x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
award
award award
award award

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Buy To Lets 'should only be re-let if tenants want to move'

A consumer group wants buy to let properties to be re-let only if the tenants in them want to move.

The call is one of a raft of demands made by Citizens Advice.

Most of its demands relate to tenants during the Coronavirus crisis but Amy Hughes, the housing expert at Citizens Advice, also says unequivocally: “Properties should only be put on the rental market if the tenant has said they want to move.”

Amongst the charity’s demands are: 

- “the government should accelerate its policy to scrap section 21 - so called ‘no fault evictions’” and

- “temporary changes to allow courts further discretion when faced with tenants whose rent arrears have been caused by the coronavirus outbreak”

The group adds that it is worried tenants may be uncomfortable with government guidelines about viewings if private rental properties during the virus crisis.

It reminds tenants:

- You do not have to leave your home just because a fixed term has come to an end - unless your landlord has obtained an order for possession

- Even in this instance, in many cases measures to delay the process have been put in place.

- If you don’t want your landlord or letting agent to organise viewings you can refuse and they may not enter without your permission

- However, allowing access may be a part of your contract, and breaching the terms of your contract may allow your landlord to take steps to enforce it - through an injunction or serving notice and make a claim for possession

- But to succeed the landlord needs to prove they are being reasonable, and a court may not consider it reasonable if the tenant is taking steps to protect themselves against a potential health risk

- A landlord who serves a so-called ‘no fault eviction’ section 21 notice, however, does not need to prove that they are acting reasonably. 

  • icon

    What will this shortage of supply do to prices? It will push them much higher!!

    This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in ages, and I don't say this lightly.

    Have we forgotten that we should be aspirational as a country - do tenants not want to buy someday? What are they going to do when they go to buy and prices are racked up because there is no property to buy?

  • icon

    Why stop there, bring in a law that says anything you rent from anyone you can buy from the owner at a discount, I could do with a new car, just off down to Enterprise see what I can snaffle....

  • Paul Barrett

    There seems to be an increasing propensity for these idiot organisations to propose COMMUNIST policies.
    They seek to control the private capital of LL.
    LL simply won't stand for it.

    They will abandon AST lettings.
    They will pay off mortgages to then do what they like with their properties.
    FHL etc.
    Perfectly possible to have tenants as permanent holidaymakers.
    The Smiths will be changing every month.
    Just a different set of Smiths.
    Tenants won't mind renewing contracts every month.
    They won't have any choice and they know they can be booted out very quickly if they rent default.

  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    The proposal is nothing less that EXPROPRIATION and a ruinous decline in our country.
    Citizens Advice, - another massively Tax-payer, Govt funded organisation like Shelter are coming out with ever more ludicrous suggestions.
    They seek nothing less than the theft of property and redistribution of wealth.
    I can think of no more a demotivating concept for this countries economics.
    ' I haven't got it, so I'll have yours. !!! '

  • icon

    Ms Hughes doesn't strike me as much of an 'expert' if she can't see what damage her proposals will do to renters. I think she's just someone trying to make a name for herself.

    She'd be better off focusing on strategies that increase supply and limit rental inflation. A good place to start would be campaigning for the removal of S24 (though I'm guessing she wouldn't even know what that is).

  • James B

    Landlord bashing has gone nuts in this country .. so many people jumping on the bandwagon now it’s getting ridiculous
    ... the writing is on the wall for landlords get out when you can .. being part of the minority voting block is going to lead to our demise ..

  • icon

    So its mine but the state tells me what I can do with it? MMM . Yes as Paul said Communist. Reminds me of the old sitting tenant tenancy my efforts for the last 25 years would be reduced to dust as I seem to remember you could pick these types of situations up with a massive discount against market value.
    Lets just hope common sense prevails and when you earn money from the sweat of your brow, pay your share and more of tax that what you purchase is yours to chose if you keep it or sell it.

    Paul Barrett

    I think you last paragraph sums up what most in society believe......................................EXCEPT for LL!!!!



    Why this is the case beats me.

    I just DON'T understand why as a LL my business should. be regarded any differently.

    Perhaps I am so blinded by my LL circumstances I am unable to appreciate a reality that the rest of society believes.

    It is almost as though society believes I have unfairly acquired landed assets which the common man needs access to and resents that they have to pay a reviled LL for access to.
    As though such a LL shouldn't be allowed to have such asset aquisition.

