Reader’s Question
The Renters Reform Bill and years of bureaucratic fiasco appear testament to the performance of failed government policy over decades resulting in too much demand for homes.
Changing millions of existing tenancy contracts is a dumb and unfair solution to an obvious problem. According to Shelter, around 1 in 1000 tenancies result in a bailiff eviction, this is low by any definition.
The six month AST gives landlords and tenants known rights, it’s introduction has allowed some 5 million homes to be made available to renters. A remarkable achievement.
When someone takes a tenancy, it would be sensible if they are given a probationary period and not a home for life. If they want a home for life, the banks should lend to them (which of course many won’t). The landlord should be able to decide if they want to continue the tenancy and issue Section 21 if they don’t.
If the landlord gets a bad tenant it can appear a dark abyss trying to put this right going through an expensive process harder than most realise. I can give many stories of trying to help and provide a home for vulnerable people where support is simply not there and the pressures become unbearable when things go wrong.
On one occasion the Police changed the locks at the request of a tenant who had issues with another tenant and refused to even give me a key – the police effectively locked a female tenant out of her own home at the request of a male.
I fail to see how allowing a landlord to set a probationary period and issue a section 21 differs from an employment contract where there is always a probation period. Some tenancies just don’t work out.
The courts don’t work for landlords. Firstly they are expensive and slow if they work at all. The landlord has usually already lost money and the courts bleed more. I currently have a case where the tenant tells me they took the rent to first tier tribunal six months ago and I have heard nothing. I rang the tribunal to be told they don’t have the staff and six months have gone by.
For section 21 there is an imbalance where judges throw out cases regardless because of technicalities because the latest ‘how to rent guide’ (Has anyone ever read one) isn’t issued or the bond took more than 30 days to be put in a scheme, even though there is no detriment to the tenant. This court behaviour makes the process appear unbalanced.
It appears the truth is landlords are being forced to keep really bad tenants because there aren’t enough homes.
It may come as a surprise that when a tenant moves out for whatever reason (voluntarily or eviction) the house is still a home and isn’t kept as as some sort of empty monument or trophy. It is then occupied by someone else thereby reducing homelessness again. The shortage of homes is therefore the issue and this rests firmly with government and council planning.
Yet landlords are being held responsible.
If there were excess properties the Renters Reform Bill would not exist as people would move freely, what more evidence is needed the Act is a callous attack on landlords many of whom are now vulnerable.
What can be proposed to address the housing crisis without burdening landlords unfairly?
Contact one of our highly experienced mortgage advisors today on 0121 500 6316 to discuss your mortgage needs.
