A prominent figure in the lettings industry has warned that any extension to the current evictions ban would risk hurting the most vulnerable and would damage the wider rental sector.
Dr Rosalind Beck, a doctor of Criminology and a Conservative Party member in South Wales, writes on the Conservativehome website that the current eviction ban - ending later this month - has not been a particular factor in helping renters battling Coronavirus.
In fact she claims that most tenants at risk of eviction are in that position because of failure to pay rent before the virus outbreak, not since. .
“Indeed the National Residential Landlords Association has found that most evictions are currently frozen in the court system – but still accruing rent arrears in most cases – ‘are down to existing ongoing anti-social behaviour issues and have nothing to do with Covid.’ Paul Shamplina, an eviction specialist, has also said he has 500 cases on his books which pre-date the pandemic” she writes.
In her article she develops the theme that the winder signals sent out by an extension of the eviction ban would quickly hurt those the ban seeks to help - the most vulnerable tenants.
As landlords quit the sector because of their increasing powerlessness, she writes, “supply of rental property will shrink massively just as a greater number of homes are needed.”
Describing the landlords who may well leave the sector, Beck adds: "One can’t take the risk of getting a non-payer when there is no legal redress. Other landlords will go bankrupt as a result of paying for other people’s accommodation and often also their utility costs.
“What’s more, the eviction ban and the proposed scrapping of Section 21 notices will make those who do remain in the market, particularly portfolio landlords who house the majority of tenants, reluctant to rent to anyone other than those considered to carry the least risk of defaulting.
“Guarantors will become indispensable – which will disqualify many tenants from consideration. Just how many hotels, B&Bs, camp or caravan sites will be needed to house those unable to access any rented housing?”
You can read her entire article here.
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
.png)
%20(002).jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Good work again from Rosalind .. I wish she would lead the landlords associations
Yes well done Ros
But as always the government just carries on regardless , how many enquires have been done on issues that they then ignore, its just lip service.
They seem to want to tax and heap more and more onto landlords.
Now after recieving nothing from the furlough schemes they are expecting landlords to basically let for free but still pay all the expenses and S24 tax.
Yes Kathy i agree with you 100%. Government does not want people out in the street as they will have to house them. Better let someone else deal with the problem, ie BTL property owners. And, the political cherry on the top is that BTL, being a Landlord, is socially out of favour. Look at the leasehold sector, it is in the same boat. Nothing to do with right or wrong, its to do with who has the perceived louder voice. I read the other day that there is a move to put service charges on hold, same same as not paying AST rents.
Mark - we landlords & agents are "socially out of favour" (as you put it) with people like you, no matter how carefully you try to conceal that fact.
You say it has "nothing to do with right or wrong" when, duh, it has EVERYTHING to do with right or wrong.
Putting service charges on hold for leaseholders is completely different from encouraging people not to pay rent even when thy can! Typically the rent is £800 - £1,200 PcM and it is the landlord's critically needed income, whereas service charges might be typically around £1,200 a YEAR and are not a major cost for most leaseholders (and can be challenged at the FTT if incorrect or unfair) and if the leaseholder can't afford them there's something quite wrong.
A very subtle point you may or may not realise - leaseholders (that you seem to favour and like) are TENANTS, your favourite people! Even if a fair few of them are landlords ("socially out of favour" with you) who sublet to more tenants - those sub-tenants are your absolute favourite people, and you'll try to find any excuse to help them screw us and cheat and default with no consequences on our precious and vitally needed rent.... there's no getting away from your true (but now more cunningly concealed) colours!
Barry, you are cherry picking. A service charge is a collective contribution, who should pay if no one pays? In some ways it is worse if service charges are withheld as the building suffers which means more are impacted. I do not favour any group I just have an overview of the sector which you seem to lack. What I think about the BTL sector is not relevant, its the mood of the nation that is driving this to which you seem oblivious.
It's not "cherry picking" at all Mark..... unlike you I'm experienced in this sector that I first entered in 1996, some 24 years ago. I've been very "hands on" for all of those years so am no mere "arm chair investor".
Secondly I spend a lot of time dealing with legal matter in court as well as briefing solicitors and via them barristers on property matters.
Thirdly, I spend a lot of time working with as well as utilising the FTT (First-Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber, to you as you probably know nothing about them either).
I think I can confidently say I **do** know what I'm talking about while there's no evidence that you do too.
Barry X, far to personal if I may say. You are right on one thing though, you do not seem to know anything about me or my extensive near 40 year career as a Chartered Valuation Surveyor. To fill you in a little, most recently I was part of a working group assisting the Law Commission on reforms to the Leasehold Sector.
You side stepped the cherry picking on service charge payments. I think it is all in the same basket.
Oh, and if you want to know of the cases my firm were involved with at the FTT or the Upper Tribunal you can look them up. Many were for Landlords!
I much prefer objective banter, this is all too negative!
I think ( hope, as a means of least harm to Landlords ) that the Gov will bring in the Social Housing Pre-Action Protocol.
