still have to book in the bailiffs to chuck them out. How else would you do it 'send the boys round' which I think is reasonable. The issue is with the method of removal.

Reply to the comment left by Dennis Forrest at 24/04/2024 - 10:09The Conservatives have become socialist while pretending to be capitalist, Labour are, of course, died-in-the-wool socialists and the judiciary are socialists pretending to be unbiased. Not a good time to be a landlord.

Reply to the comment left by Sheralyne Stamp at 24/04/2024 - 09:56
A tad hash. Unfortunately NRLA cannot force the government to do anything, but can attempt, as best they can to direct them. The owner is also a landlord, no way can you think he wants these changes ? In 35 years of landlording I've had to do one section 8. The rest of the issues I have handled without court intervention.

To whom do I complain, and get action from, to stop the false representations by the NRLA insinuating that they represent a majority of landlords in the UK?
They certainly don't represent me.
Nor do many politicians, it seems.
Section 21 has been the safety valve that has allowed us certainty of riddance of bad eggs, and the secure ownership and return of our property.
Tenants have the license to occupy the property under two basic conditions; that they pay the rent and behave reasonably;y without damage to the property or gross inconvenience to others. It is this latter bit that is lost.
Perhaps it is time to sue the government at TORT for failure to provide efficient means of redress both for tenants and landlords.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Brown at 29/04/2024 - 15:24
Nice one Mr Brown.

Why is such sloppy language allowed? While a rented property may well be someone's, even some family's home, it is not their own - it belongs to the Landlord, and is occupied under the terms of the lease!
We have to challenge this misuse of language at every turn.
If governments didn't interefer so much I'm sure there would have evolve long term tenancy agreemenets that gave improved security to both parties.
In 1970 I was advised to become a landlord by my Building Society manager, but declined as there was no guarantee that I would ever get the property back if the tenant didn't want to leave.
It was the introduction of the AST, supported by the incluson of Section 21, that encouraged people to buy and improve property and make it available for rent.
So as a late middle aged penniless post marriage tenant I was encouraged in 1998 to buy the rotting flat I lived in, and the block, from my landlord and restore the building (re-roof, get rid of dry-rot, install fire alarms, remove multiple layers of cheap wall paper and rotting carpets, turn 'loosely arranged' flats into self-contained flats, improve insulation etc. And repeat the process on three more buildings.
So I take it as a serious affront that I am now to lose control, and possibly be told to sell to hapless and clueless tenants at a discount. Fat chance.
So who will I vote for? Is there anyone left who supports free enterprise and property ownership by the general public, and not just the billionaires and their offshore trust funds?

Between property letting agents and one tenant leaving my property I
Uninhabitable the agent insisting on refunding said tenants deposit they felt was important to keep their reputation up. Oh not forgetting Mr S who I inherited after another agent sold out to his organisation and then allowed a tenant in without rental protection knowing she couldn’t pay the rent owing me thousands £’s the latest with another is the final straw no matter what a tenant does despite a genuine appeal the deposit people always favour the tenant so once my tenant has been to court for eviction at 77 having been a first class LL I gave notice to the agent I am selling up despite how good a LL is attending to issues straight away the harder you get kicked. I grew up in rented accommodation which no one maintained so the government is certainly going to regret this by targeting more good & honest LL’s instead of looking after billion £ investors himing ground rents which is more important although it impoverishes many elderly in sheltered accommodation units additionally with increasing costs of rents + management fees how many are being priced out of this market ? Where are they going to rent, some are allegedly making a lot of profit from putting up asylum seekers my friend lost her 3 bed Maisonette they rented which holds quite few persons it’s alleged. We have discharged armed forces living rough dose governments or civil service personnel have discognative issues when time served are of no importance no fixed abode no benefits can’t apply for a job shouldn’t we stand as Independents next ellection ?

Reply to the comment left by Sally Robinson at 29/04/2024 - 15:30
Thank you Sally.

The PRS sector is OVER REGULATED because this government is obsessed with creations of funny regulations of how to milk Landlords for illegal immigrants and weapons for wars.
Why not make the life simple for all people and let them freely move whenever and wherever they want.
Market competition will create its own rules ...NLRA became just the next money targeting scam...