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

Eviction Ban: 'Expected from Labour, not Tories' says party member

A Tory member has used the Conservative Home website to tell his party that it should introduce interest-free loans to help tenants pay off their arrears.

Chris Town - a party member and former vice-chair of the Residential Landlords Association - says the Conservative government’s eviction ban has produced victims in the shape of landlords being unable to take action against tenants committing anti-social behaviour or those involved in domestic violence or those with arrears accumulated before the pandemic.

“It is six months in which landlords have been unable to reclaim possession of their own home where they have rented it out whilst working elsewhere such as those in the military or diplomatic service” he adds.

Town believes some landlords could lose as much as £20,000 when arrears and the length of time to go through the court process are added together.

“It is completely unacceptable to expect landlords to undertake the responsibility of the state to subsidise those who are struggling to pay their rent. I might expect Labour to have no sympathy for landlords, but I would hope that a Conservative government would show some understanding that most landlords are not wealthy, and cannot afford to forgo rent for long periods of time” he writes on the website.

He insists that the best protection for renters with genuine Covid-related arrears, and for landlords, is to enable the tenants to pay off their rent arrears.

“This should be done through interest-free, government-guaranteed hardship loans for tenants in England to cover Covid-related arrears. The money would be paid directly to the landlord, and the immediate future of their tenancy secured” Town advocates. 

He says that such a scheme would then allow the government to give a cast-iron guarantee that the eviction ban wouldn’t be extended again beyond its current expiry date of September 20.

“This would be a good incentive to ensure that they had done all they could to work with the tenant to find a solution, which is what the large majority of landlords have been doing. They deserve some recognition for this and some support where it is needed” concludes Town.

Perhaps surprisingly for a Conservative website, at the time of writing this article over half the comments beneath Town’s piece appear to be critical of landlords.

You can see it here.

Poll: Does it surprise that the Conservatives have extended the eviction ban?

PLACE YOUR VOTE BELOW

  • James B

    Nice idea but government would prefer to see a few more landlords go bust or get out

    icon

    That is so true. I feel like a kid in a playground being bullied by the biggest kid in the school whose name is Boris.

     
    Matthew Payne

    I have to disagree chaps on the motive, not the possible fallout. The government cannot afford to lose anymore landlords and that is not its intention or policy strategy, however much it may feel like that. It has been a bungled mixture of general elections, changing governments, a dozen or so housing ministers that have meant housing policy has been made by different people with different agendas and the collaterol damage has been landlords. For example, the Tories knew their tenant vote collapsed in the 2017 GE and they had a concerted effort to get it back in order to beat a resurgent Labour Party, hence the 2019 Tenant Fees Act, which worked, they got an 8% swing. Nothing at all to do with Landlords as a focus. Nor is this eviction extension.

     
    icon

    @Matthew, Do you honestly believe that the 8% swing was a result of the TFA as oppposed to the disastrous policies, anti-brexit and anti-semetic policies of Comrade Corbyn?

    I don't believe that the TFA persuaded tenants to suddenly vote for Boris.

     
    Matthew Payne

    8% swing on tenants, not the population. I agree, people that can afford to will vote on more ideological grounds, but young tenants battered on social media by the Tories in the months leading up to the GE will vote on what puts money in their pocket, hence all 18 year olds, many of them with Right Wing roots voted for Labour when they said tuition fees would be banned. Fickle bunch, easily bought.

     
  • icon
    • 09 September 2020 08:31 AM

    Yep nobody is actually stating what Govt desire is as far as small LL are concerned.

    This is clear from the bonkers S24 policy.

    The last thing Govt wants to do is ensuring that LL survive.

    Nobody has mentioned that S24 requires tax to be paid with no rental income to pay it.
    The rent default crisis has exposed how ludicrous the S24 tax policy is.
    Nobody in MSM has mentioned this.

    Make NO mistake the UK Govt has every intention to ensure that by it's actions it forces as many LL out of business as it can.

    For Govt the CV19 crisis is a fantastic chance to force even more LL out of business.

    LL need to be aware of all these circumstances and make their plans accordingly.

    Unfortunately for many LL they will find that they will indeed be forced out of business.

    Attempting to reduce losses as best as they can is about all LL will be able to do.



    Mark Wilson

    Section 24 was inevitable and long overdue. It helps levels the playing field for owner occupiers.

     
    icon

    Best have homeowners paying CGT at point of sale then too if we’re ‘levelling the playing field’…or stop literally any other business offsetting costs of that business.

     
  • icon

    Chris Town is under the misapprehension that this is a Tory Government. That is the label, but it doesn’t act like one.

