I am going to say something here that probably won’t go down well among some Labour supporters, but the Renters’ Rights Bill, which is only days away from getting Royal Assent, has been crafted with an incorrect assumption at its core.
The Bill, which currently runs to 258 pages, will vastly increase landlords’ and property managers’ responsibilities and duties.
Labour housing minister Matthew Pennycook’s premise when selling this to fellow MPs in parliament has centred on the assumption that too many landlords are rogue, criminal, lazy or avaricious and therefore shouldn’t be trusted with their tenants’ welfare.
This is particularly true, he has pointed out on many occasions, when it comes to property standards and evictions.
While for anyone who reports, like me, on the private rented sector, there is much truth in what he claims, given the many council reports on their PRS housing stock I’ve seen over the years, which often reveal that up to 40% of local rented homes aren’t up to scratch.
My beef with this approach is that it is one-sided. The Renters’ Rights Bill does not in any way recognise that good landlords often have to pick the pieces, literally, when rogue, criminal or just idiotic tenants trash properties and/or fall behind with their rent – too often with intent rather than because of difficult personal financial situations.
During Pennycook’s most recent speech in parliament he several times said “let us leave no loopholes for rogue landlords” and on 19 different occasions referred to ‘greater protections’ for tenants.
But how many times did he refer to anti-social behaviour by tenants or ‘rogue tenants’ and protecting landlords from them? None.
If anything, the Bill will make it harder, more time consuming and expensive for landlords to eject poorly-behaved tenants from properties. Because, while in the past properties could be repossessed relatively quickly via a ‘no fault’ or ‘no reason’ Section 21 notice, going forward landlords will need to gather evidence and present it to a court via the Section 8 process and then have their day in court.
It is regrettable that the current Government sees the relationship between tenants and their landlords through this lens, particularly because it is going to impact many property investors’ appetite to plough their own money into providing rented accommodation for others.
It is fair to say that renters do need more protection from the worst elements of the private rented sector, but the pendulum is about to swing too much the other way, and rogue tenants will be enjoying the benefits of their new rights and protections for many years to come – at the expense of landlords.
