First, an apology for yesterday’s post/email. I paused to eat half way through writing, and on re-starting completely confused my Cs and Ls as to claimant/appellant and defendant/respondent. As a result it appeared that both parties had estranged parents in Egypt, and that the wrong party had appealed. I hope it made a degree of sense regardless. The post has been corrected and now makes actual sense.
Next, just as a comment, I was prompted by a reply on Bluesky to address the inevitable demand from (some) private landlords when faced with the de facto national registration of landlords scheme contained in the Renters’ Rights Bill. ‘Why’, they say, ‘why oh why isn’t there a public register of problem tenants?’ (This was not what the person who replied to me on Bluesky said exactly, but it has been a staple of landlord forums with the introduction of every licensing scheme.)
So, this was my answer on Bluesky (edited to avoid gaps between posts, but otherwise largely as was):
These are two wholly different things. The landlord database will effectively be a register of compliance with statutory duties on landlords (GSC, EICR, Licensing. S.48 address, etc.) It will not be a register of private law duties. Eg whether the landlord has had disrepair claims or civil harassment claims against them. Those are private law civil and contractual obligations between the parties.
The landlord database might result in a sudden increase in the amount of tax paid by landlords, and, I suspect, a sudden jump in conversion of residential mortgages to BTL mortgages (at a higher rate), but that is not its purpose. It would simply be a side effect of visibility.
But your proposed register of ‘badly behaved tenants’ could only involve the private, civil law obligations of one party to another. (rent arrears, property damage, ASB/nuisance). As such it already exists – the register of County Court Judgments. Because that is where a breach of civil and contractual obligations is adjudicated, the county court. Anything else would just be a recipe for defamation, character assassination & the whingeing of landlords – a legal minefield.
Because where else would the supposed information come from except landlords, who i) are not necessarily sane or ii) cognisant of their obligations (s.21 for complaining too much about a broken shower, or for getting pregnant when ‘she’d said she wouldn’t’, anyone? Seen both – expressly stated).
The tenants could of course obtain the details of who placed the entry, and sue for defamation (the serious impact on them would be obvious). This, I’m sure you would agree, is not, on the whole, a good idea… Basically, get a good referencing agency, then sue them if they cock up.
I’d stand by this. So, views? Counter arguments? Though I warn you now that anything along the lines of ‘it isn’t fair’ won’t be entertained and will probably be deleted.
The register of county court judgments will become a living nightmare for delinquent tenants. No more hiding behind the “no fault” delusion, the true reason for eviction will be there for all to see.
Perhaps, we will see. But that is the proper form for a ‘register of badly behaved tenants’.
Will the landlord register be for all landlords? I am a shared owner and my 1-bed flat is unmortgageable because of the building safety crisis. Like other shared owners who sublet I am not allowed to make a profit.
Yes, all landlords.
The infinite, and often extremely nuanced, reasons why tenants may end up being evicted from their homes are not reflected on the CCJ register, and the register should not, in my opinion, be treated as a list of the “true reasons” why possession orders have been made against tenants.
The register doesn’t record possession orders. Just where there is a judgment debt. Certainly there may be many reasons for that, so would be a pointer for inquiry, but it is an indicator that something has gone wrong in the related tenancy.
A debt order arising from a possession claim isn’t automatically entered onto the register of CCJs unless enforcement action is taken. I’m not sure if this is a policy or even what’s meant to happen, but it seems to be what happens in practice.
It seems to be the rule/policy, for defended claims. Default judgments are entered automatically. I really don’t know why the difference.
With s 21 being abolished LL need clear information about prospective tenants; both behaviour and financial info.
Many LL are so glad get to get possession of their property back they may not pursue a past T for rent arrears / damage. Some Ts may not have resources and even if they do enforcement of judgments can be costly and time consuming. For this reason a lot of tenant behaviour /damage will not be recorded but nevertheless it would be important info for a LL to know. The Govt could develop policy in this area so that this type of information is recorded – eg perhaps the LL database could have a requirement to include relevant end of tenancy information.
There should also be available information on any vexatious behaviour of T’s during the tenancy; eg referring an LL to a local authority which is later found to be without merit. And a record of T’s refusal to give access to the Property without good cause to enable LL repair / inspect
/ show the property would be helpful.
That said, a free publicly available searchable register of possession orders would be a start.
But other information such as history of past LL claims to deposit protection schemes for T damage to property at end of tenancy would help. And where applicable the amount of shortfall between deposit and damage caused to property would be useful. There could be a role for TDS adjudicators here as they are independent and impartial.
As the RRB tilts possession grounds in favour of Ts, (longer notice periods plus higher amounts of arrears), possession orders will only capture highly egregious behaviour so there is still a need to have access to relevant information which falls below the legal threshold for possession.
For example, some credit reference agencies offer T’s the ability on a voluntary basis to record rent payments to build up their credit history. If this was made compulsory and T’s were required to produce their record to a prospective LL that would help LL’s inform their assessment of T’s past compliance with rent payment obligations. After all banks have access to this type of information before making a lending decision so why not LL’s when assessing a prospective T’s ability to pay rent.
