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

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

It’s Landlords versus Generation Rent in Parliament today

The National Residential Landlords Association and the Generation Rent activist group both give evidence today to MPs as they begin a crucial study of the private rental sector.

NRLA chief executive Ben Beadle and Generation Rent director Baroness Alicia Kennedy are two witnesses giving evidence to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities select committee as it launches its enquiry into rental sector reforms and in particular the measures outlined in the government’s recent White Paper called A Fairer Private Rented Sector.

This select committee is cross-party and acts as a scrutinising force looking at the White Paper and other recommendations for the private rented sector.

Advertisement

The committee will scrutinise government plans to, among other things: introduce a decent homes standard for the private rented sector; reform the system of tenancies and abolish no-fault evictions; reform the grounds on which landlords can take possession of their properties; and better protect tenants from unfair rent increases. 

The inquiry is also likely to explore the government’s proposals to set up a new ombudsman covering all private landlords, to speed up the court process and to clamp down on landlords who refuse to let to benefit claimants, and the ability of local councils to enforce both existing standards and the proposed new measures.

This afternoon’s session - beginning at 4pm, some three hours after the announcement of who will become the new Prime Minister - will specifically examine plans for reform of evictions, tenancies and grounds for possession and also explore issues around proposals to “protect” tenants from rent increases.

Beadle and Kennedy will give evidence at 4pm, alongside representatives from the British Property Federation and the campaigning charity Shelter. 

At 5pm the committee will hear from a range of councillors representing different local authorities and housing groups.

Today’s session - the first for the committee - kicks off at 3.30pm and you can read the terms of reference here.

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

    Let`s Hope Ben does not start with we ` welcome proposals`

  • icon

    And so it begins 🙄

  • icon

    What a load of Bull, it’s already so unfair to the provider so this meeting is all about making it more unfair.
    Have they not even noticed that thousands of landlords have sold-up and many more desperately unhappy with the way Government has treated them many more would love to get out but for penalties in place to stop them, now trying to run a Business under duress.
    This time its Generation Rent being invited into the Parliament Select Committee previously it was Shelter that was invited, they seem to be always looking for an anti-landlord group to invite. We have Ben Beadle representing 100k of LL membership but no one representing the other 2.4m private landlords, another sham of a meeting Scrap the WHITE PAPER NOW enough damage done. In essence we all know what they are up to, it’s to remove the very limited rights that landlords have left, can they not take a look in the
    dictionary and educate themselves as to what the word fairness means.

  • icon

    Who is representing the 85% or so of tenants who are happy with their LLs & would rather not have rising rents forced on them by anti LL policies?

  • icon

    Somebody needs to point out that we own the houses and cannot be forced to be an extension of the social housing sector where the property is owned by the state. At least in Wales they have distinguished between social housing and private housing by requiring secure occupation contracts for social tenants and standard occupation contracts for private tenants. It is still possible for private landlords to regain their properties for any reason - or no given reason, but they have to give six months notice.

  • icon

    As a tenant who’s been looking to move house for 6 months but every time we’ve been rejected by the landlord by them “choosing” someone else instead. I am 100% convinced it’s because we have a Cockerpoo and I have found there is such a prejudice against tenants with pets. I understand the landlords being picky about what pets or how many living in their properties but in our case, responsible pets owners with a clean non malting dog I’ve been disgusted at how many landlords discriminate and therefore we haven’t been able to move. The other con is “pet rent”. It needs to be fixed for 1 year max if allowed at all. It’s yet another way to make more money on top of high rents. Let’s face it, most rentals today mostly have hard floors anyway! Not very homely. This issue needs addressing urgently.

    icon

    Very sympathetic to what you are experiencing Paul. The shortage of property to rent now is making it particularly difficult for you.

