There was a time when landlords would debate each new government housing proposal on its own merits.
Judging by this week’s comments, that time has passed.
Instead, many readers now see every new report, every new database, every fresh enforcement power and every additional regulation as part of something much bigger. Viewed in isolation, each proposal may appear perfectly reasonable. Viewed together, however, they create a picture that many landlords find increasingly difficult to look at dispassionately.
This week it was the turn of the committee of MPs that scrutinise the Housing Ministry, who called for tougher regulation of the private rented sector, including stronger enforcement of the Decent Homes Standard, faster implementation of Awaab’s Law, wider licensing powers and more resources for councils to police the rules.
Shortly after publication, the blue touchpaper was alight.
Johnmhughes described it as “yet another report” making recommendations that, in his view, piled further pressure on landlords. Ray Smith reached for a different word. “Relentless,” he wrote, arguing that the regulations, the costs and the political pressure all seemed to be moving in one direction.
Perhaps Richard LeFrak best captured the wider mood.
“The conclusion always seems to be the same,” he observed. “More regulation, more enforcement, more penalties, more licensing.”
That sentiment cropped up repeatedly. Very few contributors argued against tackling genuinely rogue landlords. What they questioned was whether the solution to every housing problem now appears to involve another compliance requirement for those already trying to play by the rules.
Tricia Urquhart neatly turned one of the report’s central arguments on its head.
“Tenants DO need more protection,” she wrote. “From the Government.”
Others questioned whether Parliament was learning the right lessons. Annoyed Landlord pointed out that Awaab’s Law arose from tragic failings in the social housing sector, asking why private landlords increasingly appeared to be carrying the weight of reforms prompted elsewhere.
Running through almost every comment was a sense that the pressure no longer comes from one direction.
Westminster introduces the legislation. Local authorities increasingly become responsible for licensing, inspections, enforcement notices and financial penalties. Together they create a regulatory environment that many smaller landlords say feels less like oversight and more like intrusion.
There is, of course, another way of looking at all this.
Successive governments have made little secret of their desire to create a more ‘professional’ private rented sector. Better standards, clearer accountability and stronger enforcement against rogue landlords are all difficult to argue against. But professionalisation has consequences.
The systems, reporting requirements and compliance costs associated with modern letting are far easier to absorb if you own dozens of properties than if you own just one or two. Whether by design or by consequence, many smaller landlords increasingly feel they are becoming collateral damage in a framework better suited to larger, professionally managed businesses.
That helps explain why the tone of this week’s comments felt subtly different.
There was certainly frustration. But there was also resignation.
Readers were no longer reacting to one announcement. They were reacting to the accumulation of dozens made over many years. Licensing. Taxation. EPCs. The Renters’ Rights Act. Databases. Enforcement. Penalties.
None of them, individually, is necessarily enough to persuade someone to sell.
Together, however, they tell a story and judging by this week’s comments, many landlords no longer see individual policy announcements.
They simply see… another brick in the wall.
Until next time,
N