If this type of information was routinely available it would likely improve T’s compliance with their duties and contractual obligations.
Thank you for not actually reading why that information cannot be publicly recorded unless the landlord has a judgment. Anything based solely on a landlord’s say so is unreliable and potentially defamatory, and if in a publicly accessible database the level of potential harm is immense.
As for your suggestions – a referral of the landlord to the local authority that is ‘found to be without merit’? What do you mean? There are a host of reasons why a local authority may not act on a referral. Do you mean local authorities would have to produce public decisions on every referral, and certify whether there were with or without merit, or mark them as vexatious?
Possession orders under the RRB will not only capture ‘highly egregious behaviour’. There are grounds that involve no tenant fault whatsoever.
The credit reference/rent thing has been rumbling about for some time. I don’t have any particular objection to that.
After all that, there is the further point as to why on earth the tax payer should subsidise private landlords in their assessment of their own private business risk.
Yes but how many private landlords actually make inquiries instead of flat-out rejecting? I think it’s relied on too much as a filter for tenancy applications, such that tenants who might have CCJs for reasons which are completely justifiable never get anywhere with tenancy applications, end up applying for homelessness, end up in TA for years on end, and the cycle continues.
That may well be. Given that it is also a standard reaction for credit referencing, credit providers, utility providers and others, it is however, hard to argue that it isn’t a red flag for private businesses. Nor is it straightforwardly discriminatory (unlike ‘No DSS’).
(That’s a reply to your message from 14th at 10am by the way!)
Is “No DSS” about the fact that Landlords receive rent payments in arrears and/or that they will have a greater chance of being “noticed” by authorities.?
Mostly it was/is a quick and dirty screening for affordabilty and suitability, regardless of the actual position of the prospective tenant sin being able to sustain the tenancy. But doubtless there are those at the dodgier end of things who would prefer not to have an official record of letting a property.
Not much of a screening, when to the best of my recollection the tenant applicant for Housing Benefit could have up to £16K in savings.
Hence ‘quick and dirty’.
Thanks for the post. It will be interesting to see the extent of the landlord register in terms of what evidence will be required to show compliance with every (landlord) rule in the book.
Rest assured, I read and understood your article. In recognition of what you said about the need for public bodies /courts to adjudicate private civil law matters, I prefaced what I said by saying at the outset it would be open for the Government to develop new policy (eg enacting new regulations) so that certain types of information relating to a Tenant could by law be recorded and made available to a Landlord.
Your article highlights that there is information asymmetry as between Landlords and their prospective Tenants. A lot of information will be made available to Tenants about Landlords and the property they wish to rent (which I have no issue with). But there is a paucity of information as regards the information available to a Landlord about a prospective Tenant’s behaviour during a previous tenancy. If a Landlord only has access to civil judgments that is, in my view, insufficient. Landlords can and do use tenant reference agents to check basic details but these may not be sufficiently robust to identify poor behaviour by a Tenant during a previous tenancy.
As your post asks for views and comments, I indicated the types of information that might be useful for a Landlord to know in advance of granting a tenancy. I suggested possibilities regarding how this might be accomplished for some of the information – in reality a start for ten.
Regarding referrals to local authorities, it would be open to the Govt potentially to specify the circumstances in which a Tenant’s behaviour is to be regarded as vexatious and therefore worthy of recording (and available for review by a Landlord). I am sure any process for taking such a decision would allow for a Tenant to make representations before a formal decision is made.
In the same way as there is a database of ‘rogue landlords’ there should, in my view, also be one for ‘rogue tenants’. Obviously legislation would be needed but it could be a possibility.
The RRB tilts the balance entirely in favour of Tenants. This means civil judgments made after the RRB is enacted will only record behaviour related to standards of behaviour that meet a higher threshold of poor behaviour, eg Ground 8 will require 3 months’ arrears and a notice period of 4 weeks vs the current 2 months arrears and 2 weeks notice period.
I agree, for the reasons you point out, that it would not be appropriate for a Landlord’s say on something to be the final word.
I don’t think I mentioned anything about tax payers funding the decisions of private landlords. Some of my suggestions related to:
– inclusion of information about Tenancies to be recorded on the PRS Landlord Database (which is funded by Landlords);
– making available records of orders for possession (which in my view, like CCJs, ought to be a matter of public record);
– possibly increasing powers of deposit scheme adjudicators regarding deposit deductions / deficits (schemes already exist and are backed by the Government); and
– making mandatory use of rental reporting to credit reference agencies (which are private organisations and don’t cost the tax payer).
No, you completely missed the point. This is not about legislation enabling information to be available – on your own statement, landlords don’t pursue proceedings. That is then their problem.
A record of possession orders will be of no use (or will be abused) for the reasons already given. A record which included the grounds for possession might be OK, not least because it would help stop landlords abusing the ‘intend to sell/family member needs to occupy’ grounds of possession. I have argued use of those grounds needs to be a matter of public record.
