A Labour MP who last held shadow office under the party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn has attacked the government for having huge loopholes for unscrupulous landlords.
Jon Trickett, a Labour MP in Yorkshire since the mid-1990s, has written on the Labour List website that “the state props up private landlordism with housing benefits” while the landlords themselves increasingly use no-fault evictions and a quarter of them provide ”housing that is not fit for habitation.”
Then he turns his attention to House Secretary Michael Gove in what he described as “this discredited parliament.”
He says the Renters Reform Bill contains proposals which “have more holes in them for landlords to exploit than a bag of Yorkshire Tea” - which he puts down to 143 Conservative MPs being landlords.
And Trickett says Gove’s proposals actually make evictions easier because of the apparent vagueness of the definition of anti-social behaviour as a ground for removing a tenant.
He writes: “The proposed legal definition of what would constitute grounds for eviction is ‘any behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance’. It’s not difficult to see that this is a loophole so large that it will be exploited by unscrupulous landlords.”
Trickett also criticises Gove for not tackling “unjustified rent rises.”
The veteran MP - now 72 - says Labour has committed to a massive programme of housebuilding if it wins the next General Election.
“It is the right thing to do” he says, but insists that more should be done for private and social tenants too, to encourage them - and not just home owners - to vote Labour.
“We need to abandon market dogma, create more social rented housing, tackle abuses in the private sector, review the role played by private developers and deploy the staggering £16 billion spent on housing benefit annually as leverage to secure social objectives” he concludes.
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.
.jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
“the state props up private landlordism with housing benefits”
No the tax payer props up vile incompetant MPs & if every working person in the Uk did their job as efficiemtly as MPs then we would be a 3rd world country!!
We are in a rental death 💀 loop, we cannot find the money or the willpower to build millions of social houses…. So we are relied upon to house those who would normally be in council properties 🙄🙄. How is this ever going to end ?
If a private LL doesn’t let to benefit claimants that LL is NOT ‘ propped up by the tax payer’. If a private LL does let to benefit tenants they are simply offering a ‘housing service’ to Gov in return for payment just like any other service sector business.
The PRS is NOT ‘propped up by housing benefit’. The private LL has choices and increasingly they are choosing not to let within the benefit system.
Making it illegal for private LL’s not to let to benefit tenants is a farce as it is ‘affordability’ that determines access. That ‘affordability’ has been driven up sharply by the likes of Shelter, Gen Rent and a wholly inept Gov.
By contrast, all Social Housing providers ARE propped up ( read subsidized) by the Tax payer via the benefit system, huge and ongoing Gov grants, cheap loans, land deals Ad inf. These social housing pseudo businesses DO cost the tax payer a kings ransom and more.
He Talks about housing benefit propping landlords, who pays for the housing benefit, hard working tax payers that’s who, provide more social housing, who’ll pay for that, hard working tax payers!
A massive amount of social ie council housing, has been wrecked by the tenants and then demolished by the council using the euphemism not popular. By and large the mom and pop landlords do not rent to the benefit sector, that's the perogative of the councils
Trickett must surely be aware Section 24 is requiring rent increases to be much higher than they would be if our taxable profits were calculated in a conventional way (the same method as EVERY other business).
Several of my mortgages are coming off their fixes this year and the payments are increasing by around £500 per month per property. If I increased rent by £500 the government would take the first 40% or 60% as extra tax and then credit back 20%. So that leaves me short by £100 or £200 a month. To fully cover the mortgage increase the rent has to go up by £670 or £1000. That's not the landlord being greedy. The landlord doesn't get a penny extra as that entire increase goes to HMRC and the mortgage lender. Obviously most tenants can't afford £670 or £1000 a month rent increase and most landlords can't afford to subsidize their properties by that amount so the only choices are to evict and sell or evict and try a different style of letting or maybe look at incorporating (but there would still be a £500 mortgage hike to factor in).
Simon. They are not building Social housing they are Building High Rise Blocks of Flats like the 1960’s even 70’s and as Edwin said many been recked by Social Tenants, now been demolished and replaced with new ones something seriously wrong there.
I seen them go up I seen them come down on the South Acton Estate, 48 Acres of them what a waste of tax payers money, houses lasts hundreds of years.
I can’t understand why they need to pull down these tower blocks either. Shocking waste of our money.
Build back better - but for whom ??
This complete idiot wants to look at his own party, was it not them that had left the country bankrupt some thirteen years ago? Did not see any building being done during their three terms in office??
So he says 25% of our properties are sub standared, how does he come to that conclusion, has he visited every privately rented property in the country ?
Probably come up with that number based on half his staff working from home and putting it into google while preparing for the Peloton World Record.
The EHS is funded by DLUP to produce the Sub standard Homes figures which are very difficult to actually understand how that data has been collected and classified. #
In other words, - suspect !
What a complete moron is this MP.
Evictions will not become easier as currently and especially for anti social behaviour an S21 “no reason” eviction can be utilised. This will become much more difficult as in future ASB will now under S8 have to be PROVEN in court. How many housemates or neighbours will be willing to step forward and publicly testify against a dangerous thug causing misery and fear to all around? Especially so with the real possibility of there being a not guilty verdict, and even with a guilty verdict have you seen the punishments put out for serious assaults, a slap on the wrist many times at most.
The RRB will only encourage bad behaviour by tenants who may already have anti social behaviour and criminal tendencies.
Not just the neighbours Alan, it's hard enough to get the Police to get involved.
I've said it before and will continue to say - these useless idiots in parliament need to try their stupid ideas for at least 5 years before imposing them on us as law. How many MPs would be supporting the Renters Reform Bill if they had had a few bad tenants and rent arrears?
Please login to comment