The private members' bill going through the Commons this month is a charter for anti-socal tenants, claims the Residential Landlords' Association.
The Tenancies (Reform) Bill introduced by Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather claims to target retaliatory evictions, where landlords evict their tenants when they complain about the condition of their homes.
But the RLA says not only is there no evidence that the vast majority of landlords would ever evict their tenants without good reason, but that the legislation would actually undermine confidence in the private rented sector at the time when it is needed most.
RLA chairman Alan Ward says the overwhelming majority of landlords do not and will not evict tenants for no reason. "But landlords need to be able to deal with nightmare tenants who cause misery in their communities and those who just won't pay their rent. Removing their freedom to do so would be a charter for anti-social tenants says Ward.
The private member's bill, due to be debated on November 28 in the Commons, would hit landlords' ability to use section 21 notices in the eviction process - a flexibility widely credited with helping to revive the private rented sector.
The RLA's survey of more than 1,760 landlords this summer demonstrated that landlords only seek to evict when they really need to.
Of those who have regained possession of their properties, almost 90 per cent reported that they had done so because of tenant rent arrears, with another 43 per ceny because of tenant anti-social behaviour, nearly 40 per because tenants caused damage to the property and 20 per cent for tenant drug-related activity.
Just under 30 per cent wanted to regain possession of the property, for example because they needed to sell it for personal reasons.
The RLA says that rather than introducing unnecessary changes, the bill should be targeted at extending consumer rights regulations and improving the information given to tenants when they sign up for a home about their existing rights.
Comments
Nicely put Daniel - couldn't agree more.
"Honestly - what does the public pay these politicians to do"
Hang on, we could be here a while. Avoid the question Make ill-informed comments Refuse to listen to expert advice Plough on with policies even though their dead in the water Get paid huge second incomes for 'consultancy work'
Not all politicians are like this, of course, but all these slapdash, voter-chasing ideas are just an insult. Why not listen to those people who have an intimate knowledge of the industry rather than playing up to the crowd
The RLA in my opinion is absolutely correct in that this is all in favour of anti-social tenants. Another ill-thought out idea conceived by people with little knowledge of the real world. Honestly - what does the public pay these politicians to do