There is no earthly way that a government, of any stripe, is going to create a public database of landlord’s personal whinges, for the reasons already given. So, unless it is a possession order or CCJ, I can’t see what else you think should be on record.
What increase in powers of deposit adjudicators? I am at a loss as to what you might mean? Their ‘powers’ are purely contractual in any event, not statutory, but given that they can already deal with any alleged breach that could give rise to a retention of deposit, I don’t understand what you mean.
As for the ‘information imbalance’ that has been massively and wholly the other way, in favour of landlords, for decades, still is and will be until the relevant parts of the RRB are in force. But the database is not primarily to provide information to tenants (although it will), it is to ensure statutory compliance.
I am getting tired of having to make the same point over again. The database will not record breaches of the civil law obligations of the landlord and the tenant. It will not record, for example, successful housing conditions claims, or harassment claims by the tenant against the landlord, in the same way it won’t record rent arrears or alleged ASb possseions claims against the tenant.If you want one recorded, then so should be the other. But this is practical and costly admin nightmare.
Why on earth should the taxpayer subsidise the private business risk assessment of a landlord through such a database? We don’t with any other private business or investment situation, apart from it complying with statutory regulation. You can make a foolish and risky investment with a non-FCA regulated company if you want. The due diligence is up to you. This is just such special pleading by landlords, that they should somehow and uniquely have taxpayer funded protection from the risks of their business.
Thanks. And noted that you do not think some of my suggestions would work. I am interested to know what ideas you think might assist Landlords in obtaining information about poor tenant behaviour during a tenancy?
Many landlords are reliant on rental income to support them in retirement. Some are accidental landlords. Some have mortgages to pay and are reliant on rental income. As such they are considered to be consumers. I don’t see what the issue is in affording this type of landlord some level of protection. Perhaps a regulator for the PRS would assist?
Regarding due diligence, I don’t see why there can be any objection to a government supporting consumer landlords to make decisions which are less risky and thus shield them from the potential for significant losses posed by a riskier decision. As you say, the government already does this for consumers when purchasing regulated financial products and services.
A searchable record of possession orders could assist a Landlord as it would highlight potential past wrongdoing on the side of the person(s) subject to the Order. I agree that a record of the ground for possession would be helpful too.
I said Landlords may not pursue a former Tenant for damage or rent arrears for a variety of reasons, e.g. Tenant has no resources, Tenant absconds, enforcement difficulties etc. But I did not say that Landlords don’t pursue Tenants in civil proceedings. The point is, that where a Tenant has caused significant damage and a claim is not pursued there is no public record of that behaviour. This exposes a new Landlord to risk if taking on that Tenant as on paper appears they would appear to be well behaved.
With statute limiting deposits to 5 weeks rent, the Landlord is particularly exposed where the Tenant does not pay the last month’s rent and any damage caused to the property exceeds whatever remains of the deposit. This is also compounded by the proposal in the RRB to disallow rent in advance.
My suggestion was that in circumstances where an adjudicator makes a deduction from the deposit, they would be required to maintain records of: (1) the deposit, (2) the monetary amount of deduction made and (3) the financial amount of the damage caused (including where it exceeds the amount of the deposit held). This information could be provided to a new Landlord considering granting a tenancy to the individual in respect of whom the past adjudication was made. The powers to record and disclose this information would be new and could be set by regulation.
The RRB will tilt the balance of power in favour of tenants. We may agree to disagree on that. In any event, the issue remains that at present there does not seem to be a proper system for recording tenant’s non-compliance with their duties and obligations. The government could make certain aspects of compliance with tenancy agreements a statutory requirement which could be recorded on a database for disclosure to a Landlord.
I can think of a number of policy reasons why a government might support a database. It could support confidence in the PRS as Landlords would have access to reliable information about past bad behaviour. This might increase investment in the sector. The database may encourage good behaviour and reduce disputes. A reduction in disputes would relieve pressure and reduce burdens on courts.
I am sick and tired of landlords whingeing.. I have defended tenants for over 30 years..(not all of them without some discredit). But the point is that landlords already have an imbalance of power over tenants and in my experience want to take the money (often paid for by taxpayers through benefits) and do nothing in return except provide a roof over someone’s head (often the roof leaks). The last Private Landlord who I defeated on his possession claim said to me on his way out…’ you know you are driving landlords out of the market’…’See ya’ was sadly my less than professional reply.
Have you ever acted for a Landlord trying to evict a badly behaved tenant? Not at all fair to assume all landlords are the same as the one you dealt with recently, Chris.
The point is that landlords do not have access to reliable impartial data about past behaviour of a prospective tenant. The law is very much on the side of tenants once they are in occupation. And even more so after the RRB is enacted.
A Landlord takes the investment risk in the property being let (putting down capital and potentially borrowing significant sums) but by comparison the Landlord has relatively little security (a deposit worth 5 weeks and following RRB no rent in advance). I saw another post describe it as akin to buying a high value car and giving the keys to someone you don’t know very well in the hope they will take care of it and return to you in a good condition.