If Jenrick ' beefs this up', as he's talked about but what that 'beefing' actually means is that the Rent arrears Only due to Covid are subject of the Protocol - it would be least of the worse options that are being touted to the Govt.
Ros is right about the Govt being bombarded, but not just that, they are actively seeking views of Labour supporting Housing solicitors like Giles Peaker of FFHH fame. - why, God only knows.
MHCLG have seemingly high regard for the opinions of Shelter and the like ( not surprising when you consider the Tax-payer funds Shelter £20 Million to give advice on Homelessness.
Also similarly funded are Citizens Advice.
Its kind of bizarre that Govt fund Shelter who sometimes bring claims against Local Authorities Homelessness decisions. Talk about left foot shooting the right foot !
What should Govt do - Pay the market rate for accommodating people, or build Houses [ and find out the true market rate the hard way ] - oh and by the way, - DON'T accommodate people who've shown they don't deserve it.
That's where Politicians need to grow a pair, similar to what they need to deal with the French escorting migrants across to Britain. ! ... that unjustly adds to the Housing burden.
Sadly this Tory government will always want to show their caring side to get away from the label of being the nasty party. They are also trying to pander to the youth vote, which is a total waste of time. The youth tend to be left wing, I know I was. I think it is part of the idealistic view that the young will change the world.
As I grew older/up I realised that not everyone can be helped. I briefly saw a programme last night on benefit claimants. One was £30,000 in debt and still borrowing money. No job, three kids so decided to spend £150 per child for Christmas but ended up spending £250 per child. He had a demand for over £200 but brushed it off on the grounds that “it will cost them more than that to take me to court”.
THIS IS WHAT GOOD LANDLORDS ARE UP AGAINST.
Everyone should be aware of some of the horribly distorted tricks and lies Shelter frequently depends on, e.g. I believe it still counts people in "inappropriate accommodation" as "homeless". This means for example that someone in a flat or house share who'd ideally like his or her own place (even if a lot smaller) is "homeless" by Shelter's criteria! They consider all sorts of people living in a home to be "homeless" for all sorts of excuses/reasons, e.g. people in failed relationships dividing a decent sized house between them are "homeless" because ideally they each want a place of their own, and so on....
That really suits their agenda because it means they can hugely exaggerate the number of "homeless" people while doing virtually nothing for the genuinely homeless (by MY criteria and probably what most people thing Shelter mean when they don't), i.e. people sleeping rough on the streets or in the woods or whatever who really *don't* have a roof over their heads, proper sanitation (even if basic) and some sort of security when sleeping.
That's VERY different and shows what a devious, lying, political lobbying group Shelter are at their core these days. Obviously attacking, demonising and blaming landlords all the time, while completely ignoring the much larger number of unreliable, dishonest and in some cases outright rogue tenants suits them and their agenda perfectly.
The government are complete fools to listen to them (but we knew they were incompetent fools anyhow) and its absolutely outrageous in my opinion for them to be funding a blatantly cheeky left-wing lobbying group.
@Barry X
What annoys me MOST is that this so-called Tory Government is giving away my taxes to Shelter, Citizens Advice and any tinpot dictator who wants foreign aid. Given the amount that the Chancellor has given away lately ths country needs to cut down on the freebies!
The furlough idea was good, but it should have been tapered - 80% first month, 70% second month, 60% third month and so on. As it is, when the furlough ends, the money tap will just be turned off. It will be a shock to a lot of people includng my neighbours who have been on an extended holiday since lockdown started!
To extend the eviction time will certainly financially damage more landlords than tenants.
The landlords will definitely lose critical rental income.
The tenants will NEVER pay pay back whet they owe! Ever.
Again the Landlords get screwed.
This MUSY stop
What many taxpayers fail to realise is that they are subsidising feckless rent defaulting tenants.
This is because LL aren't usually taxed on rent that hasn't been paid.
Of course for mortgaged sole trader LL this is different because of S24.
This means even with no rental income they are charged S24 taxes but have no rental income to pay it! !!
This exposes the farce that S24 is.
Of course with rents NOT being paid and taxes not needing to be paid on non-existent rent then it is for other taxpayers to pay more to keep rent defaulting tenants in free accommodation until eventually evicted.
I'm sure if taxpayers realised this they would not be very happy with rent defaulting tenants having free accommodation while they struggle to meet all their own accommodation costs.
Absolutely Paul,
Its the usual small minority of Dishonest tenants that keep repeatedly getting subsidised by this government out of Tax-payers money.
Tax-paid Legal Aid,
Tax paid £20 Million subsidy to Shelter to further legally advise Contract-defaulting tenants,
Tax paid funding to Citizens Advice. also to further advise them.
Tax-paid funding for law centres.
Lets not forget the Housing benefit Tax-payers pay the 'feckless', who don't pass it onto landlords ( so inconsequential that Universal credit insist on paying it to tenant )
No deductions from U.C for previous rental debts.
etc.
Please login to comment