Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Buy to let investments

Finally, some good news for landlords!

Christina Jordan
by Lovemoney Staff Christina Jordan on 16 June 2010  |  Comments 18 comments

The coalition Government scraps red tape proposals for landlords. Hurrah!

Finally, some good news for landlords!

Love ’em or loathe ’em, landlords tend to generate strong emotions. Some people feel uncomfortable with the concept of people profiting from property when so many Brits cannot afford a place to call home, and they blame landlords for all sorts of ills -- pricing first-time buyers out of the market, creating student ghettos and ripping off unsuspecting tenants at every opportunity.

Others – particularly, um, landlords - claim that buy-to-let investors are villified and over-regulated. After all, the private rented sector is absolutely vital to the UK’s housing market and the vast majority of landlords provide good quality accommodation on fair terms.

In recent years, many have felt that the burden of regulation has made it almost impossible for them to operate successfully. Not only have they had to struggle through the recession and its associated problems -- tenant arrears being a biggie -- landlords have also been constrained by the reams of red tape produced by Whitehall.

Red Rugg to a bull

Last year the problems got even worse for landlords when the Government pounced on the proposals from the Rugg Review it had commissioned to look at measures to improve the private rented sector.

John Fitzsimons highlights three things to consider if you’re planning a buy-to-let investment

They included a range of new regulations such as introducing a national register of landlords, mandatory written tenancy agreements, compulsory regulation of letting agents and protection for tenants whose landlords default on a buy-to-let mortgage.

For a sector already burdened with a raft of new rules in the last few years -- including tenant deposit schemes and shared housing regulations -- this was a step too far.

So you can imagine the relief of landlords up and down the country last week when the new coalition Government announced it was binning the Rugg Review proposals on the grounds that they introduce too much red tape.

Collective sigh of relief!

Housing Minister Grant Shapps promised England's one million landlords that the Government has no plans to introduce new regulations on the private rented sector.

It will scrap proposals for:

  • The national register of landlords
  • Regulation of letting and managing agents
  • Compulsory written tenancy agreements
  • A new housing hotline offering free help and advice for private tenants
  • A ‘Trip adviser’ style word-of-mouth website comparing landlords.

Shapps claimed that the rules already in place strike the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, with the vast majority of private tenants satisfied with the service they get.

Although he did call on councils to use the powers already at their disposal to tackle the minority of rogue landlords that fail to provide good quality accommodation and blight local neighbourhoods. These include the controversial discretionary licensing powers for Houses in Multiple Occupation, as I recently discussed in Government puts the boot into landlords again!

Tear up the rulebook

Landlords up and down the country will clearly be thrilled by the Tory-Liberal plans to cut the red tape and bureaucracy they were facing. Not surprisingly, their trade bodies are cock-a-hoop at the news that their members will not be subject to increased regulation.

Related how-to guide

Become a buy-to-let landlord

How to pick the right property, get the right mortgage, take out the right insurance, choose the right letting agent and most importantly, unravel all that red tape!

The National Landlords Association, for example, which had heavily criticised the idea for a national register of landlords, said it wholeheartedly welcomed the reminder from Government that the vast majority of tenants are happy with the service they receive from landlords.

It described the proposed register as being ‘well-meaning but flawed’ and claimed it wouldn’t have rooted out rogue landlords anyway. Indeed it reckoned it would penalise law-abiding landlords by making them go through the hassle and potential cost of registration while driving the bad apples underground.

It’s a fair point and a similar scheme in Scotland didn’t achieve have the desired impact, with a quarter of rented properties still unregistered after three years.

Longstanding buy-to-let lender Paragon Mortgages, also unsurprisingly agreed with scrapping the register, saying landlords were heavily regulated already. However it was not so supportive of the new Government’s plans to scrap all of the Rugg Review Recommendations.

Tarred with the same brush

Indeed, it does seem overzealous that the new Government has chosen to scrap all the private rented sector proposals in one fell swoop, despite some being widely supported.

Managing director of Paragon Mortgages, John Heron, said that the total rejection of the Rugg Review Recommendations looks ‘ill-thought out and ignores many of the positive outcomes that certain proposals could have generated’.

His biggest gripe is with the ditching of the mandatory regulation of letting and managing agents, and he is right to be annoyed. Frankly, if there was ever a sector that needed to get its own house in order, this is it.

There are currently no controls over letting agents, which doesn’t just affect tenants, but landlords too. Anyone can set themselves up as a letting agent with no experience, qualification or rules to adhere to. While this situation remains, unethical operators will continue to be drawn to the sector.

