x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Labour MP calls for shake-up to ‘end landlordism’ and extend evictions ban

A Labour MP has called for the ban on evictions to be extended until next year, as renters fear a sharp rise may take place once current restrictions are lifted next week. 

The ban on new eviction proceedings against those renting should be extended for at least another 12 months and rent arrears abolished, according to former shadow chancellor John McDonnell.

The ex-frontbencher, who was in charge of Labour’s economic policy until the last general election in December 2019, called over the weekend for a long-term shake-up to “end landlordism and restore housing as a right”.

McDonnell said that he would like to see companies and trusts prevented from acquiring properties, while a legal limit on how many properties landlords can own should be introduced. 

A ban on evictions due to the pandemic is to end on 24 August.

McDonnell commented: “Many people are becoming desperately worried that they will now face evictions.

“Housing should be a right for all, not an investment opportunity for a few.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “The government is committed to ensure everyone has a safe place to live.

“New rules will require landlords to provide more information about their tenants’ situation... when seeking an eviction.”

  • icon

    And how many houses does he own?
    So if a BTL LL & company doesnt own a property and an OO doesnt own the property then who would actually own the property?

  • icon

    Commy John rears his head once again the people spoke and don’t buy your Marxist views how are u still in a job ?

  • icon

    Soon to be Lord McDonnell I believe, what a twat.

  • James B

    Chasing the tenant vote til the bitter end

  • David Lester

    Left wing half wit, everything for nothing (Labour)

  • icon

    Is this guy John McDonnell totally stupid and unable to see the reality of banning evictions, there are landlords up and down the country who are not being paid their rents and who's properties are being damaged. Some landlords are facing repossession as these tenant are having a holiday or spending spree with there rent money, time these labour MP's got of their fat arses and took a good look at the sharp reality of life as a landlord.

    icon

    I think he has a point, in reality relying on and allowing mortages on BTL was a stupid idea, in the distant past when someone died, upsized or downsized that property would have been brought by someone as a home, today millions of homes do not go onto the open market for generation if ever as they have become an investment.

    Obviously selling off state owned council homes was a vote winning con as many who once say worked and lived in a affordable council home now could be forced to rent the very same property at double treble the rent, bonkers.

    If you think about what you are saying if being a Landlord is so hard he will be doing you a favour and he intends to make the state the main provider of rented affordable homes again , this will save billions in housing benefits, so im sure you'll agree as a tax payer that makes sense .

    I think he has got of his arse and realises how many 100's of thousands have their lives wrecked by having to rent in the PRS, inc insecure tenancies, rising rents etc

     
    icon

    @ David Edmunds, so we all live off housing benefit do we ? I think you will find most on here will not touch anyone on benefits, I certainly will not.

     
  • girish mehta

    Labour lost election mainly due to his clueless and stupid ideas
    Now he may be rewarded by getting a plum job
    Not doing bad for a clown
    No one owns any business, property, no one forced to work against their will, free rent, free food, free drinks , do pay tax have a jolly and the government will pay for. Everything.
    Nice La la land and power to people and vote for us .

    New labour policy. They must have deep pockets


  • icon

    Well the responders to this article just seem to show their own stupidity.

    This plonker was in charge of Labour’s economic policy so he clearly has no idea about economy.

    The subject matter here is raised by the opposition so do you think the Gov't of the day will listen?

    Just move on to the next article and stop wasting mine and everyone's time.

    Paul Barrett

    Unfortunately the Tories do adopt Labour Opposition policies.
    So very much of concern.

    The anti-PRS regulations have been very much Opposition policies.
    S24 was a Green Party policy.

    The Tories don't care where the policies come from as long as they are anti-LL that is all that concerns them.

     
    icon

    So why are you bothering to respond if its a waste of time

     
  • Paul Barrett

    So the end of landlordism.
    I'm fine with that.
    Most LL could sell up and buy residential properties taking in lodgers.

    They only need to stay at their various homes minimum once per month.

    No S24
    No problems removing rent defaulting lodgers.
    No deposit regulations
    No family lodgers
    All lodgers to be unrelated singles.
    No more than 4 lodgers so avoiding HMO mandatory licensing.

    I say great let LL become live-in LL.

    Have 4 homes then stay in each of them once in a month.

    A live-in LL could easily potter around a house once per month.

    LL would make far better returns being live-in LL of multiple residential homes.
    Of course that means no more tenant families just unrelated singles or possibly couples but they would need to let 2 rooms.

    If not the live-in LL strategy then FHL etc.

    LL don't need to be AST LL but tenants sure as hell need them to be so.

    If every LL converted to residential homes potentially unencumbered there would be millions of homeless tenants.

    The singles would be OK as they would be the lodgers that would have a healthy selection of homes to choose from.
    Far better than a HMO.
    A proper home.

    Multiply 3 x lodgers and you get more monthly rent than a single family.

    Round my way no problem with getting £600 per room.
    So for your basic 3 bed semi...............£1800pcm

    Knock off bills would be about £1550.
    Nice!

    LL would become a load of Rigsby's staying in their various homes once per month minimum.

    It is very hard for Govt to detect how many lodgers may be staying at an OO property and whether or even how much they might be paying the live-in LL.

    If LL converted to lodger LL Govt would lose billions in taxes.

    Of course it would millions of properties become available for all the homeless tenants.

    Trouble is they won't be able to afford to buy them.
    That is why they are tenants!!

    Govt should be very afraid of the lodger strategy.

