The MPs Natalie Elphicke and Lloyd Russell-Moyle are to lead a debate today in the House of Commons on the private rental sector.
They are joint sponsors of the debate, and Russell-Moyle is chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Renters and Rental Reform.
He has told the local media in Brighton, where he is an MP: “It’s clear renters are being evicted so landlords can charge more rent. We are seeing rental inflation of over 20 per cent in parts of the country and unless we get a grip of this problem there will be a wave of homelessness coming out of the private rented sector.
“Speaking to colleagues, I know some local authorities are increasing homelessness provision by seven-fold in preparation for the ongoing affordability crisis which is being driven by greed.
“The government has been sitting on a white paper to reform the private sector for months now and we need to see legislation brought forward to ban no-fault evictions and regulate rental increases.
“The debate on Thursday will be the chance to highlight injustices faced by renters and to propose solutions that can work for everyone.”
Both Elphicke and Russell-Moyle are ‘outliers’ in their respective parties.
Elphicke - in an article on the Conservative Home website - has recently said she wants to see “a newly shaped Department for Housing and Households” which would “robustly challenge the total costs of household bills.” She’s also called for the “freezing all rents at their current rates for up to two years. In addition, no property could be re-let at a higher price during that period. This would ensure that the rent freeze cannot be circumvented by re-letting.” She claims this would save around £2,000 for the average renter, and up to £4,000 in London.
Those policies are not backed by the Conservative party overall.
And back in 2018 Russell-Moyle - who went on to hold a shadow ministerial position when Jeremy Corbyn was Labour leader - got in hot water with letting agents in his constituency when he said in the Commons that a large number of agents used “dirty tactics” to charge more fees from those who rent properties. At the time he said: “We’ve heard a lot of talk about it being a few agents, but I have been told it’s a large number of agents. I would go so far as to say the majority of agents do these dirty tactics.”
The Brighton and Hove Estate Agents’ Association asked Russell-Moyle to reveal his evidence, saying there was a stigma attached to agents and that it was unfair to paint everyone with the same brush.
He briefly held a shadow ministerial role after the party was led by Sir Kier Starmer but resigned citing a “campaign by the right-wing media” against him.
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Where they going to put all the homeless.
Not on boats to France that’s for sure
If your basic premise is wrong anything derived from it will also be wrong. How can they fail to see that they are achieving the exact opposite of their aims?
For me - one sold, one going through, one for sale in the new year - how does that help the rental crisis?
As a matter of interest, who are you typically selling to? Another landlord, an existing renter or to become a second or holiday home?
As far as I can see the first two don't affect the market, only the last would reduce supply/increase demand.
Doesn’t sound like any MP is going to raise the issue that these measures will lead to more landlords exiting the market and further reducing rental stock. They are only interested in sounding virtuous not actually making things better.
Waiting for this time next year when they all start acting like they have no idea why there are even greater shortages of rental properties, and what their solution to that will be.
" “It’s clear renters are being evicted so landlords can charge more rent". Any chance of some stats and evidence please? No? Thought not.
"...affordability crisis which is being driven by greed" Greed of Government perhaps via S24.
"We’ve heard a lot of talk about it being a few agents, but I have been told it’s a large number of agents. I would go so far as to say the majority of agents do these dirty tactics.” Again, stats and evidence please? And who 'told' you this then? What evidence do they have?
And if being a landlord is so profitable (down to greed) then why are so many quitting and causing the councils to ramp up their provision?
Good grief the public pays you to do a proper job not come out with some left-wing baloney that shows you to be a fool.
Well said.
Totally agree. Pity nobody is lstening in the halls of power!
Or we are not bending their ears til it hurts.
Doesn't Section 24 basically mean that if we pay £5000 in mortgage interest we also have to pay an extra £1000 in tax on top of the amount of tax every other business in the country would have to pay? It's almost like they've added an alternative to VAT into the rental model.
So we have to charge at least £1000 extra rent for every £5000 of mortgage interest. With mortgage interest rates increasing the Section 24 tax element will also increase so rents will have to increase. It isn't landlords who will benefit from this money. We are only acting as tax collectors on behalf of the government.
Yes Jo that's pretty much correct with the exception that for those paying higher rate tax your tax burden will actually decrease as interest rates go up. You will instead be paying 20% (ignoring any uplift into higher tax bracket and so forth) tax on the increased interest payments instead of 40% (or 45% for the lucky few) on what would have been profit.
Nevertheless your overall profit after tax has decreased due to the increase in interest rates.
Driven by greed, no it isn't, it's driven by increased costs and red tape placed on us by central and local government, it's also driven by inflation, TRUE inflation is now well in excess of 10%, I'm meeting with my plumber in a couple of hours to do a gas safety check, he will openly tell you he has increased his charges by 10%, we all have to do that just to stand still.