    I don't think that they will ever be able to compel landlords by legislation to accept pets. While landlords have a big choice of tenants they will choose whom they wish to live in their properties.

     
    icon

    I fully understand your frustration. I have never seen such a dearth of rental stock in the 3 decades that I have been in the industry.
    I recently let a 2 bedroom flat and within 24 hours had 12 viewings and 10 subsequent offers. I had to turn away 9 disappointed prospective tenants. Did i discriminate? No i did not. I made a conscious decision based on financial security and past history from my own experience, and from the the information provided.
    Landlords are leaving the sector in their droves and the sooner Generation Rent et al grasp the detrimental (unintended) consequences of their anti-landlord agenda, the sooner good tenants like yourself will not have to endure a 'bun fight' just to secure a home.
    If so called tenant 'support groups' keep up their bullying tactics against landlords, they will continue to take their investment funds elsewhere, and it will only get worse I'm afraid. If you want more choice and a fairer private rental sector then your understandable wrath should be aimed at Generation Rent and not landlords.

     
    icon

    How does a LL distinguish between decent pet owners and the rest who will allow their pet to chew kitchen cupboards, pee on the laminate, scratch the glass on the new patio windows and leave 2 years worth of poo in the garden? As ever they few ruin it for the majority.

     
    icon

    If you were in my area (Norfolk) I would consider renting to you, but it would be subject to a ' pet rent' as I am no longer allowed to ask for an increased deposit

     
    icon

    Paul - I agree with your last statement, this does need addressing urgently….. by building millions of social houses, what we don’t do is impose obligations on a private individual to supply what the council cannot.

     
    icon

    Paul. I have to let you know that to someone who doesn't have a dog....your house stinks. You may think it doesn't but it does. This is nothing to do with you being a tenant. Every single person whose house I've been to who has a dog has a smelly house and not as clean as they think they are. Dog owners just get used to it.
    That's the problem and if you have a choice as a landlord you would choose tenants without pets every single time.

     
  • icon

    More Tenants than ever being rejected by Landlords naturally enough given the criteria now set by Government as to what type of Tenant the landlords can accept and comply with the legalisation.

    icon

    Really?? Do you have any examples?

    Let me tell you our brief situation and you can tell me if we would be rejected (which we have many times).

    1. Both of us work full time.
    2. Both have excellent credit scores
    3. Glowing landlord reference
    4. No missed rent payments in 27 years
    5. All deposits retuned in full over 6 houses.
    6. We get on with our neighbours.
    7. We are clean responsible cockerpoo owners - no chewing, weeing, smelling poo in gardens

     
  • icon

    Dear Paul,

    Why is it do you think that Landlords who have a shared interest with Tenants in establishing long, stable tenancies are so against housing pets?

    Could the answer be that previous experience with Tenants who are reckless in the damage and odour that many pets cause? You speak of being disgusted. I feel disgusted at the attitude of many tenant applicants who feel it their right to incur me - as a responsible landlord providing for my family - in potentially thousands of pounds of expense.

    I have NEVER met a pet owner who doesn't protest that their pet is special and will not cause the almost inevitable clean up and damage costs of keeping an animal inside a property. How precisely does a landlord pre-assess a potential tenant's claims in this regard?

    I do not wish to become an expert in dog care or which breeds malt less. I am busy and have a business to run.

    Your arrogant dismissal above of a Landlord's legitimate concerns merely emphasises my point. How dare you attempt to dictate to me who (or what) I house in my valuable and vulnerable properties which I have worked hard for to own and maintain.

  • icon

    Yep Paul you are right it’s an absolute liberty that we as Landlords who saved up the deposit told our families no holidays for next few years, economised wherever we could, paid for the surveys paid the solicitors, paid for the mortgage broker, paid the building societies fee, paid to refurbish the property, paid for the insurance, paid the letting agent to then get to choose who is best able to safeguard our asset and your biggest problem is that we haven’t chosen you as you feel discriminated because you have a cockerpoo!

    icon

    Yep you hit the nail on the head! You are taking liberties. To live in your expensive houses today i doubt most will be able to go on decent holidays. Many will be faced with eat or heat it seems whilst trying to pay your inflated rents. In our experience most landlord do very little to maintain their properties. A bit of window dressing before someone moves in - maybe - but nothing else gets done during your stay unless government force you too.

