Generation Rent wants landlords to pay if a tenant moves

I disagree, Jo. I am running a business. The accommodation I provide is so someone’s home, it is never their property. The contract states they pay their rent, look after it etc and in return they get to live there in peaceful enjoyment. I am neither a social worker nor a charity. Tenants are aware that I can sell the property. I have sold two in the last two years. Tenants were given six months warning with a S21 being issued in each case four months later. Both properties were left in immaculate condition and deposits returned in full by DPS.

Polly Bleat and Ben T need reminding of two facts. First the property belongs to the landlord , not them! 😡 Secondly, it is thanks to their relentless attacks and the removal of S21 that so many landlords are selling. 🤬

Take a bow Polly and Ben and thank you for your efforts in raising rents to a record high! 👍

I see no problem with this idea for the kind of tenants you describe.
This would apply only for people where the eviction is a genuine section 21 (no fault) or section 8 (to sell or re-occupy) as it will be under RRB.
It would be a lot cheaper and less stressful than the current process but I suspect that the type of tenant who thinks it is OK to trash a house and get up to a year rent free before eviction, would not be greatly influenced by the prospect of 2 months rent and their deposit ( so around 3 months rent in total).
If the court process was quicker and around 3 months as well, it might work better.

I don't think you've thought this through!

To sell a house with vacant possession, the tenants have to leave before the house is sold. In most cases this will also involve remedial work prior to the house being put on the market. The point being you will have to compensate the tenant before the house is sold and if the house doesn't sell, you will not only have lost rent, incurred costs but also had to pay the tenant! That might be okay for you but MANY landlords simply won't be able to afford that.

I disagree as well. We are not a charity. A mortgage company doesn't pay moving costs when they evict people.

You’re starting to let the tail wag the dog, a very dangerous rabbit hole to go down Jo. We’re not running loyalty cards!

I've had some of my tenants for 15 years, 12 years, 10 years. That's all those years of not having any voids to factor in or any between tenancy cleaning or decorating. I've had no problems with any of those tenants and no unreasonable demands should things need repairing or replacing. I've got no intention of selling any time soon but if the day comes why would I want to s**t on them when they have been totally hassle free for many, many years?

S**t on them, just because you want to run your business in the way you see fit, being the business proprietor? Do you think if Tesco were to shut your local branch because it wasn't viable or they needed the capital to invest in another store or whatever, they would compensate you? No chance.

It does sound like your lettings business is verging on the social side of the sector rather than the PRS. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it is at odds with most of the landlords who read this forum I would guess.

A S - I let to various types of people. I wouldn't necessarily describe it as Social as none of them have sufficient priority to get onto Social Housing lists or they wouldn't want to. A couple of them have come via a Council scheme but that's because they don't qualify for Social housing and have proved to an affordability assessor they can cope with PRS rent.

The vast majority of my tenants will be homeowners when the time is right. At the moment they're students or recent graduates who aren't ready to commit to buying a house.
I also have some older tenants who have been divorced too many times. Some of them were homeowners but after splitting the house when they divorced find themselves too old to get an affordable mortgage. Some of them have UC top ups, some are fully self funding. All of them work except for one who has heart problems and is repeatedly in and out of hospital. All but one of my long term tenants grew up within a 10 mile radius of their current home. Most of them could best be described as salt of the earth, low income, British working class.

The younger ones are very diverse in terms of nationality and are mainly very high achieving and ambitious young professionals or students.

Totally wrong, Jo. As landlords, we always provide additional assistance to make the tenants more comfortable outside the tenancy agreement. But it is disgusting to make it as a rule to demand somebody else to have the responsibility for your life and take things for granted. Generation Rent should pay the bills for their own ideas to show they are genuine.

You have extra money that you can pamper the tenants to get what you wish for, it is your blessings, and it is case by case. Lots of landlords are not loaded and try to make ends meet. Some need to sell because of finance and emergency issues. We have to consider all factors. Why make so much of the fuss when everyone has a contract.