Recent question on this topic

Current voluntary schemes like that from the Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA) are well respected, and could have been made compulsory to ensure all agents had to comply with some best practice guidelines.

Indeed, ARLA went a step further, saying it is ‘extremely disappointed’ with the Government for ditching the plan to regulate letting agents. It claims that the move risks seriously hampering the improvement of standards in the private rented sector, and the sector's reputation. Plus it fails to protect the consumer who has nowhere to go when there is service failure or fraud.  

I’d suggest that any landlords and tenants look specifically for letting agents that are signed up to a voluntary scheme like ARLA’s, or the National Approved Letting Scheme. That way at least you know they adhere to a code of conduct and meet certain best practice standards.

Of course, nobody likes red tape for the sake of it and it’s true that landlords have had more than their fair share over the last few years. But the Government has thrown out the baby with the bathwater by dismissing all the Rugg Review recommendations in this way. As usual it’s the consumer who really loses out, with less protection and fewer rights.

Use lovemoney.com’s innovative new mortgage tool to find the best buy-to-let mortgage for you online

Get help from lovemoney.com

If you need help getting the best mortgage use our resources.

First, adopt this goal: Become a buy-to-let landlord

Then, why not have a wander over to Q&A and ask other lovemoney.com members for hints and tips about what worked best for them?

At lovemoney.com, you can research all the best deals yourself using our online mortgage service, or speak directly to a whole-of-market, fee-free lovemoney.com broker. Call 0800 804 4045 or email mortgages@lovemoney.com for more help.

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (18)

  • SevenPillars
    Love rating 70
    SevenPillars said

    Shapps is an idiot. His statement that the vast majority of tenants are satisified with the service they receive is based on what? Where is the factual evidence to support this statement? I'll tell you, there isn't any. What we are seeing is the new Government taking a sledgehammer to what is seen as red tape without actually looking into the true benefit or otherwise of all parties concerned.

    To say that the relaionship between landlord and tenant is a balanced one is utter rubbish. Here is just one example. When a prospective tenant views a property to rent what information is available to them about the landlord? The tenant, especially if you go through an Estate Agent will be required to provide several references, work, previous landlord, even personal as well as a credit check (all of which the teanant pays for as part of the "admin costs"). The landlord provides you the tenant with nothing about them. The agent will even tell you that they work for their client - the landlord and not you - the tenant. Considering that a tenant will be paying several hundred pounds every month you don't get much in the way of customer service and you are not even really seen as a customer, just someone to get money off and as much as possible. Every place that I have rented it has been impossible to find out the problems with the property and/or landlord until you have moved in. By then you are committed to paying thousands over time and moving again such a hassel. What would be wrong with a trip advisor style website that gave tenants details of how good or bad the landlord is?

    Anyone who has rented will tell you that for the most part you are on your own whereas the landlords have powerful VI's backing them including Government. The relationship has never been a balanced one and they more often than not will fight tooth and nail against any change that make them more accountable or heavens forbid have to work harder (I know there are some that work hard and are decent to their tenants, but this is not my experience as every Landlord I've rented from has been an idle good for nothing waste of space only interested in the money).

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • zaftigfairy
    Love rating 1
    zaftigfairy said

    The writer of this article clearly hasn't had to deal with an errant landlord or an incompentent estate agent, or had to struggle to obtain redress when something goes wrong with a tenancy. I have no problem with landlords making money. I do have a problem with unregulated estate agents who are often poorly trained in landlord and tenant law, who often treat prospective tenants like gullible cash cows. Some accountabilty for them would do all of us the world of good. An added benefit would be improved relations between landlord and tenant, which are often soured by the incompetent dealings of the intermediary.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Mick James
    Love rating 25
    Mick James said

    The problem with the Rugg Report is that, as its authors admit, it was proceeding without a solid base of evidence and had no idea of the scale of the "problem" of poor management. Therefore it's hard to ascertain whether its suggestions for good practice--some of which I find sensible, some a bit silly--are worth the cost of enforcing or would have the desired effect.

    As it is it looks like the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater, and we're just left with more years of anecdotal complaints about individual landlords and incoherent rants like "LandOfConfusion" above.

