I do, and I have no issue with these changes. We've been landlords of multiple properties for decades, and we've never evicted someone without cause. And 'without cause' is usually a euphemism for 'requesting maintenance' anyway. If you can't afford to maintain your property, you've got no business renting it out.  

This won't actually change anything though. Decent landlords will continue as they always have, and the slum landlords will still find tenants who are desperate and will take whatever they can get no matter what the law says.

If we are forced to sell up, it'll be because of the potential EPC changes, not because tenants are being given basic rights. 

 

7 hours ago, Polar Bear said:

 

I do, and I have no issue with these changes. We've been landlords of multiple properties for decades, and we've never evicted someone without cause. And 'without cause' is usually a euphemism for 'requesting maintenance' anyway.

 

I rent out my (ex) home so consider myself as an accidental landlord but think I’m a decent landlord as any issues are dealt with immediately (Agent is pre-approved to carry out repairs up to £500) & I’ve only put the rent up once (last year) in the past 6 years. 
 

However these new regulations concern me as although I’d never move back into the house, I might want to sell it & have always understood that I could do that anytime with 2 months notice (though I’d never do it mid-contract).

 

My tenants lease is up at the end of May & we’ve agreed another year (at the same rate) but after this news if it was due 2-3 months from now I’d probably be saying no & putting the place on the market (which I’ll do next Jan).
 

Wanting to sell is still grounds to end a tenancy. As is wanting to move back in yourself, or have a relative move in. The notice period is still 2 months. I don't see how these changes will negatively affect you at all.

 

Also, I'm sure you realise you can sell a tenanted property to another landlord. (That's our preferred option these days.) The selling price is usually slightly lower than market value, but not much. And that's offset by continuing to get rent up until you complete and saving on the costs of a refurb to get it ready to sell 

 

But these are people's homes we are talking about. Tenants should not have to live with the constant threat of unexpected eviction at the whim of a landlord. If someone wants the convenience of being able to liquidate assets whenever they feel like it, there are other more appropriate investments that don't screw other people over in the process.

39 minutes ago, Polar Bear said:

Wanting to sell is still grounds to end a tenancy. As is wanting to move back in yourself, or have a relative move in. The notice period is still 2 months. I don't see how these changes will negatively affect you at all.

 

 

 

But these are people's homes we are talking about. Tenants should not have to live with the constant threat of unexpected eviction at the whim of a landlord. If someone wants the convenience of being able to liquidate assets whenever they feel like it, there are other more appropriate investments that don't screw other people over in the process.

Thanks, I understood the removal of “No fault evictions” meant I could only evict the tenants if they did something wrong so it’s reassuring to know that I can still ask them to leave if I want to sell

 

Selling to another landlord is unlikely as the income yield is approx 2.5% (before expenses) given my tenants pay 25-30% below market rate as I’ve only raise the rent once in 6 years.

 

As I mentioned, The house was bought for us to live in not as an investment & I do appreciate that these are peoples homes we’re talking about but the government is progressively making it harder to be a (single house) landlord & Im at the point where I’d rather use the cash to buy a decent condo in Thailand & stop being a renter here.

 

In an ideal world the tenants would buy the house & everybody would be happy, am hoping this turns out to be the case & they’ll certainly be given 1st refusal to buy. 

From my understanding this bill has just been introduced to Parliament so not yet law?

 

45 minutes ago, Polar Bear said:

Wanting to sell is still grounds to end a tenancy. As is wanting to move back in yourself, or have a relative move in. The notice period is still 2 months. I don't see how these changes will negatively affect you at all.

Again from what I have read if the tenant does not want to leave you have to apply for a Section 8 which is supposedly harder then the old 21 and can take a longer period of time?

 

Moving all tenancies to become periodic suggests to me you could not have say a specific 6/7/8/9 month set rental period because you want to live in it for the other period. 

 

I don't disagree with trying to make things "fairer" but until they sort out the court processes (as planned.....) some of the new legislation moves to far in the tenants favour in my opinion. 

42 minutes ago, topt said:

From my understanding this bill has just been introduced to Parliament so not yet law?

 

Yes, it's in the process now, but it's not law yet.

 

42 minutes ago, topt said:

Again from what I have read if the tenant does not want to leave you have to apply for a Section 8 which is supposedly harder then the old 21 and can take a longer period of time?

 

 

As usual, the gov are being very coy about the details, but from what little they've said, it looks like a Section 8 for something classed as mandatory grounds will be the same process or possibly easier than a Section 21. The proposed list of mandatory and discretionary grounds is here.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tenancy-reform-renters-reform-bill 
 

42 minutes ago, topt said:

Moving all tenancies to become periodic suggests to me you could not have say a specific 6/7/8/9 month set rental period because you want to live in it for the other period. 

 

Residential letting regulations are not intended to cover this situation. These would be short lets, holiday lets or could even come under rent-a-room rules. If people have been using loopholes to make that work, then I guess the loophole is about to close. 

 

 

42 minutes ago, topt said:

I don't disagree with trying to make things "fairer" but until they sort out the court processes (as planned.....) some of the new legislation moves to far in the tenants favour in my opinion. 

Until we know what the actual court process is, which will probably be about 6 months after it happens ???? it's impossible to say, but for the most part, I don't think this makes much difference. Decent landlords will be doing it already, and good riddance to the others. 

Having said that, the one part I do disagree with is furnished and unfurnished lets being treated the same. Ours our unfurnished anyway, but if you have furnished properties, I do think you should be able to have blanket bans on kids and pets. Although the new rules are pretty meaningless anyway because they only require you to 'reasonably consider' it, it doesn't say you have to have allow them, so maybe it doesn't really matter. 

And, while not exactly a disagreement, I'd like to see them actually enforce the Decent Homes standards against social (council/housing association, etc.) landlords and not only private. The standards are already supposed to apply to them, but too many of their tenants are still left living with mould, damp, exposed wiring, etc., and no one does anything about it. It's wrong on so many levels. It doesn't matter how much legislation they bring in if it's never enforced.