I have published another in my series on things that Labour could do to make life better at almost no cost to the government this morning. In it, I argue that the Tories said they would end no-fault evictions from private-sector accommodation but failed to deliver. Labour could deliver this reform now, and end this threat hanging over millions of people. They have said they will, but will they do it properly?
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
Labour has the power to change the well-being of millions of people in the UK now that it is in government. It says that its power to change things is restricted by the amount of money that it has available to it. We can argue about that elsewhere. What I know is that very large numbers of changes in the law will cost it little or nothing at all.
And one thing that will most certainly not cost it anything of any consequence is to change the law on no fault evictions from private rented accommodation in the UK.
Now, there are separate rules on this in Scotland, and to some extent in Wales, but the principles set in England always influence behaviour everywhere, and it is important that Labour now makes it clear that it will go where the last Conservative government would not, and that is, it should end the principle of no-fault evictions from private rented accommodation.
Now, I'm not saying that there should never be an occasion when a landlord should not be able to remove a tenant from a property. Quite clearly, there will be occasions when there is fault by a tenant. For example, persistent non-payment of rent has to be a reason why, eventually, a landlord can reclaim a property.
And there must be a reason why a landlord should be able to reclaim a property. For example, in the event of the death of that landlord or some other family occurrence, which requires their circumstances to change and the property to be sold. But, with those protections being noted, there should be protections for the tenant as well.
Far too many no-fault evictions have been put in place simply for the benefit of the landlord who wants to up the rent unreasonably and get rid of current tenants to bring in new ones at a higher rate. That is not reasonable. It should not be allowed.
In that case, Labour has to deliver what the Tories didn't. We have to see an end to the curse of no-fault evictions, which has seen far too many people - far too many young families and far too many children - turfed out of their homes by landlords who don't care, who are only driven by the pursuit of profit, and whose lives as tenants have been blighted as a consequence.
Come on Labour, you can do this. Get on with it and do it as soon as possible. The people in this country expect it of you.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Agree.
May I add that in the remaining permitted ‘no fault’ evictions, eg sale of property, landlord wants to move in etc there should be an amount payable by the landlord to the tenant for the privilege, intended to cover the cost of moving.
I would suggest that three months rent would be a reasonable figure.
That seems entirely fair.
What if the tenant still can’t find a new property through no fault of their own?
I think there has to, ultimately, some right to recover a property or there wil” be no tenancies offered
Of course, the answer is social housing
Presumably there would always be circumstances in which properties could be repossessed, however I would say that under normal circumstances that should only be possible if the tenant is at fault. In unusual circumstances the tenant should be compensated. I would have thought a landlord could take out insurance against that happening.
With due notice and process and exceptional circumstances (like death) recovery has to be possible if there is to be a private rental sector. Can we be realistic? No one would rent other wise and we would have a housing crisis.
Of course, social housing is the answer but gain the transition has to be worked on, and not be thrown together. I want reform – but not an imbalance that creates chaos
I would go a bit further than you. I would say that, normally, if and when a property is sold, any tenancy rights should remain in place. There might be exceptions to this, for instance when a property is subject to a compulsory purchase order, but, even in such a case, the tenant should be compensated for the loss of tenancy rights.
I admit I am not convinced by that.
The supply of tenancies would dramatically dry up.
It used to be very common to see properties sold wicyndyth ‘sitting tenant’. The new owner became the new landlord. Why has that ended?
The law on tenancy changed
Maybe the law should change back to what it was
We also have to see Labour end commercial banks blowing an inflationary house price bubble by imposing credit restrictions on mortgage loans which has been going on for over five decades now. This has to be accompanied by a huge increase in affordable homes together with a big greening of existing ones. Again they need to try thinking out of the box instead of behaving like brain-dead Tories!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/15/electric-vehicles-bidirectional-charging-national-grid
It would do a lot for mental health, relieving stress for adults, and children who might have to change schools if evicted and re-located.
Agreed