    Think yourself lucky you have jobs that pay enough where you can save money for a deposit so you can buy a 2nd house and make even more money from it. Many are not so fortunate as you. Tenants always get screwed. You can almost always tell which house in a street is a rental. They stand out a mile. The law should be neutral and require landlords to be fair and tenants to be responsible. I know there are bad tenants who are irresponsible whether they own a dog or not. In our case we don't even let our dog beyond the wooden floor kitchen if he has wet paws and he's not allowed upstairs. But that's just us, looking after our investment - our deposit and the landlords house. Maybe we are the exception to the norm?

     
  • icon

    As for this meeting
    Let the capitulation by the collaborator begin

  • icon

    Thomas Downey

    In our case we have had our only dog over two rental houses. Last house we got our deposit back in full. This house we have a glowing landlord reference and again will be getting our deposit back in full. Unfortunately we’ve had to rent houses for the last 27 years over 6 houses. Every one we had our deposit back in full (albeit most without a dog) Your houses are investments not your personal living spaces. You buy, you invest, you get good rents, you get deposits, you’re allowed to charge pet rents and then you sell and make thousands back on tip of your investments. Your mortguage and costs are all convered. I don’t see your arguments at all.

    I remember my Nan renting out their place. They had two tenants over the course of renting back in the early 90s I think. Both wrecked the bungalow, one had a monkey!!! So I completely understand landlords hesitation but you have to take it on a case by case basis. What’s to say a young family move in with no pets and then they get one? What about rejecting the good pet owners in favour of a couple you choose instead only to find they default on rent and won’t move out or leave your place in a mess? There are no guarantees in life. Our landlords over 27 years have never missed a rents payment ever even through covid. I have personally spent over £4000 on professional renovations turning an outside utility room into an office (with permission) which we leave behind and which increased price of the house. I’ll never do that again! So my point is, not all dog owners are bad. Not all non dog owners are good.

  • icon

    Mr Haynes, why didn't you buy a property? Just recently a nice polish lady with two children, short term rent whilst moving into her new purchased property, bred dangerous dogs in the property. At least 12 ! Obviously no children.

    icon

    We could never raise the deposit and had no help from family. Everytime we moved we rented bigger houses to meet our needs. Buying would mean we go backwards in size so for the most part we have been fairly content until now. Because we are in a desperate situation we've managed to secure a small deposit but being self employed our joint earnings will only allow a small mortgage despite paying high rents for years.

     
    icon

    Well Mr. Haynes, get out and work your behind up, forgeo all sorts of extras, don't smoke, don't drink, no holidays, spend all the possible work hours to get extra cash, walk to work, wear second hand clothes, no restaurants all for at least 30 years and hey presto, you can own one or more houses......Also, I forgot. Never ask family for financial help.

    JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. It is certainly what I did.

    Also, I forgot. Never ask family for anything.

     
  • icon

    How can we accept benefit claimants ? they are never going to pass the affordability checks, the same as they would never get a mortgage, perhaps Alicia might be prepared to stand guarantor ? mmmm thought not

    icon

    Back around 2002 when I was at college as a mature student we had to move in the middle of all that. My wife was raising our then young children, we were in receipt of HB. We had an awful trouble finding somewhere. Most said "No DSS" despite once again never defaulting on our rents. Today, it would be impossible to rent if your income was DSS.

     
  • Yvette Graham

    I think we need to start glueing ourselves to the middle of the road at rush hour and lining up outside evictions in support, protest outside No 10 ……..we might get noticed then.

  • icon

    Paul, why didn’t you buy a property before acquiring a family. We have our own families and your are not our responsibility

    icon

    I have to agree Michael, responsible parents secure a home before bringing children into the world, or are we being old fashioned now

     
    icon

    There's something called a biological clock.
    A great many people don't earn enough at a young age to save a deposit to buy a house. Should those people never have children?