    OK no private landlords. Where do all the people who can't afford to buy a house or get on a council/housing association waiting list actually live? Let's have that essay.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Stargazer
    Love rating 11
    Stargazer said

    First - my declaration of interest...I am a private landlord, albeit only on a small scale. Whether increased regulation of landlords would really be of benefit to most tenants is, I believe, debatable - I suspect that the National Landlords' Association's view that it would serve to drive the worst landlords underground is correct.

    I do agree, however, that there are some dreadful agents out there, and this sector could perhaps benefit from more regulation. Given that this idea has now been shelved, at least look for an agent that is an accredited member of a professional body. And a good agent will have taken time to talk to the landlord and will be unwilling to deal with landlords that are likely to be troublesome or that they have had problems with in the past, so using a good agent is more likely to find you a good landlord.

    If you're looking for a TripAdvisor style site for agents, these exist already - try http://www.allagents.co.uk as an example.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • eLJay
    Love rating 77
    eLJay said

    This sector needs regulating before more serious incidents occur. But of course many MP's and Governmaent backers made serious money from these sectors. I'm buying a flat and saving a fortune.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • exportlink88
    Love rating 24
    exportlink88 said

    If you bought a house/flat, you pay mortgage to the bank. If you rent a house/flat, you pay rent to the landlord who pays mortgage to the bank.

    If you slip up on your mortgage, the bank will repossess your property. If you dont pay your rent, the landlord still has to pay the bank.

    BTL is like any biz. It has to have an income to offset its expenditure. If the cost of owning BTL property goes up, guess who is going to end up paying for it ?

    A bank has a team of lawyers to look after their interest. Most BTL landlords are no more than 1 man band trying to save up and invest for their pensions.

    If you know your way around the system, you can actually sign up for a 6 month AST, pay 1 month deposit plus 1 month rent in advance and stay there for the rest of the 6 months without paying any more. A landlord has to wait for 2 month rent arrears before he can give you a Section 8 Notice, wait 2 weeks before he can file a court claim to reposess. He would normally have to wait at least 2 months to get a hearing. If his paperwork is just a typo out of order, his case will be thrown out and he has to start all over again. If he is lucky enough to obtain repossession, he will have to wait a minimum of another 2 weeks. If the tenant refuses to budge, he will have to call in the court bailiff which could be another month or more away.Thats a minimum of 4 - 6 months without rent. Mewnwhile, the tenant doesnt even have to allow him into the place for inspection unless he gets a court order to do so. If the tenant decides to strip the place clean before he moves out, the landlord then has to go to court again to try to redress the situation. He is often faced with throwing good money after bad because he cant find the tenant or the tenant cant pay.

    Is this not legalised theft ? Does anybody know of any other biz where the customer can continue to take your goods or services and not pay for them ?Meanwhile, the landlord still has to find the money to pay his mortgage.

    If he as much as raise his voice to the tenant, that can be constituted as harrassment and the Council Private Tenant Section will come down like a ton of bricks.

    I know of a case which took 1 1/2 years to get rid of the delinquent tenant who stripped the place clean. All the landlord could do was sat there and cried.

    If you have a BTL property, would you not want to know everything about your would be tenant before letting him in ? What does a tenant have to lose ? The time to find another place ? What does a landlord have to lose ? His life time savings and everythig he has ever worked for.

    If there is a balance to be redressed, it isnt for the tenant.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CrazyNige
    Love rating 0
    CrazyNige said

    I am a landlord and would thoroughly endorse the registration and vetting of agents. This would be improved further if it could be linked with housing benefit claims as these currently work well for nobody - tenants are rejected, landlords are left out of pocket if tenant leaves before claim sorted, rents to these tenants are elevated because of the above.  

    I genuinely want to be a good landlord and want to keep my tenants happy as tenant turnover is the biggest problem that I face. I am quite happy taking a lower rent if I know the tenant will stay for a decent duration. I want a reasonable return on my investment but am definitely not a get rich quick landlord. I have been doing this for 20 years and still have a day job.

    Unfortunately, the agent has a different agenda. They make money through churn, they take kickbacks for unnecessary/over-priced maintenance/repairs. They always seek to maximise weekly/monthly rent without any thought on longeivity of the tenancy. Additionally you have estate agents acting as property managers who have no background and actually want to start a relationship with the tenant to get them to buy downstream i.e. the rental property is a means to their ends not the client nor the landlord.

     

    My agent is not particularly good to either me or the tenants.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Grayham
    Love rating 9
    Grayham said

    exportlink88, as a tenant (who pays up all the time and on time), I understand that there is a need to clamp down on bad tennents (as they give all of us a bad), however there is also a need to clamp down on bad landlords (as they give all landlords a bad name).

