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


Labour council, students and charities demand fair deal for tenants

The Labour-controlled Greater London Authority and 18 other groups of activists, charities and students have formed a new pro-renter coalition.

Called the Renters Reform Coalition, the new group calls on the government to use the upcoming Renters’ Reform Bill to end section 21 evictions "and create a system within which renters feel empowered to stand up for their rights.”

The coalition includes Shelter, Generation Rent, the National Union of Students, the London Renters Union and as well as the Labour GLA. 


It claims that for too many renters a safe, affordable and secure home is out of reach.

And it gives a dramatic description of how it sees tenants today, saying: “In the midst of a public health crisis, thousands of private renters faced mounting debt, eviction, harassment by their landlords, and unsafe homes which put their health at risk.”

It goes on to claim that “350,000 households have had their landlord discuss eviction with them already.”

It also says that the current restrictions on evictions - bailiffs are not allowed to execute possessions until January 11 - should be extended indefinitely until the pandemic is deemed to be over.

A spokeswoman for the group - Bridget Young of the Nationwide Foundation - says: “The government has pledged to end section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, and one year ago we welcomed its plans to reform private renting in the upcoming Renters’ Reform Bill. 

“This bill is an opportunity to redesign our housing system, creating a fairer balance between renters and landlords. Implemented correctly, these reforms are also a chance to improve the safety, security and condition of privately rented homes.

“We are looking forward to working with the government and other partners, to take this opportunity to deliver a more just housing system. The Coalition is a broad group but we are united in our belief that everyone needs a safe, affordable and secure home, where they can live and flourish.”

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.

  • icon

    Section 21 is the accelerated eviction process, 99% of cases are due to non payment of rent.

  • icon

    So GLA, Nationwide Foundation and 18 other groups band together in collusion to destroy Private LL's, none of them provide any housing that I know of so far but doing everything possible to drive out Private LL's that actually house millions. That's 20 groups or organisations but you forgot to add NRLA (21) now that Mr Ben Beadle is in charge, it was a sad day NLA rolled over to RLA loosing all power to some one born with a silver spoon in the mouth, a JP indeed god help the justice system, another like our Chancellor who wasted Billions all children in my book and should grow up.


    More Private LL bashing! And Bias towards tenants. Perhaps Private landlords should boycott The Nationwide Building Society? I am a member, :0( .I’ve decided to start selling my BTL portfolio before I retire And start another business, because AST rentals with all the regulations and licenses etc no longer provide adequate reward for the hard work and stress involved.


    Presumably Nationwide won't repossess any properties where landlords can't pay their BTL mortgages? In fact they' ll probably go further and write off the entire debt - just like they expect rent dodgers' debts to be written off?

    Hang on.... surely that's unfair on people who have avoided getting into arrears? Only logical thing then is to write off all debts!

    Hang on.... Surely all banks and mortgage companies should write off all debts?

    Is this train of thought getting a bit stupid - or was the original premise of allowing tenants to accrue unaffordable debts where the stupidity started?

  • icon

    everyboy including the government + renters must understand that landlord do not
    har trees that grow money ,they do not have banks ,they are investors many
    of them have invested for their pension , if property investment in the uk not rewarding every body is going to change their investment portfolio , and some of them will move
    their money and investment outside the uk ,at the end of the day
    the whole country will lose ,

  • icon

    The title begins with the word Labour. The article begins with the word Labour. Can we please stop politicising issues? If 'Landlord Today' wishes to take a political stance, or has connections with the Conservative government, or receives donations from the Conservative Party and its supporters, then it should be up-front about this. Otherwise whether a council is Labour or Conservative is irrelevant. Just simply state what councils are doing and proposing and keep to the issues. Keep politics out of it.


    You really don't like facts being reported, do you David? Some councils are Labour and some landlords are Asian. I don't see why reporting the full facts can be criticised!


    Hi Robert. If a jury were asked to pronounce guilty or not guilty on a case, the judge would direct the jury to stick to the facts of the case - ignore the political persuasion of the defendant or their race or their religion. And that's how it should be. If one brings in the defendant's race or religion or political persuasion into the equation, one has to question the reason for this. Heaven forbid there might be a racist agenda. Or a political agenda. (Or is there....?) Keep politics and religion/race out of it. Stick to the facts.


    Sticking to the facts. Most anti landlord councils are Labour. Many of the landlords featured in articles in here are Asian. Surely courts require the whole truth, not an edited or abbreviated version?