  • icon

    Ironically, this exact scheme is being put into law by the Labour Welsh Assembly for people in Wales and is a great idea that protects both landlords and tenants. It should be rolled out nationwide.

    icon

    No indication yet though re when it is beginning in Wales. They say 'September.'

     
  • icon

    I've had many articles in this vein published on conservativehome and am glad the NRLA have followed my lead and advice here - to target the many politicians including ministers who read the site. That there are negative comments below the article doesn't surprise me - there are a lot of trolls who like to leap on anything pro-landlord published.

    icon
    • 09 September 2020 10:52 AM

    Remember Ros that quite a few Tories regard LL as 'snivelling parasites' to quote a Tory Councillor!!!!!

    Despite your magnificent and tireless efforts in stating the LL case Govt chooses to treat the likes of you as a mushroom..............kept in the dark and fed on bull###t!!

     
  • icon

    @Paul Barrett They are not true Tories. THey may be members, they may even have been elected as Tories, but at heart they have more in common with Bliar's Nw Labour.

  • icon

    The fact that LL should pay for tenants arrears is unfair. Tenants who have lost their jobs can apply for housing benefit and this in turn can be passed on to the landlord. Those who chose to keep this money run into arrears are technically stealing from the state.
    I'm lucky in the fact that I have only had this happen to me a handful of times but when I've contacted the local housing office they take no action what so ever against the tenant.
    Many seem to forget that LL have mortgage commitments and this is how they earn a living and pay their bills.
    To put it in to context you wouldn't be allowed to walk into a shop steal, for example a TV and not expect to face any action yet you can walk away with someone else's money.

  • icon
    • 09 September 2020 17:48 PM

    @markwilson

    Yep you've finally proven what a complete idiot you are.

    To even consider S24 is fair is simply too ludicrous for words.


    To tax turnover is simply bonkers.
    How about every business isn't allowed to offset the costs of finance against income to hopefully produce a taxable profit.
    That would destroy the UK economy!!

    By what stretch of your bizarre imagination so you consider that having fewer LL assists home buyers.
    Seriously are you suggesting that LL prevent people from becoming OO!?

    It may have escaped your attention but there are plenty of properties to buy.
    It has not been LL that have prevented anyone buying.
    Can't believe as an alleged property professional you seriously believe such utter rubbish.



    Mark Wilson

    Paul there no need to agree with me, but you shouldn't be rude. BTL speculators have helped inflate house prices assisted by interest payment offset. Maybe not for you, but for many BTL is not a business, it is punt on the market. Why would you expect the tax payer to subsidise the offset, which is what had been happening.

     
    icon

    Paul, ignore Mark Wilson, he is posting his usual RAP with the silent C. He is not known as Mad Mark for nothing.

     
  • icon
    • 09 September 2020 18:52 PM

    @markwilson

    Every business is subsidised by the taxpayer.
    Every business is allowed certain offset facilities to reduce tax bills.
    Every business takes a punt.
    There are NO guarantees of success.

    It is calculated risk.
    It is principally lenders that determine the level of risk they are prepared to tolerate.
    NO LL has the right to funds they may desire.
    That is for lenders to decide.
    Capitalism simply wouldn't work if turnover was taxed.
    LL operate businesses and are the only ones currently NOT allowed to offset finance costs against income.
    The policy has no logic beyond that of the political objective to get rid of leveraged LL substantial numbers of whom were sole traders.

    It has nothing to do with levelling of anything.
    Govt knows that more property available won't make them anymore affordable than they currently are.

    It is just playing politics though I suggest poor politics and not much to their advantage at all.
    But attacking LL plays well to a certain electoral demographic.
    Essentially people with bonkers ideas like you!!

    I do believe it would be useful to expose the Govt crass stupidity if leveraged LL did all sell up.

    This would result in about 2 million homeless tenants none of whom could afford to buy.
    They would have done so by now but haven't.
    LL certainly won't reduce prices to make such properties affordable.

    But you should start to see a progressive decline every tax year of the PRS.
    I intend to get out of the game and to do so selling one per tax year is the only financially effective way to do it.
    Other LL will do the same thing.
    Once those LL have gone it will take ages for the PRS if ever to recover.
    This is what has happened in Ireland where because of their version of S24 there is now a housing crisis.

    Funnily enough all the evicted tenants didn't buy up all the sold rental properties and neither did FTB snap them up.
    So all the Irish have achieved is making lots of former tenants homeless.

    Of course the Irish Govt has finally realised the stupidity in taxing turnover and is now desperate for LL to take calculated risks and return to the PRS.

    Unfortunately for the Irish Govt former LL don't wish to play anymore resulting in the current Irish housing crisis

    So as you can see taxing turnover simply doesn't work!


icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up