Where a tenant damages property and/or eviction through court proceedings are necessary the Landlord can be very significantly of pocket. Landlords don’t generally have 6 to 8 months of rent to fund a mortgage while going through legal proceedings and the costs of damage will likely outstrip the deposit. It is very unfair to be out of pocket in these circumstances. Maybe you think differently?
It’s quite dismissive to suggest comments made about a Bill that will bring in significant amounts of new regulatory burdens for landlords amounts to ‘whingeing’.
With regard to tenants who are on benefits are you saying that Landlords should not accept the rent as it is paid for by taxpayers? This would seem extraordinarily short sighted. Landlords may be reliant on the money they receive from rent to fund their retirement and/or repay lenders.
“The point is that landlords do not have access to reliable impartial data about past behaviour of a prospective tenant. ”
Well they do, from credit referencing, demands to provide bank statements, employer references, through to the Register of CCJs. Yet somehow you want the state to provide, for free, yet more information (which doesn’t exist outside of the personal views/assertions of landlords, because on your own account, landlords don’t pursue cases) to enable you to do your private business risk assessments.
That kind of information won’t be available in the landlord database – it won’t record tenants’ civil law claims against landlords, it won’t record all those cases where the landlord has overclaimed against the deposit for things not entitled to in a scheme adjudication and been knocked back, it won’t record successful (or settled) tenant claims for failure to protect the deposit properly. And mostly for good reason – that information could only come from the tenant, which has all the same problems as information coming from landlords.
All the landlord database will establish is that the landlord exists with an address for service of notices, is entitled to let out the property, and has complied with the bare minimum of regulatory requirements on the safety of the property.
The tenant equivalent would be does the tenant a) exist, and b) are they entitled under statute to rent out the property. We already have those checks – the right to rent checks, which you should, of course, be doing.
Mr. Peaker,
Thank you!
‘Well they do, from credit referencing, demands to provide bank statements, employer references, through to the Register of CCJs.’
I stand by what I said as these items do not give insight into prior ‘in tenancy’ poor behaviour:
– credit referencing only deals with affordability rather than past behaviour;
– bank statements will show money going out to a landlord / agent but does not say anything about behaviour (and these can be faked);
– employer references confirm that the individual in question is in a job for x period doing a particular role so says nothing about the employee’s behaviour outside the workplace;
– CCJs only cover successful claims where a past landlord has made a claim (you won’t know about damage caused that wasn’t successfully claimed or which was settled privately);
– landlord references may not be reliable if the current one wants to be rid of the tenant and/or fears repercussions;
– right to rent check confirms nationality and immigration status but that information does not provide info on past behaviour (it doesn’t follow that compliance with immigration law means they are well behave elsewhere).
If a policy were developed which could address some of these issues that would be helpful.
If a database is already established (and paid for by Landlords) it’s remit could be expanded to start recording other information.
But perhaps what is needed is a regulator. I see in Ireland there is a regulator (Residential Tenancy Board) for private sector tenancies. That seems to be able to record information relating to tenancies.
Just amazing. Truly amazing. I am in awe at your relentless refusal to get the point.
PS, The Renters’ Rights Bill introduces a PRS ombudsman for disputes. So.
Thanks. The PRS ombudsman will enable tenants to bring complaints against their landlord (not the other way round).
This won’t provide a landlord any information about past poor behaviour of a prospective tenant.
I am struck by how steadfast you (and others on here) are in refusing to acknowledge any issue regarding the availability of reliable data regarding a tenant’s past poor behaviour.
Equally, I am surprised that you find it inconceivable any legal changes to the status quo are possible which might assist consumer landlords.
I had hoped for a more constrictive and less combative dialogue on here but unfortunately it wasn’t to be.
Perhaps your practice is focussed on representing tenants against bad landlords – so quite understandably this could leave you with a biased possibly prejudiced view against landlords.
As the Govt is so keen to say the vast majority of landlords provide good quality accommodation. It is the landlords you see at court who you act against that seem to colour your view of all landlords.
The RRB will up standards for all landlords but regrettably there are no equivalent measures to up standards for poorly behaved tenants.
A tenant who breaches their contract is the cost of doing business, this bill doesn’t change that risk except to banish s21. The reality of s21 is that it was an easier method of getting rid of a troublesome tenant.
I would have much rather seen enforcement of the current regulations rather than the introduction of more legislation, but we shall see if it improves poor landlords. I doubt it, and I suspect they will still be getting away with poor landlord behaviour while everyone else quietly follows the new regime – except for the huge number who have sold up that is.
The RRB fundamentally changes the risks faced by a landlord.
With s 21 you were guaranteed to get your property back if you followed the correct paper procedure.
But no more… RRB limits mandatory grounds for possession – selling, moving in or significant rent arrears.
There can be other reasons why a landlord might want their property back outside of these reasons.
Security is further limited as no rent in advance is permitted and fixed terms are abolished.
It’s always been a cost of doing business that a tenant might breach their agreement.
But with less security and mandatory grounds for possession being curtailed it highlights the need to have ever more rigorous pre-tenancy vetting and tenant selection.
