The battle lines are being drawn up for tomorrow’s crucial reading of a Bill to ban so-called revenge evictions.
The Bill would prevent landlords and agents being able to use the Section 21 procedure within six months of a “legitimate” complaint about a property’s state of repair being made by a tenant.
It would also not be possible to use Section 21 where a local authority had issued an improvement notice.
Nor would it be possible in cases where there was no valid gas safety certificate or EPC in place.
The proposals are all in a Private Member’s Bill. While these usually stand little chance of success, this one is backed by the Government.
ARLA has said that while it supports the principles behind the Tenancies (Reform) Bill being introduced by Lib Dem MP Sarah Teather, it does not welcome the Bill itself.
ARLA’s concerns include the fear that tenants would “play” the new rules for their own purposes
The Residential Landlords Association remains adamantly opposed to the Bill, saying that it would make it harder for landlords to give notice to tenants.
It also fears some tenants would put in repeated complaints to stave off eviction proceedings.
It believes landlords would exit the sector if they could not easily get their landlords back and is dubbing tomorrow as a potential “black Friday”.
Citizens Advice has waded in saying that it has experienced a 20% rise in the number of tenants seeking help because they are facing eviction despite being up to date with rent.
Citizens Advice said that one in three private rental homes fail to meet the Government’s decent homes standard, and it called on MPs to back the Bill.
Generation Rent has also mounted a campaign to get the Bill through, after the House of Lords earlier this week did not put through a Labour amendment to the Consumer Rights Bill to ban letting fees charged by agents to tenants.
Alex Hilton of Generation Rent said: “By voting down a ban on letting fees, the Government has told the country’s 9m private renters that the profitability of letting agents is more important than their consumer rights.
“The Government’s answer is transparency, but that’s no answer at all. Tenants don’t get to choose the agent so they can’t negotiate down fees.
“Revenge evictions can still be banned with a vote in the Commons on Friday, but renters need as many MPs as possible to show up to ensure that the Bill is passed.”
Meanwhile, David Cox, managing director of ARLA, said: “ARLA agrees that the issue of retaliatory eviction needs to be put to bed once and for all and we were broadly supportive of the principles behind this Bill.
“However, the devil is in the detail and now that the Bill has been published we have concerns that it exposes landlords to frivolous and vexatious cases.
“For example, there is a risk that Category 2 hazards could be created by tenants in arrears to avoid evictions.
“We are also concerned that in many blocks of flats and converted houses, ‘common parts’ are not under the landlord’s control but are the freeholder’s responsibility. Therefore, it is not equitable for a landlord to be penalised for something that is outside their control.
“These clauses need further thought before we could welcome this Bill. As it stands, it will inevitably lead to unintended consequences.
“ARLA wants to see the issue of retaliatory eviction resolved once and for all, but we must ensure that any legislation designed to tackle this minority of rogue operators does not infringe or restrict the rights of professional landlords and agents or frustrate legitimate possession proceedings.”
Comments (3)
Revenge Eviction is a sound-bite with no legal basis.
Landlords who are:
a) Selling – will require vacant possession to achieve the highest price & will need to evict with usual notice, they may be disheartened with being a landlord and the work it entails, but that is not necessarily revenge against a tenant, just frustration against the landlord role & perhaps a difficult situation.
or
b) Re-letting – will require a vacant period to repair, refurbish and improve a property, landlords will need to evict with usual notice to do this. This is not revenge against a tenant, just a practical requirement, most significant repairs cannot be done with tenants in situ. Generally landlords want to protect their investment. A landlord does not want an empty property which is losing income or attracting liabilities (council tax/ damage) which is what will happen if a dirty, damaged, disgusting property with faults throughout, is put onto the lettings market.
Landlords exercising their rights, which are enshrined in law, is an entirely reasonable process, which doesn't really require further justification.
The law, the court process and all advise agencies are entirely balanced in favour of tenants over landlords and I do believe that it is right that they are.
I am delighted that a slightly weaker party has such protections from a stronger party BUT I do not feel that any more changes are required, I think that perhaps 60/40 as I see it in favour of the tenant is about right.
Such laws historically gave, and do give mortgage lenders the confidence to financially back landlords to invest and risk their own money and livelihoods into residential property.
We must as a society begin to appreciate the majority of the hard working, generous and supportive landlords who provide a huge percentage of the much needed housing in this country.
Phil Martin
Landlord and Sustainable Housing Consultant
http://www.PhilMartin.co.uk
Bit late to be getting vocal on the subject ARLA, from the moment this was first created and mentioned, the anecdotal evidence base of this legislation was highlighted. Shelter and Generation rent have an easy path to legislation that has a 'people's cause' political ring to it, CLG simply do not have the depth of knowledge to understand the issues and so anything that pops up looking like it is positive output is going to receive support. ARLA should have been on this like a fireblanket 6 month ago.
Why bring in a half formed bill to deal with a problem they cannot quantify and do not understand. Does nobody understand that rogue landlords will still be rogue landlords and find ways round it and the reputable agents and landlords will be hide bound by even more legislation.