How are people planning to mitigate the loss of security of having guaranteed long term tenants in the RRB? Are we going to be forced to increase rents? Is it even worth it anymore?
Have we ever had “guaranteed long term tenants”?
I’m sure everyone’s idea of “long term” will differ. We consider ours long term when they’ve been in the property five years and show no intention of moving. But stuff happens and a tenant you thought was going to give you long term security can either leave or, worse, turn into a long term risk.
In that case, the RRB actually increases risk of the wrong kind of tenants becoming long term by removing section 21.
Why do you feel the RRB reduces your security, and or reduces the liklehood of having long term tenants?
I can only assume you feel that as there will be no minimum term, you suspect tenants will move on quickly. This certainly might be risk in some areas, such as holiday hot-spots etc, but I don’t think it will affect me too much. Its not something that worries me.
Single let properties may have the odd tenant that leaves after a couple of months, but I suspect it will be rare, especially given how difficult it is to secure a tenancy in the first place. The upside of tenants leaving is that it gives the landlord an easy means of reviewing the rent, ie not having to go through the Rent Tribunal nonsense.
Joint tenancies in shared houses are a different matter. If one tenant can end the tenancy for everyone at a moments notice, no tenant in shared properties will have any real security and the landlords will have increased void costs. This scenario may be much more common as relationships break down between tenants. The worst affected will probably be student landlords who would probably then have no option to re-let to students until the next academic year.
1 Like