It underscores the need for much better information about a prospective tenant’s past in tenancy behaviour.
On top of this, delays with court processes of several months could leave the average consumer landlord facing significant losses (loss of rent, legal fees, costs of repair etc.).
As you say, it is small wonder that so many landlords are exiting the PRS. It can’t be good for a market if supply dries up. Then what?
Landlords are not all bad. And I agree it would have been preferable to better enforce current regulations to drive up standards of landlords offering poor quality accommodation.
“There can be other reasons why a landlord might want their property back outside of these reasons.” – and there are other grounds for possession (including a mandatory ground for ASB, which you omit.) If the landlord wants the property back for a reason outside the schedule 2 grounds, then they shouldn’t be a landlord. That is quite straightforward. There have been greater or lesser restrictions on landlords recovering possession since the First World War, precisely because a rented home can’t, as a matter of public policy, be left to the whims of a landlord.
The RRB does not mean ‘less security’ for a landlord. But it is, of course, the landlord’s responsibility to do their due diligence on their private business risk within the relevant regulatory framework – that is the same for any business at all.
There are no figures suggest a great outflow of landlords. The increase in the PRS does seem to have levelled off. But, the houses don’t vanish. (Landlords don’t create housing.)
Of course better enforcement would be a good thing. The variability in council enforcement is huge and most councils do little to none (particularly, though far from exclusively, councils of a particular political stripe). But to think the RRB is solely, or even primarily about driving up standards is to miss the point of the RRB – and also to miss the opportunities it provides for good landlords.
The RRB is about much more than regulation to improve poor landlords. The abolition of section 21 in particular has nothing to with that. Mind you, I’d completely agree that enforcement by councils is very often lacking (and hugely variable) and that this should not be the case.
With respect I don’t believe it is your role to say who should and shouldn’t be a landlord. One is perfectly within their rights to express an opinion about the proposed changes.
Regarding your comment on WW1, the PRS did not really exist in the way it does today. It was only in 2008 when s 21 was introduced that the PRS took off because it gave landlords the confidence they could get their properties back.
Just like there is no independent information available about poorly behaved landlords so too it is the same for data on landlords who exit the PRS. It has to be inferred. There is data to show a spike in s 21 notices but the reasons for exit may be many and varied – exit as a result of s 24 ‘tenant tax’, exit because EPC upgrade makes the investment unviable, change in interest rate environment etc. to name a view. But likely an exit is due to a combination of these factors or their cumulative effect. At the same time increased SDLT has made entry into PRS unattractive. Obviously there is a time lag between data collection and publication so you may not know the full effect until quite some time after the RRB has taken effect.
NRLA has published some research from LSE at https://www.nrla.org.uk/research/deep-insight/former-landlords-LSE
See also:
https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/landlord-exodus-renting-renters-rights-bill/
https://www.channel4.com/news/private-landlords-leaving-the-rental-market-new-research-shows
Many of the views expressed in those articles express the same sentiments as I have in earlier posts. It includes one that many consider the effect of the RRB is that PRS is a riskier proposition not least because of the increased threshold for possession claims but also the inability to accept rent in advance (deposit already statutorily controlled) and abolishment of fixed terms.
A consumer is any natural person who is acting for purposes that are outside his trade, business or profession. In Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd, [2009] EWHC 1681 (Ch). Mann J considered the nature of a consumer. He said that “it is accepted that some of the people with whom Foxtons deal are consumers though many are not, being
‘professional or ‘commercial landlords’ ”. There is other judicial authority which supports a judge taking the view that a landlord can be a consumer.
This approach was followed in Chesterton Global Ltd v Finney. Unreported 30 April 2010, Lambeth CC. The District Judge, after referring to Mann J’s observations, said that a consumer is someone who is regarded as a “weak party” who needs special protection. He said that the Regulations defined a “consumer” as “any natural person who, in contracts covered by the Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade business or profession”. The conclusion was that Mr Finney was neither a professional landlord—his profession being entirely different—nor a commercial landlord—“that term implies a significant business as landlord and is not consistent with Mr Finney’s position where he owned a single property as part of his pension plan or long term savings”.
I agree with you that better enforcement of existing regulation would have been better.
I also agree that when a landlord exits the PRS the property is likely to result in that property falling into the hands of a first time buyer for occupancy by the purchaser which as I have said reduces supply in the PRS.
(I’ve deleted the other version of this comment. It was caught by automatic moderation, as was this, because there were a lot of links in it)
I wasn’t saying who shouldn’t be a landlord. I have no idea where you got that from. I am simply saying that in the landlord/tenant relationship, the landlord is not a consumer. Whether the landlord is a consumer in other areas of their life, or even in their relationship to large letting agents, is neither here nor there. (Note also that the FTT and Upper Tribunal have said that the description of ‘professional landlord’ is largely meaningless within rent repayment order proceedings.)
And the answer to the need for regulation of landlords in the letting relationship is, as you quote from Chesterton v Finney, “a consumer is someone who is regarded as a “weak party” who needs special protection.” In the landlord/tenant relationship, guess who is the weak party?
