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


New survey provides landlords with a chance to shape the future of the PRS

Following the government’s recent announcement that it is to consult on ending Section 21 repossessions, the Residential Landlords Association (RLA) is arguing strongly that landlords need to be confident that they can swiftly and easily repossess a property for legitimate reasons such as tenant rent arrears, anti-social behaviour and wanting to sell the property.

The RLA has today launched a major new survey designed to help landlords shape the future direction of the sector.

It will give landlords the opportunity to explain their experiences and frustrations in the current system and what they need to maintain their confidence at a time when the demand for rented housing is outstripping supply.


The survey also looks at what measures might be needed to mitigate the difficulties likely to be caused by the government’s plans and the problems landlords face when repossessing properties through the courts.

David Smith, policy director for the RLA, commented: “The system needs to be fair to both landlords and tenants. The majority of landlords do a good job and it is vital that they have the confidence to provide the homes to rent we desperately need.

“This survey provides an important opportunity for landlords to shape the future of the sector and ensure that it works for them every bit as much as it does for tenants.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

Poll: Do you think the RLA's survey will help landlords shape the future direction of the sector?


  • icon
    • N P
    • 23 April 2019 11:06 AM

    I’m a member of the RLA and filled in this survey. However from what I have seen in the past the government will do what they want to regardless of consultation outcomes. So unfortunately I think this will make little difference. Why else is a government planning to overhaul S21 when even the evidence it relies on shows that 90-95% of tenancies are ended by the tenant... It’s not because the system is broken. It’s because it’s a vote winner which it desperately needs.


    And the remaining 5 - 10 % were ended because the tenant didn't pay the rent.

  • icon
    • 23 April 2019 14:54 PM

    Most tenants are booted out because of rent default.
    If S21 goes then S8 needs to be beefed up.
    This is the way I would do it.
    On the basis that rent is usually paid in advance by 1 month I would retain the current S8 process with a small change.
    So after 1 month and 1 day if the tenant has not paid the FULL CONTRACTUAL rent then a S 8 notice is issued.
    If the arrears are not reduced to 1 month of arrears then 14 days later the LL may remove the tenant with police assistance if necessary.
    If thr tenant reduces the arrears to 1 month then this fast track eviction could not occur.
    After about 6 rent defaults the LL could pursue S8 Ground for persistent rent defaults.
    Using this strategy the maximum rent arrears a tenant could ever run up would be 1 month.
    Obviously many tenants would game the system and reduce rent arrears to 1 month.
    Whilst unacceptable at least the LL should have sufficient deposit to use for mortgage payments in absence of rent.
    If the tenant hasn't paid the 2nd month's rent by the 15th day they will be removed by police if they refuse to obey the LL to vacate.
    If the tenant refused to vacate and police removed them there is little chance of the council housing the rent defaulting tenant who would be considered by the council to have made themselves INTENTIONALLY HOMELESS!!

  • icon

    S21 was brought in for a reason and it was almost impossible to get some where to rent at that time, because if you let to someone at that time they immediately became a sitting Tenant so that didn’t work did it. I had campaigned for years for the 1988 Act & only for Sir George Young championed it, there would be no letting business, do they really want us back there again. There is never a mention of the huge tax contribution we make, it seems to me we are frowned upon, the Benefit claimant has the whip hand. Before the 1988 Act I had to and source my Tenants via Ltd Companies which gave some small level of protection.

  • icon
    • 23 April 2019 15:58 PM

    For 50% of the BTL sector which is mortgaged many LL may have no alternative than to sell.
    Lenders will not wish to be left with the prverbial sitting tenant.
    They just as LL require the ability to repossess a property.
    If the LL is constrained from doing this then Lenders must consider that BTL is NOT a viable business.
    BTL using mortgages is entirely founded on the ability of the LL to recover their property anytime they want.
    Lenders have based BTL mortgages on this simple fact.
    Lenders could well call in loans.
    The idea of a sitting tenant is enough for LL to sell up or change from an AST business model irrespective of what lender conditions are.
    There would be mass breach of lender conditions as there currently exists with CTL for resi mortgages; AirBnB and DSS tenants.
    It is lenders that are in charge.
    What they think will decide the future of the leveraged PRS


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up