    The none payment of rent should be able to be put on a tenant's credit rating, so that they will not be able to rent another property (as this should be checked by the landlord/letting agent) and stripping properties should give them a criminal record (although there are insurances that can cover either situation and as insurance companies hate paying out they should put their weight behind the eviction of any stubon tenants).

    Likewise when a landlord does not do works that they are required to (after a resonable period - say 2 months), there should be a way of it showing up somewhere so that new tenants can see that they might be in for problems if they rent from them.

    Also letting agents should also be more accountable, as they often give the impresssion that they are just trying to get as much money out of all parties for as little effort as possible (I don't know how much a landlord pays them for finding a new tennant, but as a tenant starting a new rental agreement it isn't cheap - even ignoring the deposit and the first months rent - and don't get me started on renewal fees!). 

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SevenPillars
    Love rating 70
    SevenPillars said

    exportlink88.

    I think you are totally missing the point about the question of balance. Of course there are bad tenants, some of which can be a nightmare to decent landlords. That problem tenant who can go from property to property without paying rent "if they know the system", how do they get around providing references to get in? After all, most landlords faced with a bad tenant probably wouldn't give them a reference or if they did it would be a bad one. I'm sure this can be fiddled, but these are the exception rather than the norm.

    You are right that landlords should want to know about the tenant before letting them in their property, however, this still does not alter the fact that landlords provide their tenants with no information about them at all. For all the tenant knows, the landlord could be on the verge of bankruptcy and you wouldn't have a clue until the bank came around to repossess. Wouldn't it be interesting if landlords had to provide references from their previous tenants? Never going to happen!

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Savvy chic
    Love rating 20
    Savvy chic said

    I thoroughly agree with the introduction of Regulation for Letting Agents being introduced.

    I, as a landlord, was ripped off shockingly badly by one in Grimsby. It is a scandal that they are free to do this.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Swarbs
    Love rating 273
    Swarbs said

    @SevenPillars, I have actually provided letters of reference from my previous tenants, but that was on my own accord (to show I was a good landlord). The problem with making it mandatory is that most tenants aren't always easy to contact afterwards, and of course it's very easy to invent them. Tenants can probably insist on a credit check, the services that do checks for landlords can do the same for agents. I think most tenants just don't bother, or don't think it will help.

    Ultimately, I agree it would be nice to have a system that did actually work for landlords and tenants, I don't see how any of the proposals in the Rugg Report would actually make any difference:

    - The national register of landlords. Brilliant, another list from which data will be lost, stolen and simply be wrong. And how will it help a tenant? They won't be able to access it under the DPA

    - Regulation of letting and managing agents. This could help, but then has the FOS had any decent impact on bank charges?

    - Compulsory written tenancy agreements. Yes, just what tenants need. An opportunity for their landlord to stick all sorts of dubious terms in a written contract. And what if the tenant doesn't want a written agreement?

    - A new housing hotline offering free help and advice for private

    tenants. This already exists. It's called the Citizen's Advice Bureau.

    - A ‘Trip adviser’ style word-of-mouth website comparing landlords. Oh yes, because all the satisfied tenants will rush to report how happy they are with their landlords. Or not. Most likely, the one dissatisfied, and usually problem tenant who is unhappy that they trashed a place and then lost their deposit, will ruin the reputation of good landlords, whilst bad landlords will just dodge the site completely by giving false data. Also, bad tenants can use the site to blackmail their landlords, much like eBay fraudsters do. This might work, but only if the site allows landlords to rate tenants too and there is a process for dealing with malicious and untrue comments.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MarsdenRattler
    Love rating 0
    MarsdenRattler said

    Well said exportlink88

    I am a landlord and have experienced many of those issues, in spite of being a good landlord who looks after his properties and his tenant.

    The law is definitely in favour of the tenant so I'm afraid with all of my experiences of errant tenants - including clearing up their faeces, I don't have much time for those who slate landlords and say that the law is on the side of landlords thank you very much. The courts in particular are useless, I know from bitter experience that if I have problems in the future I cannot rely on them to help me.

    SevenPillars - I check references on all of my tenants, and I've still had problems. All of my tenants, bar the shysters, have recommended me to their friends and colleagues to the point where I could have rented out three times more properties than I have. Word of mouth gets around.

    Grayham - well said, a balanced response and recommendations that I'd be happy to follow.