In short, a landlord who regards themself as ‘a consumer’ in the landlord/tenant relationship has got it badly wrong. They are not selling their unwanted stuff on Ebay to other people, they are providing a service, as a business, and subject to regulation accordingly.
If landlords want to raise complaints about their agents, guess what, there is an ombudsman-ish service for that, such as The Property Ombudsman, where you will be treated as a consumer.
I don’t think a spike in s.21s (though not exceeding pre-pandemic levels in terms of s.21 possession claims) shows landlords leaving the market – it *may*, but as you rightly say, there are a whole host of possible reasons for that spike. And of course a lot of private landlords from the boom period are getting on a bit (to say the least) and will be looking to cash in and get out. But none of that means that the properties are ‘likely’ going to first time buyers as occupiers. Again, while the growth in the PRS has certainly levelled off (I suspect a combination of higher mortgage rates and section 24 will do that, and an end to the hugely over-leveraged speculative end of the PRS is no bad thing), there so far is no evidence of shrinkage. So landlord to landlord sales also appear to be going on.
I didn’t say enforcement of existing regulation “would have been better”. I did say it would have been good. Still would be. The huge variation in approaches to and activity in enforcement is a big problem.
(And by the way, section 21 was introduced in 1988, not 2008. And the PRS really took off in 1996 when a) the requirement for an initial notice that a tenancy was an AST was abolished and b) probably more significantly, the BTL mortgage market really took off. But that is by the by to my overall point, which is that the PRS – which was relatively huge in the interwar years, before the post WW2 council housing boom – has been regulated on how possession can be recovered for over a century, because it is a matter of public importance, not to be left to a landlord’s whim.)
… ” Houses don’t vanish ” of course not, but their availability to the ever increasing number of potential Tenants DOES.
If that is what is happening. And there is, so far, no evidence that it is. Landlords are selling, but landlords are buying. And of course, where do you think first time buyers were living before they bought?
so the cost of being a retailer is Theft ( Shoplifting ) is the appropriate analogy and of course we all know that its customers in general that end up paying for others errant behaviour.
Trying ( and failing ) to justify Breach of Contract condones poor behaviour that actually reduces the supply of housing and makes the remainder more expensive. – In case anyone hasn’t noticed the shortage of supply !
I don’t think anyone was justifying breach of contract. It is a simple and universal point that any business operation runs a risk of breach of contract (whether B to B, or B to C) and that addressing that risk is a matter of sensible business practice (and it is why why have the civil courts for remedy).
“The PRS ombudsman will enable tenants to bring complaints against their landlord (not the other way round).” Well yes but a) it avoids court proceedings for the landlord and b) the landlord can out in their response. You appear not to have grasped – in this and previous comments – that landlords are a business providing services to consumers. There is no such thing as a ‘consumer landlord’. Would you expect the FCA to entertain your bank’s complaints about your conduct of your accounts? Should OFGEM take energy supplier’s complaints about their consumer’s use of energy? The banks and energy companies have their recourses in contract and in the courts (as regulated by statute).
I don’t understand your reference to the Irish Residential Tenancies Board. First that is predicated on landlords being licencised for each tenancy, Second it is effectively a Tribunal that performs many of the role of the English County Court. You have told me repeatedly how landlords won’t take court action over badly behaved tenants. What is the difference with the RTB? In addition, it records civil law landlord failures – disrepair etc. As I said originally, if you want a record of private civil law cases, that will impact landlords as well as tenants. The RTB looks exactly like that – and is exactly the same as publishing county court judgments, which you said wasn’t adequate because, again, landlords didn’t bring proceedings.
As I’ve already said, my team act for landlords as well as tenants. I’m afraid that accusations of partiality because someone is telling you that you can’t have what you want is something I come across a lot from all sides. (But particularly from landlords who email me for free advice).
My problem is that there was no dialogue. I spent considerable time explaining why you couldn’t have what you want (or that you wouldn’t want what it would look like if you did get it). You just ignored that and kept demanding that somehow landlords should have information about badly behaved tenants that isn’t a matter of public record, or court adjudication, or regulatory compliance, or anything other than the view of a landlord, and that this should somehow be freely provided to landlords for them to carry out their private business risk assessments. Once again, for clarity, you can’t have that.
I have said there is a need, in my view, to develop new policy and regulation which provides landlords with data on tenant poor behaviour during a previous tenancy. I don’t know why this is hard to acknowledge. Development of a policy which addresses this issue may be challenging (for some of the reasons you mention) but it shouldn’t be ruled out altogether. That’s my personal viewpoint.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that what is not permitted today can not be permitted in the future. In other words, you can’t categorically say one can’t have something at this point (before a policy is developed) and repeating that doesn’t make it so. It is already known what is not permitted today and you have made that clear.
I am sure many of your clients (including tenants) who have instructed you will not always be receptive to your advice. I can imagine this is frustrating for anybody in that position but one’s receptiveness to advice can depend a lot on how the advice is delivered.