Also where did this BS come from about landlords and agents evicting tenants in order to increase rents ? total rubbish, I've only ever in over 25 yrs evicted for non payment, yes I will openly admit to increasing rent to market rates when a tenant leaves of their own free will, what's wrong with that ?
To be honest it’s my property and I will get as much as possible as a return as I can. These lefties with their envious sanctimonious chat can take a running jump.
I worked hard and took risks and put up with an awful lot of tough times, it’s for me to decide what to do with my assets
Supply and demand!!! You have driven and continue to drive LLs out of the market therefore the price for rentals has risen. If you supported LLs so that there was a healthy rental market you would not see rents rising to the same extent. Government you only have yourself to blame.
Wow, just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse……. Let us see what November 17th brings, no pre-xmas cheer I think. I am selling anyhow, I expect more to follow me.
Our voices seem muted, whilst the high volume of wild, unsubstantiated, derogatory claims continue so unjustly.
Two houses sold now with another 4 going through the conveyancing stage. Just keeping a few, but, we were not willing to have all our eggs in what has become a very ‘maggot infested’ basket!
As for evicting tenants in order to increase rents for new ones - utter crap! I can honestly say, without doubt, what a horrendous, upsetting experience it has been to deliver such ‘bulldozing’ news to what have been good, reliable, decent tenants. We, of course, ensured the tenants knew exactly the reasons why such decisions were made and who was responsible.
I don't know why there is so little understanding of the various rental models.
A fixed term only really means a fixed term if the tenant decides to vacate by that date.
A SPT rolls on until either the landlord or tenant chooses to end it.
In either case if the tenant decides not to move out it gets messy.
I can understand why Letting Agents always preferred fixed term tenancies as there were far more fee generating opportunities.
Other than students or people on fixed work contracts SPTs are generally far more flexible and stable for tenants.
I read on one of the landlord websites a few days ago that someone thought you couldn't ever increase rent on a SPT.
There has often been scaremongering about SPTs being insecure and tenants living in fear of eviction every month.
There's very little said about the vast numbers of tenants who have been in their current homes on SPTs for many, many years often with minimal rent increases since the day they moved in.
No landlord wants to lose a good tenant so we don't need to force our tenants to commit to another fixed 12 month contract and we often overlook increasing the rent on a regular basis. As long as 12 months have elapsed since the last increase and we communicate the increase correctly there's no problem. If the tenant thinks we are being heavy handed they can apply to a rent tribunal for a determination. Currently that could be more than we had asked for.
We can serve a Section 21 exactly the same as someone using a fixed term tenancy or at any time after it rolls onto a SPT. For a good tenant or even a mediocre one we are highly unlikely to do so unless we need to sell.
Even on a fixed tenancy if the tenant decides not to go on the correct day the landlord would need to follow the same eviction procedure, which would take months.
So how much of the activist noise is because of the inflexible nature of fixed term tenancies and the big deal tenancy renewal has become?
The Tenants were not at risk of being thrown out at a months notice as they put it.
They have Assured Shorthold Tenancy, for 6 months minimum but can sign up for longer maybe a year or more (not more than seven) so they have a Contact and know exactly how long its for so no question of been thrown out in a Contact Period.
However if they want to extend on a rolling Contact subject to all Parties Agreement on a month by month basis it’s called a Statutory Periodic Tenancy where the same terms and conditions apply.
This was not part of the 1988 Housing Act which included Section 21. Why do people talk as if it was always there as part of the Act maybe they don’t know .This was an amendment decades later and for me I would have preferred to leave it alone I coped fine before just a matter of renew Contacts as they expired. That being the case we wouldn’t have this one month nonsense excuse they are trying to use now, of course to never tell the truth anyway,
They don't want to hear the facts and the truth, Michael. You do well to keep stating them.
It's Sunak that has the power. Write to him and point out that your investments are being trashed and that you and your colleagues, will abstain from voting. Since most landlords are mom and pop land lord's the number is around 4 million. Elphicke represents open borders Dover !
The letter would never get anywhere near Sunak's desk, it would be filed in the bin,
he's not interested in our vote, he knows he's out in 2 yrs come what may, he'll join Boris on the after dinner talking rounds
I have written dozens of letters to my MP from years back and given up, although I usually got a reply from House of Commons things didn’t change.
He is a labour MP with a large majority and have been elected 7 times his ward has a massive number of Benefit Claimants so I know where his loyalties lay.
Mine is a Tory with a large majority, but he might just as well be labour for what use he is
Please login to comment