  • icon

    The Renters Reform Bill and the Pandemic and the likely hood of a shortage of toilet paper a far better use could be made of paper. To be fair to LL & Tenant but forget one party owns the Property, the idea of everlasting Deposit going from one LL to another is crazy was it not enough that Shelter undermined it in 2007 based on a pack of untruths then add 2015 De'Regulation Bill, where do those people get off. This is the reason I gave up taking Deposits amounting to over £20k that I handed back that't how much I hate the interference I'd rather to loose the money than comply, only one more step left let some else house them.

  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Landlords are NOT responsible for tenants debts or inability to pay, any more than Tesco's are obliged to give them their weekly shopping free.
    Abolishing Sec 21 will slightly slow the eviction process, BUT it will prevent a large swathe of potential tenants ever getting to rent a property - with landlords looking for Guarantors as a basic Mandatory requirement.
    These so-called Tenant support groups and for that matter the Labour party ( who David Wirth, are vehemently against the PRS - probably as well you know ) are ostensibly standing up for a minority of Tenants, some who are Rogue freeloaders, whilst what they advocate will harm the majority of tenants.
    Tenants need to wake up to this.


    Totally agree. Loony lefties just harm all tenants and most landlords but principally the majority of decent tenants and landlords with higher costs. Rogue landlords get off unless caught. Rogue tenants get caught when their track record catches up with them.

    No one wins with left wing policies, apart from those pushing such policies for political or financial gain.


    Many of the looney left are conservative MP's - at least as far as housing is concerned.


    @ David Price, you're not wrong there mate, we have 2 looney left parties now

    Andrew Murray

    Absolutely, as if landlords are going to rent to people who will not pay . The idiots with these silly ideas will actually harm renters as any sensible landlord will either pull out of the market or bring in guarantors. What we need is a fair system for all, but that is just not going to happen with the buffoons we have knocking about in senior positions.

  • girish mehta

    Groups with no clues, people with no business sense. It takes lot of money in London to buy a house and let it out. Government grabbing money through taxes, council doing the same and tenants expecting freebies and world owes them a living.
    If business make a profit and returns are not sufficient for risk then people won’t invest.
    These bodies can campaign for what they want. In the end cost passes to tenants. Want to live on a palace then be prepared to pay high rent. If you can’t pay them move to cheaper places.
    Keep on doing that till you find what you can afford.
    Landlords cannot provide housing for free and pay taxes for free.
    Or these people better invest in houses to house these people for free. Ir expect to be homeless
    Landlords will have a final say in investing in their business or pull out.
    This will put government finances and won’t be able to support them in their grand plans.
    Landlords will always have an option to have an option to invest anywhere in the world to make their investments work.
    Welcome to the real world
    With the effects of Brexit and Covid to have effect times are going to be hard for everyone.


    Agree totally, I would just add that landlords also have the final say on who lives in their properties so those with poor credit histories will be homeless, we simply cannot take any risks now when it comes to selecting a new tenant, better an empty property than one with a rogue tenant in it.


    I agree with Andrew that "landlords also have the final say on who lives in their properties ". But in saying this, one must always add that a landlord must not turn down any prospective tenant on grounds of race, religion, gender, disability, or sexuality - it's the law.
    (Also: A recent landmark court judgment is that one cannot discriminate against a prospective tenant on the basis that they are in receipt of state benefits.)


    LLs will just turn a tenant down on a ‘legitimate’ reason. You will never be able to legislate that LLs take somebody without choice (if you tried, they’d simply pack up).


    David W , we don't have to give a reason for turning down a tenant, when I have a property become available I normally have 3 or 4 people apply, I'm always going to pick the one that I think can afford the rent, will pay the rent, and will be the leased trouble, if I have some one apply who is on benefits I ask for a guarantor, normally they cannot offer one, so that is the end of that.


    No matter how much David W would wish it otherwise....

    Our properties.. our choice who we let to.

    We may no longer have full control over "how long" - which might have let us give the benefit of the doubt - so now we have to go with "Any doubt - just stay out".

    Perhaps we can't say "get out" as easily as we could before but we can just as easily (and will now more frequently) say "stay out" and no laws will force us to do otherwise.

    Yet another loony leftie idea ends up harming prospective tenants!

  • icon

    I have to agree to a clause in my mortgages that if I don’t keep up payments I risk losing my property! I apply the same rule to my tenants but try to avoid this situation by strict referencing before handing over the keys. Doesn’t always work but most of the time it does.

  • icon

    What about protection from rogue tenants?


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up