It seems to upset you when individuals who have not instructed you are not receptive to your advice. I get that. And you say it is ‘particularly landlords’ who are in this category. This past experience could colour your view of this category of individual. It doesn’t mean I am saying you are biased. I am sure as a professional you put your personal views to one side when advising a client / prospective client.
I know you have advised both landlords and tenants but do you have experience of being a landlord?
‘If the landlord wants the property back for a reason outside the schedule 2 grounds, then they shouldn’t be a landlord.’ This very much says who you think should not be a landlord.
Quite right about 1988 (2008 was a typo) but you got the point. The concept of consumer landlord does hold true where a court is considering unfair contract terms. The Foxtons and Chesterton cases both serve to illustrate that there can be situations where the landlord is considered the weaker party. Every case turns on its facts.
Many landlords are accidental landlords and the vast majority only have one property. Owning a single property that you rent out does not, in my view, make one a professional landlord. It’s almost like suggesting landlords who receive rental income are not working people.
To say evictions could ever be based on a landlord’s ‘whim’ is disingenuous. From representing landlord clients, you must know that a decision to evict a tenant is never without very good reason and you will be aware of the costs associated with such a decision (loss of rent and legal fees). The MoJ states the median time from claim to possession in the period April to June 2024 was 25.4 weeks. Hence, potentially up to a year to get your property back plus there are longer notices periods and an extra months rent arrears to contend with under RRB before one can take action.
The Govt’s own impact assessment states anticipates Landlord will leave the PRS. It says ‘Landlords will likely offset some of the costs of the regulation through rental price growth – though there is a chance that some may be inclined to leave the PRS if they are unable to recover some of the costs incurred through raising rents. The extent to which this occurs is dependent on tenant incomes and overall demand in the sector.’
It also states ‘The regulations are expected to introduce £22 per rented property in additional annual cost to landlords over the ten-year appraisal period. This is the equivalent to approximately £44 per landlord across their portfolio – which is approximately 0.4% of annual rents’. This does not seem grounded in reality. Mind you the impact assessment for the Renters Reform Bill set the figure at £17.
As I have said, the RRB removes the guarantee that you can get your property back come what may. The RRB extends the maximum amount repayable to a tenant as up to 2 years rent. This seems very draconian and arbitrary. And quite concerning that RROs may still attach to consumer landlords even if the offence was committed by the letting agent through their negligence.
The fines of up to £40K introduced by the RRB also seem disproportionate. The s 13 rental increase mechanism (in truth a form of rent suppression) is unnecessary. And completely unfair if rent increases where challenged don’t take effect until the FTT makes a determination. Wait times at present for a decision of the FTT is 18 weeks and up to 27 weeks if the property needs inspecting.
Anybody who’s anybody, let alone with knowledge of the legal process, or who has tried to use the Totally ineffective Civil law process against a Tenant whether to recover Possession or enforce significant rent arrears will know who the WEAKER and Stronger party is, so lets not try ” legally kidding each other “
Oh Chris, what nonsense. I would be the first to agree that the county court system is in a bit of a crisis, but your comment is simply ridiculous.
…’bit of a crisis’ and ‘that’s why we have a Civil Justice[sic] process ??? – oh don’t make me laugh Giles. Taking 8 or 9 months to get a Possession order and in some courts, up to 18 months for Bailiffs to enforce is a bit more than a crisis. Certainly is if your the Landlord that’s not receiving any rent and we know that 90% of Civil debt isn’t recovered.
Achieving repayment of Tens of £ 000’s of Unpaid rent from Benefit tenants is simply a “ridiculous” suggestion. But do please enlighten us if you know of a legally successful method. ( The saying ‘blood out of a stone’ comes to mind )
The Channel 5 program ‘Cant’ pay, we’ll take it away’ is a real eye opener. It illustrates the myriad of issues a landlord can face when trying to obtain a possession order and the issues bailiffs face when enforcing the possession order. The deplorable state in which some properties are left is unbelievable. For all the reasons Chris Daniel states in the post at 6.40am, it underscores why it is so important to have good information about a prospective tenant’s past behaviour before granting a tenancy. If the court and enforcement processes were quicker and landlords could intervene at an earlier point it might help mitigate the risk of some of the damage occurring.
The Foxtons case etc do not show that the landlord *as landlord* is the weaker party. It is simply irrelevant to the landlord/tenant relation. There is no such thing as a ‘consumer’ landlord, because – and excuse me for shouting – THE LANDLORD IS NOT A CONSUMER BUT IS A SERVICE PROVIDER.
Spare me the wittering about ‘professional landlords’. It is irrelevant. If you are a landlord, you are a service provider and required to abide by the relevant statute and regulation, as with any business.
I most certainly have seen landlords evict on their whim – or their own, shall we say, ludicrous view of rights and obligations. As per the post, I have seen evictions for complaining ‘too much’ about an unrepaired shower (over a period of months), and an eviction for ‘getting pregnant when she said she wouldn’t’ (completely unlawful under Equality Act 2010). There are many other examples.
As you must surely know, the vast majority of notices seeking possession never go near a court. The tenants usually leave.
