From: the_todal@icloud.com 
  
 On 04/09/2025 12:11, Jon Ribbens wrote: 
 > On 2025-09-04, Davey  wrote: 
 >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 10:50:19 +0100 
 >> Malcolm Loades  wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> On 03/09/2025 11:40, The Todal wrote: 
 >>>> On 02/09/2025 11:08, Davey wrote: 
 >>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 07:51:05 +0800 
 >>>>> J Newman  wrote: 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>>> What do you all think about this new act? 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Key Changes 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 1. No more €€€no-fault€€€ evictions 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Section 21 will be abolished. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Every eviction must go through court on a specific legal ground 
 >>>>>> (arrears, anti-social behaviour, sale, family move-in, 
 >>>>>> redevelopment, etc.). 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 2. All tenancies become periodic 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Fixed-term ASTs will convert into rolling periodic tenancies. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Tenants can give 2 months€€€ notice to leave at any time. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Landlords lose the certainty of fixed terms (e.g. guaranteed 12€€€18 
 >>>>>> month contracts). 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 3. Rent increases restricted 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Only once per year, with 2 months€€€ notice. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Tenants can challenge increases at tribunal if above market level. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> €€€Bidding wars€€€ and large upfront rent demands will be banned. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 4. Ombudsman & PRS database 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> All landlords (including non-residents) must register with a new 
 >>>>>> Private Rented Sector database. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Disputes will go first to a mandatory Ombudsman, which can award 
 >>>>>> compensation and order remedies. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 5. Property standards & penalties 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Stronger minimum housing standards. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Fines (potentially €€7,000+) for failing to meet requirements. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> 6. Grounds for possession clarified 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Still possible to evict for arrears, nuisance, sale, family 
 >>>>>> move-in, or major works. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> BUT everything must be proven in court €€€ adding time, cost, and 
 >>>>>> risk of delay. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> It will result in the death of property rental. Where is the 
 >>>>> matching Landlords' Rights Act? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> -- 
 >>>>> Davey. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> 
 >>>> 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I'm a landlord. I rent a small house to a middle aged couple (with 
 >>>> her kids) who have paid rent regularly. We use an agent, who takes a 
 >>>> commission but it's useful that the agent arranges periodic 
 >>>> inspections, ensures we comply with statutory requirements, 
 >>>> arranges any urgent repairs through reliable contractors. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Now I hear that the relationship between the couple has ended and he 
 >>>> will be moving out. Our agents advise us that we should insist that 
 >>>> he remains on the tenancy agreement so that we can enforce any 
 >>>> arrears against him as well as her. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> That seems very unfair, to me.  If you break up with your partner 
 >>>> you should be free to move on and rent somewhere else. I wonder 
 >>>> whether other landlords would disagree? 
 >>>> 
 >>> I'm a landlord and I disagree.  You don't say but I assume the 
 >>> tenancy is a joint tenancy?  If I'm correct both incomes will have 
 >>> been taken into account to check affordability.  Does the 'remaining' 
 >>> partner have the income to support affordability?  If so then have a 
 >>> new tenancy agreement made in just one name.  If not then the 
 >>> 'leaving' partner should remain on the tenancy agreement and accept 
 >>> joint liability for the payment of rent. 
 >>> 
 >>> Malcolm 
 >> 
 >> Fine, in the ideal world. 
 >> But if he won't? 
 > 
 > What do you mean by "won't"? If a person won't accept liability for 
 > a debt they owe then generally speaking they get taken to court and 
 > a judge says they do owe it and then you send bailiffs after them, 
 > etc. 
 > 
  
 I guess if it looks as if she can't afford to keep up payments of rent 
 it would be premature to try to end the tenancy and if there are arrears 
 of rent in future there might be a need to terminate the tenancy. 
  
 I don't much like the idea of insisting that he remains liable for the 
 rent, unless he wants to agree to that out of affection for his former 
 partner. 
  
 Whenever we are looking for new tenants the managing agents strongly 
 discourage us from letting to people on benefits or low incomes, because 
 prosperous tenants are less trouble. I suppose the managing agents are 
 just doing their job. I would like to help out those on low incomes and 
 if they do fall behind with the rent it wouldn't be an economic disaster 
 for me, just rather irritating. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)