Queen’s Speech 2021 – Landlord Reactions

Paul Shamplina of Landlord Action, said:
“It was expected that the Queen would make reference to the Renters Reform Bill; I’ve been predicting for a while that Section 21 will be abolished in the next 12-18 months, but there has to be reforms of the Section 8 Grounds and major investment made in the Court System coupled to bailiff reforms, especially in the wake of Covid and the lengthy evictions ban”

So do ALL Tenants have to belong to a prescriptive group with arbitrary powers ? - silly question.

How about a new ‘lifetime’ owneer stamp duty model that eases the burden on owners when moving from one Property to the next, helping improve the experience of those living in the private owners sector - no thought not!

Silly question I know but......... have they given even the slightest explanation as to how this lifetime deposit scheme will actually work ?

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 11/05/2021 - 19:04
Exactly Dylan. It sounds like a nonsense to me.

What does it even mean, a lifetime deposit, who rents for their whole life?

The point of a deposit, is that it may be used if needed.
If it is used, then its not for a lifetime.

I assume the government are trying to solve the problem, where tenants have to wait for their deposit, but need it for their next property.
But how are you supposed to carry your deposit from one to the next? If a tenant came to me, and said I can use the deposit from their previous rental when it comes available, it would not be good enough, because even the tenant won't know how much they will have until they move out.

Anyway, am sure some kind of random fudge will ensue where our masters can pat themselves on the back while achieving less than nothing.

Reply to the comment left by TheBiggerPicture at 11/05/2021 - 20:08I can only see this working if every tenant sends to the deposit company the five week maximum of, say, £1,000…TWICE. It’s safe with the deposit scheme, with only one lot tied to their current property. When they want to move, the second lot is ‘assigned’ to the second property. If any deductions are subsequently made from the first, the tenant MUST repay the amount to top back up BEFORE they can move. If they don’t, it’s not the bast LL preventing their move, but their own previous actions. They could even (slowly) return the amount with any interest accrued - that way, a long-time well-behaved tenant will end up with all their initial outlay back, yet still have a fully topped up (‘double’) deposit.
Not a chance it’ll happen like that, though.

My biggest fear is once this is in and implemented, this will be the ONLY request a LL can make, thus making guarantors disallowed. And then it really is game over!

The only way this will work is if the current landlord is not allowed to claim on the deposit as it needs to be transferred to the new landlord. Essentially making the deposit worthless. Yep that’s their plan. To essentially ban deposits via this sort of ridiculous nonsense. They really do hate us that much, they really do.

This is bound to be a political issue for pressure groups because it is a (real or percieved) problem for tenants. Just at the time they have other expenses relating to removal, they need to find a new deposit before they get back (the amount due) on the previous one.
A scheme might be made to work if deposits were held in an insured fund. For an individual tenant, the cover would only be required for a few weeks, so it wouldn't need each tenant's deposit to be doubled. Tenants with a claim against them would have to repay it to the fund, possibly with time to pay.

This approach would create opportunities for insurance companies, allow market forces to regulate the cost, and take political pressure off the government.

Reply to the comment left by John P at 12/05/2021 - 06:04
Do you deal with tenants often? Particularly the ones that make regular ‘use’ of their deposits? Many will simply not repay any deductions and I dint for one second see Govt. making that the tenant or, possibly, LA/public services problem…it’ll be shifted to the LL. Perhaps it would be deemed ‘unfortunate’ that they had not repaid previous deductions and that now their deposit is less than expected. I can envisage them going a step further and actively preventing a LL knowing how much is/isn’t in a tenants deposit scheme until it’s called upon, only that they do indeed have a lifetime deposit (of any amount).

The Government will "bring forward reforms to drive improvements in standards in rented accommodation, including by ensuring all tenants have a right to redress".

How does making all landlords belong to a redress scheme help? Unless the plan is to ban people from being a landlord, presumably leaving their current tenants in situ? We have courts and a legal system to provide redress. The courts are not slow to penalise defaulting landlords. (Notice that nobody ever says the courts are not slow to penalise defaulting tenants!)

The problem for tenants is not tenants needing redress. It is a few bad landlords providing sub-standard dangerous accommodation. It is landlords who need redress from defaulting tenants who are enabled to stay on without paying rent for months and then do a runner.

Try a thought experiment. At the end of the calendar year ask : How much in aggregate is owed but unpaid by tenants to landlords and how much is owed by landlords to tenants? I would hazard a guess that tenants owe landlords hundreds of times more than landlords owe tenants. There is no great problem of damages awarded against landlords not being paid.