Opening door like this will encourage the bad tenants to abuse the system. Under today's environment which extremely lacks of justice and fairness to the landlords, why bother to add more grievance.

I never thought about that, that’s genius. Perhaps we could leave a car at the property for them too! Just an idea.

I agree I don't know which planet they are on but some of their ideas will definately harm tenants Surely that cannot be their intention

I hear that Natalie Elphicke has gone over to Labour today. She was left-wing in her attitudes, so she belongs there.

Ellie: This is a really important point. Once again where are the NRLA?
Any proposal giving an opportunity to save fixed term agreements would change the whole wretched botched RRB to something at least palatable.

AJR, the NRLA has never supported fixed term tenancies, not even in relation to student lets. Their position mirrors that of the Government.

You make A VERY valid point. No one complains when they're living in someone else's house on the cheap.
If they do bring in such a scheme, I think we'll all be adding another insurance policy to cover this, or the cost of existing LL insurance will go up to cover it. Either way, that will mean the cost of rents will go up even further.
Alternatively... Landlords are already acting a little like a bank, taking money for deposits - but can't use that money - just holding it, and so, we might just up the deposit to cover the leaving costs, where there will be a concession that they can claim moving costs against their deposit. Just a thought!
LL's will always pass on costs incurred back to the tenant. That's called business.

This is why all rents need to increase to market rent+

They might need more than two months when the rental stock is seriously diminished as a result of the RRB Why don't, supposedly intelligent, people think things through!!

Landlord references are very rarely requested these days. Maybe 10% of the time or less? I usually only get asked to provide one or two a year from the roughly 20 tenants who move on. The referencing company I use tend to rely on credit check and proof of salary. Someone worked out a while ago that a good way of getting rid of an awful tenant was to give them a glowing reference. Since then references have become a last resort if people are weak on traceability or affordability.

I always think like this. What the tenants want landlords to do shd also imposed on them. Trouble is they wdnt like it ....

In the case we currently have going through Jo, by the time we can sell the property we will have lost £9,600 in rent (that is at £200 pcm below market rent because we were not able to raise the rent during that period), anticipating costs of 3-4 thousand in costs to refurbish the house to a level that we can sell at a proper market value and the costs of an empty property at around £700 per month while we refurbish and market the property.
Court costs were covered by insurance but they will not cover the cost of trying to recover the owed rent because he already has a CCJ acquired since he moved in. If we choose to pursue this we are on our own. Not decided yet.
This is the type of tenant I meant when I made my previous comment on your post.

So sorry to hear what you've been through Emily.

Not only a huge amount of money involved, but all the stress and misery associated with the whole thing.

What about the purchase of a “ stress” pet dog 🐶 or even a kitty 🐱

Evicted a tenant last year.
1/ Refurb cost £30k ( took almost exactly a year to complete)
2/ Add loss of rent at revised market rent £21k
3/ Council Tax £2.1k
4/ Utliities £1,2k (standing charges + minimul use whilst refurbing)
5/ Court Costs for eviction inc Bailiffs £560.00
6/ Insurance £700.00

Total £55,560.

I changed to E Energy yesterday. There are no standing charges with a smart meter. You pay a lot more in the first energy units in the day then the rate drops.

You are right Michael, of course.

I think that Sadiq Khan might have been voted out this time, but, instead, the right wing vote will be split between Susan Hall (Conservative) and Howard Cox (Reform).

Not a lot of people know this but apparently his dad was a London bus driver...makes all the difference, he's one of us don't you know!

Contract law is supposed to be based on equal balance. risk / reward or cost / benefit. This idea of being paid to leave if brought to the scales of justice, then what goes into the other side for LandLords?

