It is a lot of something
3 Likes
No, cases like this will enocurage LL to sell up which will result in fewer rental properties and higher rental prices.
3 Likes
A lot of BS, to be precise.
2 Likes
I donāt care what legislation exists. I will as always continue to choose tenants that are in full time employment and who pass affordability.
Simples 
1 Like
that is what we should all do . Ask all the simple questions, give nothing away by speech or expression Go on affordability
And it will not be discrimination if the landlord requires a guarantor to guarantee rent payments, since the LA certainly have no intention of putting their necks on the line. If the government is so concerned about HB tenants being given a fair opportunity in respect to tenancies, why donāt they provide a guarantee to the landlords.
I also notice there is no reference to any form of pet bond / insurance in the RRB regarding the ārequirementā to consider pets. So, I assume they intend the landlord takes on even further risk with a pet without any increase in the paltry 5-week bond cap.
It is galling to see the government hell bent on forcing their control on the PRS but without any consideration of balancing the obligations with the tenants themselves or their own social security departments.
I, for one, will never be dictated to by the government as to who lives in my property, until or unless they are prepared to stand as full guarantor for any such risky options.
2 Likes
Exactly so Chris this legislation will make me MORE determined NOT to take on HB tenants
2 Likes
As my mum used to say āthere is more than one way to skin a cat ā
1 Like
The reduction in private landlords should also give us a better selection of prospective tenants, assuming we lose a few more private landlords / competition.
Rents will increase to cover any extra costs, so the new RRB legislation will only hurt the tenants, with one exception, that tenants will only be required to give 2-monthsā notice even after only the first month in occupation to quit, with the removal of fixed / minimum term tenancies. Perhaps we should start charging a āfirst monthsā enhanced rent to reflect all the fees / costs of tenant set up.
I also wonder how the insurance companies will view this, since they currently demand minimum 6-month ASTās.
I must revise my earlier comment, as I watched a video on the new RRB, which stated that landlords will be entitled to demand pet insurance - hallelujahā¦!!
2 Likes
it is a wait and see situation you may be right. At a NRLA meeting one landlord said he was sellings his houses and moving to commercial. i already have some commercial so can understand that it is easier
Unfortunately no insurance will cover resolving the end of tenancy mess iE ruined carpets, smells, ruined garden and scratched doors and door frames (insert more here). They work on a per issue basis and are too restrictive.
I didnāt imagine it would be straight forward, nothing ever is with insurance companies. Still, it would be an improvement on nothing, especially since most tenants deem it simpler to deceive the landlord and donāt even bother with a permission request for a pet, hence you get diddly squat.
1 Like
I nearly moved into commercial years ago, and now wish I had.
As Iām fast approaching 3 score years & 10, maybe Iāll consider selling up myself, as it would be a nightmare for my foreign wife to have to deal with all the bureaucracy and problems of letting from overseas upon my demise.
My agent recently advised me that an invoice I was baulking at for 80 pounds call out charge, in Yorkshire, is now considered normal, plus the doubling of the mortgage rates, and the perpetual legislation changes, perhaps Iāve finally reached the end of my tether.
2 Likes
Mark10 as with any insurance most will have legal cover which you could make a claim against if property has been damaged by a tenants pet.
Iād also like to point out that I have a dog (a cavalier King Charles who canāt even chew a paper bag lol) and he is insured and I firmly believe that any responsible pet owner would have pet insurance! So if you ask a tenant if they have pet insurance and they say no then I wouldnāt waste any more time on them as they are not understanding what having a pet entails.
2 Likes
No insurance will take care of the cleanup of mess the irresponsible tenants with pets leave behind.
I would rather not take the chance given how one sided it is.
3 Likes
Even as a responsible dog owner I totally understand itās not worth the risk especially when the majority of irresponsible dog owners tend to have larger breeds or āstatus dogsā that they very rarely give them the recommended exercise required or have them in living conditions way too small for large breeds like a flat so they get bored and destroy anything and everything they are surrounded by. The law is a joke 
1 Like
I have just read this again and still in utter disbelief of the ignorance, prejudice and irony demonstrated. Itās actually comical, like something from a comedy sketch.
2 Likes
most of the political leaders, heads of goverment departments etc have been to uni but I think they left their brains there with a load of common sense left behind also. Like the idiots in Sheffield who planned to fell 17500 trees and then appologised as a mistake Well educated ? Good common sense? Uni educated?
2 Likes
Is that where they felled many in the middle of the night to avoid being stopped? Turned out they did the wrong ones! Also the assessment figures used were based on totally inaccurate data? (canāt remember specifics).
1 Like
started to fell sound trees, residents protested, they were ignored, some arrested Amey the contractors stood to make a lot of money, correct about the data being wrong ā¦ Give me the run of the mill resident any time Education does not equate with common sense
2 Likes