    Due to the lack of housing benefit for homeowners it could be argued that everyone should be a tenant at least until their youngest child starts school so they genuinely have the choice of how much time they spend at home raising their child. Tenants are financially supported regardless of how little an hour their chosen profession pays or how few hours they choose to work. A great many essential workers are incredibly poorly paid and wouldn't possibly meet mortgage lending criteria.
    Should they be criticized for being parents because they choose to do an essential job? Homeowners often have to put very young children into daycare purely so they can pay their mortgage. They're then criticised for not spending enough time with their children.
    Can't win either way.

     
    icon

    Jo - We were lucky enough to be able to buy our first house when we got married. when we had our only child my wife gave up work and we managed on my low income. We felt it was more important to look after our child. We didn't even have any babysitters. If we didn't take our son, we didn't go out. My wife started working again when he was at school, but only during school hours. Now, many years later, when covid hit I gave up work, due to covid being a high risk for me due to health issues and we manage on my wife's low income.

     
    icon

    Jo Westlake - I normally agree with what you say on this forum and find your contribution inciteful accurate and very often thought provoking but on this occasion I cannot agree with your biological clock remark. I worked full time and put off having children until I was in my 30s and could afford them and a home (which incidentally needed gutting and renovating). Each day we all make small choices which when combined I guess lands us where each of us find ourselves today. Like many LLs on here for me it was no holidays or new cars and working all the hours covered in muck and dust renovating. I agree everybody has a right to their own choices to children/lifestyle and also LLs should act responsibly and fairly but at the same time LLs are not a charity and responsible for other people's life choices and should not be responsible for housing people who do not meet our business criterion. Whichever way you explain the economics and the history of why there is a lack of houses to rent and why LLs are being so choosy ie Govt policies and taxes, I think Mr Haynes is probably so fed up now he will not want to hear it. I can understand his frustration but all of those little life choices have left him where he is today. It is not nice but it is reality. I have just spent 6 months all day every single weekend renovating a property with new kitchen, bathroom and carpets (berber so claws are not compatible) and I advertised it as no pets and that is my choice.

    Paul Haynes - in 2016 the Govt changed tax laws so that many LLs found themselves operating at a loss so they sold up = less properties to rent. The Govt then capped deposits@ 5 wks rent - ie no pet deposits - pet owners and people with young children then struggled to get a tenancy - btw Govt were warned this would happen. Andrew Rossindell MP been campaigning to get this changed to allow an exception for pet deposits but Gove/Hughes not interested. The Govt moved from HB to UC and UC Departments refuse to speak to LLs if problems arise and UC levels are nowhere near market levels so LLs avoid and so benefits tenants lose out. At the moment if I advertise a house I have 40-60 applications - I will choose the person I think will pay the rent and look after my expensive asset the best. If Govt encouraged LLs (who are ultimately a business not social housing) with a level tax playing field and reasonable legislation there would be more investment and a wider choice and LLs would be competing and more likely to accept both benefits and pets as there would be more competition /houses to rent. I like many of my fellow LLs have brought all this to the attention of local MPs and council but they do not want to know. Govt are now threatening Landlords with a law change that will make it difficult for a LL to get his property back for example from a tenant with Anti Social Behaviour or rent arrears and as a result even more LLs are leaving the market so sadly it is unlikely to get easier to find a good rental. I can understand why you might not like Landlords but it might be better to write to your MP and tell them that you are struggling and why! There is a review of policy today - it would be good for the Government to hear how people like yourself are affected by their short sighted and ignorant policy decisions. Good Luck

     
    icon

    John - the world was a different place when we were young. Far fewer things to spend money on, no social media, no influencers, plentiful Council housing, different mortgage criteria, Income Support that covered mortgage interest, etc. Some people were able to buy a house when they first got married and then had children and chose to stay home and look after them. For others it didn't quite work that way. We married people who turned out to be waste of space liars and finished up scrabbling around dealing with whatever situation we found ourselves in. At least we had the options of either a Council house or our mortgage interest paid (if we managed to buy a house).
    Today's young people don't have those options. We had safety nets that don't exist today.