    There seems to be no objection renting from the State sometimes for more than private rents.
    No resentment there but introduce a private individual into the equation and resentment rises even though the accommodation service provided is of excellent circumstances.

    To me I believe it ultimately comes down to petty jealousy.
    This in that if you LL lived next door you would resent passing over substantial chunks of your income to him.
    All this because he owned a property asset and you didn't.
    I fail to see how this resentment should feed into the capital of the LL being controlled by that resentful tenant but it seems the eviction laws etc precisely facilitate that control for tenants.

    I think perhaps it is down to the recognition that the individual LL has something you want but haven't got and therefore have to pay lots of your hard earned income to have a roof over your head.
    Large corporates or the State DON'T seem to be resented; if at all the same way as a small LL.
    To see the difference in reaction try walking down a busy high st in a T shirt emblazoned with

    I am a proud private LL.

    Then try again with
    I am a large corporate LL.

    I doubt any comments would be made when wearing the 2nd T shirt.

    But the first!!!??

    You will receive a torrent of abuse.................why!? i have no idea.

     
  • icon

    The most annoying thing about this woman and CA is that MY TAXES HELP FUND THEM. These so-called charities like Citizens Advice (unless you are a landlord when they will not advise you) and Shelter, is that they get money from the taxpayer.

  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Its only ever the worse 5% of tenants that they help, lets be fair to the majority of Tenants, Landlords and members of the public who work hard and play by the rules.
    Its a travesty that Tax payers are funding legal aid , Shelter and Citizens advice for repetitive Rogue tenants.
    Shelter and Citizens Advice are disadvantaging Legitimate Tenants and undermining them by keeping rent defaulters and other breaches of agreements in property longer whilst lawful tenants are on the waiting list for these properties to become vacant.
    In Shelter's and Citizens Advice 'eyes' there are NO cases where the tenants " Deserve " to be evicted, and they'll throw all their tax-payer funded efforts and resources behind all Possession cases.

  • icon

    Aren’t LL citizens too? Citizens Advice is surely discrimInating.

    Paul Barrett

    Nope according to a widely held societal view LL are pure evil parasitical scum.

    Not worthy therefore of ANY consideration at all.
    LL need to be aware of how they are reviled.
    Also that they will receive no assistance whatsoever.

    It is for LL to have sufficient financial resilience when tenants default on rent.
    If LL cannot achieve this then they SHOULD NOT be LL.
    The buck ultimately stops with the LL due to the totally DYSFUNCTIONAL eviction process.

    LL need to be aware that they MUST be financially robust if they expect to survive.

    LL will receive no assistance from anyone and LL will have their existence made as awkward as possible when tenants default on rent.
    Remember LL are on their own.
    Being so reviled is not for all.

    Personally I hate tenants as much as they hate me.
    Most of them are feckless and cause untold hassle.
    But tenants are unfortunately a necessary evil.
    Make no mistake tenants hate LL and vice versa.
    Resentment breeds resentment.
    The best that LL can do is to be sufficiently resilient to protect themselves from rent defaulting tenants.
    LL need to factor into their business model the dysfunctional eviction process.
    Few LL currently do this.
    Unencumbered LL are clearly not so vulnerable to rent defaulting tenants.
    It must make new business sense to reduce exposure to rent defaulting tenants by reducing leverage if at all possible.
    It would greatly favour many LL if they assisted to substantially reduce the size of the PRS.
    The fact that this would cause mass homelessness is nothing to do with LL.
    LL have no social duty to house feckless rent defaulting tenants.

     
  • icon

    Its almost as if Shelter et al live in a dystopian alternate universe, they are so convinced by their own propaganda they no longer know when they are lying. I would just love to have 5 minutes on LBC with someone from Shelter to set the record straight.

    Paul Barrett

    I don't think Shelter in anyway accept the right of small private LL to exist.
    They are fundamentally opposed to the mere idea of small private LL existing.
    They have a ideological Communist outlook which has no place for private LL.

    All property is theft.
    To Shelter private LL are robbing the masses of their rightful accommodation.
    With such bonkers ideas LL DON'T stand a chance as by merely existing Shelter objects.

    You simply cannot do anything with blind prejudice which is what Shelter has for private LL.
    So pointless even bothering to engage with them.


     
icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up