    IMHO - Letting Agents do need regulation because, with the notable exception of one, all of the ones I've dealt with have been incompetent at best.

    Hopefully, this government will get rid of the hopeless directed tenant scheme too.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • redtez23
    Love rating 0
    redtez23 said

    This apparently 'good news for landlords' couldn't be worse news for me. Anyone who thinks it is should spare a thought for owners of properties with tenants living above and/or below. I own my flat, and the owner of the flat above mine has recently let his out via a letting agent. The upstairs flat has a major leak in its bathroom which has caused extensive damage to my ceiling and left me without electricity in there for over three weeks as the problem has not yet been fixed. I've been dealing with the letting agent until today, when they've decided that they've breached 'client confidentiality' by talking to me, and informed me I have to now deal with the landlord myself. I have been wondering all through this how the letting agent is regulated and by whom; what are their responsibilities to me; do they care... and am disgusted to learn reading this that they are not regulated and, thanks to Cleggeron, nor are they likely to be. I don't find any of this good news at all.

    Report on 16 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    [OK Mr Mick James, I've cut my "incoherent rant" on BTL'ers and letting agents down to size (no essay!) just for you]

    ------

    So they're dropping all of the 'tenant protection' recommendations? Even the ones which seem like common sense? Well I'm sure they're doing it for good and honest reasons and not because some MP's have BTL portfolios.

    Also exportlink88, you make some valid points but to be honest, it works the other way around too. I've heard many stories of tenants being badly treated, threatened with immediate eviction or simply told that the repairs are not the responsibility of the landlord. If we are to have amatuer (and let's not forget this fact) landlords playing with people's lives then we need to have stringent regulations to prevent this kind of abuse.

    And as for lettings agents...

    Report on 17 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • SiGl26
    Love rating 26
    SiGl26 said

    My declaration of interest; I am also a small-scale private landlord.

    I actually believe Rugg was biased too much in favour of the tenant, but to throw out all its recommendations smacks of a knee-jerk response. I liked the regulation of agents to protect both parties, I liked the requirment for a mandatory written agreement (though you'd have to be an idiot to be either landlord or tenant without a written tenancy agreement)

    I felt Rugg and the current administration have missed an opportunity to standardise the HMO regulations, with a common set of licence and planning consent requirements and fees.

    What's also needed is a fast-track eviction process that actually gives landlords proper possession of their property when a tenant defaults; exportlink88 is correct that it can take a full six-month tenancy to get possession after the required two-month default.  

    Report on 17 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ticktock
    Love rating 34
    ticktock said

    Landlords and Tenants need each other. Landlords BTL by choice, Tenants may not have any choice.

    What about the neighbours? The house next door to us is let. They have parties weekly till 3am. They block the pavement with cars every weekend AND, the landlord lives miles away and MIGHT visit once a year, so who cares? certainly not him.

    So, my question is; Do landlords care about others, or are they just in it for the money? I guess the answer is money and to hell with the rest.

    Report on 17 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • anniesdad
    Love rating 2
    anniesdad said

    If you want a reference for your Landlord just ask. I think the reason that they are not readily available is because no-one ever asks for them. Just like the Energy Performance Certificate. If no-one asks for it I don't supply it. If someone asked me for a reference on me as a Landlord then I'll give them half a dozen phone numbers - it's no extra work for me so I don't care. 

    Sevenpillars - what was the response of Landlords when you asked them for references? And presuming they refused to provide references why did you move in? And why were you then suprised that they turned out to be a useless Landlord?

    Like everything it comes down to supply and demand. Rubbish landlords letting low quality property are cheaper, good landlords supplying references and providing a quality service are more expensive. You gets what you pay for.

    And before you say it is the market ie Tenants that determine the rent level, not greedy Landlords.

    Report on 18 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • richmoll
    Love rating 26
    richmoll said

    Some of the rants above are missing the point. They seem to be about people behaving badly. Being able to have a remedy for bad neighbours is not really a landlord and tenant issue. You can have bad neighbours who are owner occupiers.

    Tenants are consumers and deserve the same level of protection that we all enjoy in other areas of consumer law. So for instance it should be mandatory that all tenancies should be required to use a written agreement that cover certain prescribed areas. 

    I also find it unnacceptable that we allow agents to charge both landlord and tenants for their services. You can't be an agent ie act on behalf of, both sides to a deal.

    Report on 19 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (2.98% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.9% to 2.98% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (2.47% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee reduced from 3.5% to 2.47% (T&Cs apply)

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3