    Catherine - you made a choice to delay parenthood and it worked out for you. Countless thousands of women have made the same choice and it hasn't worked for them. The later you leave it the shorter your window of opportunity to both find a reasonably suitable bloke and conceive. Women have been sold the myth they can have it all. Fabulous career, perfect home, relationship and children. Some will achieve it, most won't. It really depends which bits and how much of the package deal you want and how much of a gamble you want to take.

     
    icon

    Sorry Jo I have to disagree, people who bring children into the world that they are unable to care properly for are totally irresponsible, you will not ever change my mind on that one

     
    icon

    Yes Jo I did make a choice to delay parenthood and take financial responsibility for them and I also did not expect Other people to sacrifice or take responsibility for my life choices

     
    icon

    Andrew and Catherine - I don't quite get the logic. We are landlords, we provide rental properties for a wide variety of people. Including people with children. Are you saying anyone who hasn't bought a house before having children is an irresponsible person?

     
    icon

    Hi Jo - re your last comment - no not at all (and I think this thread has gone slightly off topic tbf) - as I said it is a choice.

    I read through Mr Haynes comments and as Simon Logan has colourfully described it re his "cork in the ocean" remark my point is that Paul has chosen a lifestyle that has left him vulnerable to the changes in the market place and is now blaming Landlords for the position he finds himself in. I do understand his frustration but he has chosen to have the responsibility of children and then a dog whilst relying on renting a house. I tried to use my original comment (which was probably too long :) to point out to Paul what we LLs already know about why there is a lack of rentals and why he is finding the current market so hostile. TBH the idea of being responsible for a family and a dog without the security of my own home would frighten me silly but that is just me and I do not expect everyone to agree. I suspect from reading past posts that you feel being a Landlord is almost a social service which is incredibly conscientious of you (apologies if that is not the case) but for me (although I believe myself to be a good Landlords and my tenants seem to think so) it is a business and not social housing . I choose who I rent to and although you say that "we provide rental properties for a wide variety of people" I have a specific target market of young professional couples and often sadly divorced Dads or similar. I keep the houses to a very high standard and I choose not to rent to pet owners. The reality is that as the current economic crisis bites and with the looming S21 issue I think more and more LLs will prefer not to take on higher risk groups such as pet owners and young families due to covering the cost of damage and sadly it will undoubtedly be tenants like Mr Haynes who will be the losers.

     
  • icon

    Paul Haynes, we were wiped out by Thatcher, we couldn't get benefits, so we sold up, built a modest property, got a modest grant and went to college as a mature student. I then got a poorly paid job and started going up the ladder.
    By not going on holiday we accumulated savings and used it to buy a mortgage repossession property which required renovation. We renovated it at the weekends and evenings even though my job was very demanding . We have found it difficult to access the benefit system, so we have carried on working through our retirement.

    icon

    Lady T was the making of me, from my point of view the best PM of my life time

     
  • icon

    Someone needs to tell them the truth. They’ve increased landlords’ taxes and costs in a deliberate attempt to force them to sell, where they lay in wait with a discriminatory capital gains tax rate. Unsurprisingly, this has led to higher rents, more holiday lets. and to more no fault evictions as Landlords seek to do what the government wants and sell the houses to first time buyers. Meanwhile, they have frozen the LHA rate, which means families on benefits cannot afford houses and even those happy to rent to DSS won’t because they know they will never get the top ups. The whole excrement show is of their making.

  • icon

    Paul Haynes - The uncomfortable truth, is you made an error in judgement 27years ago, you are the equivalent of a cork in the ocean, you have zero control and you are now seeing the awful results, what happens when you retire? Ever increasing rents on a lower income…… there is no quick answer other than riding the current storm, but long term 😬.

  • icon

    No Doubt half of them on housing Benefit are false Claimants, hardly an exaggeration it has now become a life style.

  • David Saunders

    All the above arguments /points of view re rental reform are of nothing compared with the one reason far above all others for the thousands of landlords leaving PRS which is outlawing of SECTION 21 which in effect removes ownership rites of the landlords property and passes them on to the tenant that happens to be in situ at that stage so unless and until the penny drops in government circles, anyone looking to rent a house, a flat or even a room, soon will if not already be on a par with searching for a needle in a haystack as per pre introduction of SECTION 21(no fault eviction) back in the 1970s/80s.

    icon

    Exactly. I have just served my S21. It’s MY property. I am not continuing as a LL where the tenant has more rights than I do!