They want to control how much LL's can increase rent by. Even the current legislation uses the word "reasonable". SO LHA rates as a first step is 'reasonable'. Then next year (12 months to the day) you can be reasonable in expecting a fair increase, say, 10% - but market rates are a fickle thing, and the current standard of the property should be considered. Personally, I prefer to keep my rents lower than market rates - because it ties a good tenant in. They won't want to move, and I won't get a void. Oh, I would also say that its reasonable to double only if he's renewed his mortgage and that's more than doubled. You've a right to a bit of profit - that's reasonable. But I would suggest trying to talk with tenants, and set expectations. Be reasonable!

If they choose to leave of course he wouldn't be expected to pay. This is about landlords evicting tenants when they want to sell. If he is simply increasing rent then they have the option to stay so aren't being evicted. Obviously there's the possibility they may choose not to pay the revised rent and would then need to be evicted under Section 8 for non payment. Several would probably find LHA or Discretionary Housing Payments would close the gap. It may put some in the position of qualifying for UC.

Steven: Thats a tough t..d! Someone should have been locked up!
Compulsory purchase orders are actioned via local authorities. Never trust a Council!

Do you know any of those tenants Sandy B ?

Sandra - what does being “ good” have to do with anything 🤷‍♂️ I am evicting now because I am selling up, all my tenants are good ! So what.

Or like me stop renting altogether so tenants can stay away from me with all their demands, their human rights to just about everything.

Sandra, apart from you and James Turner, think tenants should be paid to leave at the end of the contract? It is a CONTRACT, pure and simple. If you hire a washing machine or television, do they pay you at the end of the contract?

How's your PIP claim? Will Sunak's proposals take it away from you?

I suppose it partly depends on if it is a fixed term tenancy agreement or a rolling Statutory Periodic with no defined end date.
Personally I prefer SPTs (except for students) so life can happen organically. A tenant may stay 6 months or they may stay until they die (however long that may be). Some tenants want the certainty of signing for 12 months at a time. That cuts both ways. It's a fixed term that may or may not be renewed by either side. I personally don't like the idea of trapping someone for 12 months at a time but equally I'm a portfolio landlord who does this as my main job (whatever the government may say about unearned investment income). I want tenants who pay the rent, look after their home and communicate appropriately. If they do that why would I want to evict them?
However, one day in the hopefully very distant future I may develop health problems and need to sell. At that point I would like it to be as low stress as possible for both me and my tenants.

If a tenant wanted to stay beyond 6 or 12 months, why not just negotiate that with the landlord? An AST can be any length, it is not restricted to 6 or 12 months. Flexibility works both ways. You are suggesting terms that are unbalanced.

But then again, what landlord will offer a contract over 12 months? They would be mad to, in the current market. It's very much a seller's market.

I think tenants should possibly ask a landlord about their pedigree. How long have they been a landlord, how many properties do they own, was the house in question ever their personal residence, what are their plans over the next 5 years subject to politicians not moving the goalposts.

the problem with that, Martin, is death. If a landlord dies, the heir or heirs may have no choice but to sell for a variety of reasons.

Edit: " Presumably there would be money from the estate or other means to cover the cost." That would belong to the heirs NOT the tenants and the executors would be legally obliged to pay the heirs as much as possible. Neither the executors nor the heirs have any responsibility to the tenants.

Annoyed Landlord - Sure, but that's rare, however, it's not the tenant's fault so why should they be penalised. Presumably there would be money from the estate or other means to cover the cost. If a tenant expects, in good faith, to be able to make a property their home for X number of years, they should have some commitment from the landlord that they intend to offer the property that aligns with their expectations.

A lot of mortgage lenders won't allow fixed term tenancy agreements to be more than 3 years.

Death of either landlord or tenant needs special provision. I've had experience of the death of a young tenant and while it was dreadful to deal with the system seemed to work.

I have no idea what happens when a landlord dies but I guess it's going to become far more common. We're an ageing breed and some of us who have been in it for a long time simply won't pay the current extortionate rates of CGT. If the government don't want thousands of tenants to be impacted by the death of a landlord they need to reinstate taper or indexation relief and allow us to sell in an organised fashion.