I don’t think there is any dispute that some landlords may leave the sector (though age, section 24 and mortgage rates are much more significant factors I think – we have had the ‘we will sell up and you’ll be sorry’ refrain raised for every legislative change to the PRS since 2004 and, well, it absolutely didn’t happen, quite the reverse). I’ve acknowledged that the PRS has apparently ceased to grow. Whether it shrinks is another matter. So far, there is no evidence of that.
The RRB doesn’t remove the guarantee you can ‘get your property back come what may’ (reminder – it isn’t your property when you have let it). It just means you have to set out the reasons, which will include selling, wanting to live in etc..
And so back to the Schedule 2 grounds point. I stand by that. No-one should be letting property unless their reasons for wanting the property back fall within the schedule 2 grounds, in view of the RRB. I struggle with imagining genuine reasons that don’t fall within the proposed schedule 2 grounds right now. You apparently can? Can you come up with any that are actually consistent with the legal position on letting a property?
The £40K fines are simply an inflation increase (actually well below inflation) on the previous £30K fines.
The section 13 mechanism isn’t ‘rent suppression’. The rule will be changed such that the Tribunal cannot award a market rent higher than that sought by the landlord. This is hardly unfair. There will be a new rythmn and timetable for rent increases that will take everyone time to get used to, but that is how changes go. (My understanding is that the FTT is looking at time and Judge allocation for the future, assuming that there may be an increase in challenges.).
But you have gone way off the original point into a generalised and scattershot whinge about the poor PRS landlord. You haven’t actually dealt with my responses on the main argument (why a register of bad tenants can’t exist in the way you want it to). So I don’t think this conversation has any ongoing value and I won’t pursue it further.
Though – as a parting shot – I am a bit wearied by the endless special pleading (‘It’s my pension”, ‘I’m an accidental landlord’ (there is no such thing. People may be pressured into letting by circumstances, but it is not an accident. They didn’t just wake up to find they had become a landlord), or ‘but I only have one or two properties’ (so what?)). They don’t get a lesser degree of obligation to their tenants, and nor should they.
All your points are noted. I know you have advised both landlords and tenants but do you have experience of being a landlord?
Therefore, E, it seems that it is your opinion that tenants must/should be grateful for being kicked out of their accommodation?
How long do you think it can take a tenant to trash the accommodation he/she has had a possession order granted against her/him? Do tenants get much time to photograph/video their ex-accommodation when the Bailiffs are beating at the door. A stressful moment. No photographs/video, no proof that the tenant left the property in good order and that the lessor has been vindictive and “trashed” the property herself/himself.
Not sure what you mean exactly. I have not said anywhere a tenant should be grateful for being kicked out.
If bailiffs had to attend the property to evict a tenant the bailiffs would be able to record the state in which the property was left.
Certainly the agent and/or landlord would also record any damage upon regaining entry and could compare it to the photos taken as part of inventory check in.
If a claim were submitted in court to recover costs of repair the pictures taken would be part of the evidence submitted. Witness statements would be submitted in support of the evidence and would be signed with a statement of truth. Similarly the tenant would be able to submit evidence. It is an offence to perjure oneself by submitting evidence one knows to be untrue or misleading.
The evidence would be subject to cross examination if the matter went to trial and a judge would decide if the evidence is credible and whether the claim has been proved to the civil standard (ie on balance of probabilities).
I find it very strange that you suggest a landlord would damage their own property out of vengeance towards their former tenant. It would unlawful to claim damage was caused by a tenant when in fact it was caused by another/the landlord.
I agree it must be very stressful for a tenant who is being evicted but they will have had notice that this may occur. And a judge would have already decided that grounds for eviction have been satisfied and possession is lawful.
It is also stressful and costly for a landlord who has had to go to court and then has to enforce the possession order through use of bailiffs to regain possession of their (possibly very badly damaged) property.
I understand there is no sympathy on this thread for landlords who suffer loss at the hands of badly behaved tenants.
While there is plenty in the RRB to drive up standards of landlords (to address “rogue landlords”) there are no commensurate measures to drive up standards of tenants (ie badly behaved / “rogue” tenants). This is a policy choice but in my opinion this is unfair as on these circumstances landlords deserve better protections than they are currently afforded.
Its not just Tenants that get evicted ( kicked out of their house ) by Bailiffs. Home owners who default on mortgages are subject to the same treatment.
It stems from a rather novel but much forgotten principle nowadays, especially in housing, … that everyone ( or most people at least, unless the state / Tax-payer funds their lifestyle ! ) have to pay for what they consume – i.e. Housing, whoever the provider is.
One of many reasons this country is in such a state is the increase of parasites ( If anyone thinks the word rather ‘strong’ – just look at its description, those that feed off others or mores imply put, those that don’t pay their way – live beyond their means at others expense. )
Not a rogue tenant register as such but landlords will increasingly be searching prospective tenants on the First Tier Tribunal (property) register.
https://www.gov.uk/residential-property-tribunal-decisions?tribunal_decision_category%5B%5D=rents