     
  • icon

    David, agree and it was 1988 Housing Act.
    Anyone seen the footage of the Shop raid in East Ham recently. a whole group barge in load up and take what they want,
    staff powerless to stop them, they are not even disguised and don’t care so blatant. This is what you are creating probably housing and pay them Benefit as well.

  • icon

    This is London not Johannesburg.

  • icon

    Andrew, Thatcher used North sea oil to trash British lndustry, sold off state owned industries and council housing for a fraction of their value !

    icon

    Edwin, maybe she did, but she stood for the hard working businessman, so from my point of view was the best PM of my life time, oh and didn't left wing unions play their part in 'trashing' British Industry ?

     
  • icon

    A couple of years ago my son bought his first house at the age of 27. He has worked hard at school and university. While growing up he was always careful with his money. He did not go out much, no smoking, no girlfriend, little drinking, as his main hobby is computer gaming. He was always looking how best to invest his savings, what paid the most interest etc. All while living with his parents, paying no rent. So when he started working, almost all his wages were saved. He managed to save around 40k deposit for his house. He has now found a nice girlfriend who has moved in with him. He has established his own home before having any children, as that was his priority.

    I think a big problem is when families break up. Without the support of parents and grandparents it is so much harder.

  • icon

    John Young - Ensure his girlfriend has no claim should they split 😬

    icon

    Don't worry, everything is in my son's name and he pays all the mortgage. His girlfriend is now renting her flat out. My son was originally thinking of renting out one of the rooms, but then thought better not when he meet his girlfriend.

     
  • icon

    You can view the committee proceedings on Parliament TV.

    I've only listened to the first few minutes so far, but seems like weak representation of landlords again.

  • icon

    Listening to a bit more - no representation of landlords at all.

    A significant element is a speech by Baroness Alicia Kennedy stating how she wants the Section 8 grounds to favour tenants' rights to a greater extent.

    A big problem is that Ben Beadle doesn't speak for us in what he says about Section 21 or having fixed term tenancies.

    He just wants fixed term tenancies for student tenancies. He is a landlord of student tenants.

    He does say that landlords are exiting the sector and that social housing should be built. He wants Section 24 to be considered.

    Also said that based on the Scottish experience half of landlords would leave the sector.

    Baroness Kennedy says that the "reforms" are not driving landlords out of the market, although she provides no evidence to substantiate that view.

    Everyone was in favour of the Ombudsman.

    Ben Beadle supports the Decent Homes Standard for the private rental sector. And thinks that the new property portal has a good role to play in this. He doesn't see any barriers for landlords in complying with the new standards - and has no issue with it all.

  • icon

    So us millions of LL’s are not represented before the Parliamentary Select Committee making crucial decisions about our business.
    Alicia Kennedy is there not representing anyone that supplied property but there’s to damage those who do. Ben Beadle don’t Represent 2.5 million LL who are ignored. He purports to Represent 100k NRLA Members which he doesn’t, he’s putting his own views instead of its Members.
    It was a sad day NLA joined RLA we were hi-jacked, we now have a CEO with the silver
    spoon background.

    icon

    Because there was no real and strong representation of landlords, the whole discussion was futile.

    Those supporting the White Paper and seeking security of tenure for tenants simply want to deny a link with making that mandatory and the reduction in supply of private housing. That divorce from reality is going to make the housing crisis much, much worse.

     
  • icon

    Did you hear the batty Baroness say that ASB was associated with mental health problems - both the ASB perpertrator AND THE ACCUSERS (ie Landlords making the accusations have mental health problems - and then Shelter rep went on to say that we should all be worried about making the mentally ill ASB tenant homeless.......You could not make it up

    icon

    I did Catherine. They don't want there to be any reason for landlords to get their properties back.

     
  • icon

    Well after Ms Sturgeons announcement today lets just watch the scots supply of rentals tank but I suppose the eng govt will choose not to make the connection!

    icon

    Yes - Catherine - there is a real irrationality in the reasoning of certain people. There seems to be such hatred of landlords that that colours all judgement. We seem to be viewed as legitimate targets for persecution.

     
icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up