    There is no law that prevents an OO having as many homes as he can afford.
    Each can have lodgers.

    Of course most LL tend to have one home as that is all they can afford.

    I would hazard a guess that many LL could sell up their BTL or unencumbered rental properties and buy outright at least one 4 bed property.

    No point in having a 5 bed as then subject to stupid HMO Mandatory Licensing regulations.

    Conventional landlordism doesn't need to exist for LL.
    The lodger strategy would be just as effective.
    All the live-in LL needs is a small suitcase to travel to each of his homes once per month.
    No LA to pay.
    No Selective licensing though potentially could be required to obtain an Additional Licence.
    But still in the overall scheme of things far more profitable.
    I guess you could have family lodgers but I doubt many would appreciate living with their LL and of course the rent would be per room so I can't see how a couple and two children could afford the rent.


    So I say yes the end of landlordism.
    We can all become Live-in LL and have advantage of the tax free £7500 Room For Rent Allowance.

    This what I will be doing if I can achieve sufficient sale proceeds from the sale of my BTL properties.

    BTL lenders would have no business!
    Sell any shares you might have in such lenders.

    Any homeowner owning multiple homes can be a live-in LL of each of them.
    I doubt there will be a shortage of single unrelated lodgers!


  • icon

    lol and if this caught on the laws can change to only allow one home to have lodgers & thats your scheme finished, thats the problem with BTL, HMO etc its a dirty business

    icon

    Oh chip on shoulder David ? there are a lot of dirty businesses out there , what line are you in ?

     
    Paul Barrett

    It would be very problematic banning lodgers from more than one property.

    It will never happen.

    Very hard for Govt to prevent activity in a person's home no matter how many homes they have.

    In practice very few LL will be able to afford more than two residential properties.

    Liquidating BTL properties and converting them to residential won't be easy but it definitely makes economic sense to move away from AST lettings.

    Govt won't interfere with the lodger legislation.
    They want more live-in LL not fewer.
    The lodger strategy is actually achieving what Govt wants.

    That is far fewer BTL properties.
    Consolidating BTL properties into one additional residential house will be of no concern to Govt.
    Indeed they would actually encourage such circumstances.

    So AST LL converting to lodger LL won't be something Govt objects to.
    Remember Govt is seeking to eradicate BTL LL.
    They really aren't fussed if those LL reduce to one or two additional homes.



     
  • icon

    If they want to ban evictions then lets make it a criminal offence to not use your housing allowance to pay your rent. That would reduce a lot of eviction notices and sort out the problem tenants as they would not have to be housed by the Council having deliberately made themselves homeless!

  • Matthew Payne

    With these comments from John and others throughout this pandemic, we see sentiments that probably even the hardest, cold hearted people would struggle to disagree with, but then they are never then matched with a practical policy that provides the solution. I agree with John, housing should be a right for all. I also agree with all the sentiment during the pandemic, that tenants that have fallen into genuine hardship as a result of CV should not face eviction even after 23rd August.
    What needs to happen is a solution and proposal backed with a process and budget that allows these "good" intentions to become a reality as opposed to just leaving the subject hanging in the air, "well who is going to pay for that?".

    Sadly though, these are not good intentions, it's all just a game, party politics and career advancement at play alone as with Shelter, designed to back the Tories into a corner and win credibility with the hard left. Whilst all that is going on, many tenants and landlords alike are not getting the support they need deal with the fallout. The Tories may well have to look at it though, eyes are shifting to a post vaccine election timetable already, with CV19 making polling predictions almost impossible. Stealing some left of centre policy territory will no doubt already be on agendas behind closed Westminster doors. Shame none of the policy making is about helping the people caught up in the middle.

    icon

    Boll***s..If they don't pay then they don't stay.
    Simple as...

    Work hard and save like the rest of us.

    If not, then I will go rent a house, live in it and not pay the rent. Would that be OK?

     
  • Paul Barrett

    DON'T agree.
    Why should feckless tenants get away with paying rent just because of the pandemic issue??

    They could have saved to cover sudden income loss.
    They chose not to.
    Their fault.
    So why should LL have to subsidise their feckless lifestyle?
    Why is it that everyone seems to believe the LL should be forced to provide free accommodation?

    What should have happened is Govt should have paid full contractual rent directly to LL rather than furloughed wages for feckless tenants to then pay their rent which they DON'T.

    This is the usual trick that DSS tenants play.
    It seems many in society are prepared to be as equally feckless.

    There seems to be no acceptance that LL actually might need their rent!!

    As for a right to a home.
    Fair enough but not at my expense.

    I'm a rentier LL seeking to make as much profit as I can.
    I'm simply not interested in the woes of tenants.

    Can't or won't pay the rent ? then get out.

    Only the UK's useless eviction process allows feckless tenants to rob and steal from LL.

    A problem Oz LL DON'T suffer from as they have the facility to be assisted by Police 14 days after 1st rent default to remove tenants
    Concentrates tenant minds wonderfully.
    Consequently few Oz LL suffer massive rent losses from rent defaulting tenants..............funny that!

    icon

    Totally correct Paul.
    No contest.

    If the tenant can get away with not paying for a house over his head, then why can a landlord not do the same and not to have to pay his mortgage?

     
  • Taifoor Chaudhry

    Let's go tesco and get free groceries for 12 months. No one should stock food when there are so many can't feed families.

    LL are running a business like anyother business. Govt is trying to offload social housing responsibility to private Landlords

    Is he lord McDonald?

icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up