Patrick Bullick
Even before the Renters Revenge Bill abolishes Section 21 (no fault) Notices she is giving her fulsome support to a Ministry of Injustice effort to thwart landlords' ability to get their properties back. See the press release LINK
In our direct experience, landlords are exiting the market at pace because of this sort of ill-advised Tory scheme plus anti-landlord taxes and legislation.
When London landlords sell up, it is FB’s Kensington young tenant constituents who lose out through significantly higher rents.
The left-leaning lawyers manning this tenant's helpline will undoubtedly consider it their mandate to advise them to stay put until the landlord has a Court Order and the Bailiffs lined up. Just as housing officers at RBKC apparently still advise tenants ‘off the record’, to stay put for as long as possible- despite it being against the Council’s ‘stated’ policy.
Please can The Dame ask Felicity to explain why the Tories seem to think they can win tenants' votes by making life hard for landlords?
If the Tories really want to help tenants they should be encouraging landlords back into the market.
There are two very quick actions The Treasury can do to re-ignite landlords' enthusiasm to invest.
- Re-instate a private landlord's ability to offset mortgage interest payments against income BEFORE tax – as in any other business.
- Drop the extra Stamp Duty charged on landlord property purchases.
Michael Gove’s Renters Revenge Bill can easily still be tweaked to leave’ No Fault’ Notices in place but with a longer Notice period. Say three or even six months.
At least that way a landlord can get their property back in a non-aggressive way, even if it takes a bit longer.
Perhaps, I can help the Dame arrange for Felicity to meet some of the landlords and tenants affected by her naïve scheme.
Yours faithfully.
Patrick Bullick
Managing Director, Stanley Property London
Former Propertymark Board Director
& Past Chairman NAEA - London Region
I am just about to sell my four rental properties. My tenants who appreciate the high quality of my service will now lose the benefits I provided at a reasonable rent.
ReplyDeleteIn it's thirst to curry votes the Government scores an own goal! Crass
ReplyDeleteRegarding the reference to RBKC Housing Officers in the article above.
ReplyDeleteCouncil Officers are duty bound to advise tenants correctly on legal matters connected with any potential claim to be treated as "Homeless." If a tenant leaves a dwelling before they are actually turned out of it by the bailiff, they will be deemed "intentionally homeless" by the Council - even if they leave the property just ten minutes before the bailiff turns up to execute the warrant. Many tenants do leave earlier to avoid the embarrassment of eviction and when they apply to the Council to be treated as "homeless" they are declared "intentionally homeless." If, as the writer suggests, it is Kensington and Chelsea's policy to advise tenants to leave a property before the execution of an eviction warrant then such a policy is unethical if a tenant acts in reliance of such advice. I suspect any advice to leave before a warrant is executed would be held to be potentially unlawful.
This piece of legislation show the danger of having intellectuals running departments requiring commonsense. A practical person would have scratched his or her head and asked the question, " what can go wrong?'. In this case, the answer is a mass exodus of responsible landlords thus depleting housing stock and creating the massive surge in C. London rents. The lost properties will never be replaced by housing associations or any larger organisations.
ReplyDeleteThe matter to which 06.16 above refers was decided in case law by intellectual judges of the High Court.
DeleteJudges are not necessarily intellectual. The much esteemed Lord Denning would be horrified and mortified to be described as an intellectual. In the instance of this legislation he would have immediately seen the flaws and this the negative consequences for young people trying to find somewhere to live. In its 13 years this government has done more than any other to extend octopus like into our lives.The sooner we get rid of the likes of Buchan the better.
DeleteBy intellectual, I mean "reasoned." However, there are limits to what reason will disclose as David Hume the Scottish enlightenment philosopher would attest -
Delete- "Reason is, an only ought to be, the slave of passions and can - never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
Hume was right!
I think the very rigid interpretation of being declared "intentionally homeless'' as a result of leaving a dwelling before being turned out by bailiff was a "reasoned" judicial decision formulated to save local authorities money. People who quit properties before the bailiff arrives usually have considerable personal pride.Their pride will not allow them to suffer the humiliation and embarrassment of eviction. Consequently, they pay a very high price for their dignified position because the law will hold that they left the property voluntarily, even if it is only ten minutes before the bailiff arrives, without legal enforcement to do so and have, therefore, intentionally caused the loss of roof. If Kensington's Officers are advising the public in these terms then they are being entirely correct.
Did Buchan ever consult experts like the writer? No, of course not. The likes of Buchan always thing they know best.
ReplyDeleteBuchan has a majority of a pittance of 150. To save herself she has decided to appeal to sectional groups. It won't work. We are all far too canny.
ReplyDeleteMiss Buchan, can you give me one good reason why I should continue to rent my four flats?
ReplyDelete