Our regular weekly roundup of news items that interested us. This weeks items include right to rent issues and some bad news for activists (although welcome for landlords)
Right to Rent changes into force
On 6 April, the changes to the ‘right to rent’ rules came into force.
The Government Guidance document that details the changes can be found here and details of the changes can be found on page 6 & 7.
However, to summarise, the most significant changes are:
- Identity Service Providers (IDSP) can now be used by landlords to check whether a British or Irish national has the right to rent. Note: there are currently no active accredited providers so landlords will have to continue with manual checks.
- Biometric Resident Permits (BRP’s) issued by the home office can no longer validate a right to rent. The tenant will instead either need a share code from the Government immigration App or the original visa documentation.
- The Continuation of the pandemic procedure. This is confirmation that checks by landlords over video and manually checking documents will be a viable process until 30 September 2022. By that point, it is hoped that IDSP’s will be widely accessed.
With these changes noted, it would be advisable for landlords to read the changes from the link above as well as familiarising themselves with the Government guidance page here
Rent Reform Activists ordered to pay £100,000 to Landlord
This week, a case involving Rent Reform Group Acorn against a landlord has resulted in the group paying just under £100,000 in costs and damages after a case over harassment, defamation and breach of data rights.
The case, as reported here all began over a fee of just £300 but exploded into what the landlord’s defence team describe as ‘a campaign of harassment’. The harassment of the landlord included: filming and confronting the landlord at her address, wielding defamatory placards and sending abusive messages over social media.
A spokesman for JMW Solicitors commented:
Clearly, there is a place for legal and legitimate campaigning, but the tenant’s and Acorn’s conduct seriously crossed the line.
They have been ordered to pay the landlord nearly £100,000 and apologise.
In other news relating to Acorn, the group is staging a ‘national day of action’ this weekend to coincide with the launch of their rental reform blueprint. They are organising protests and marches in six cities across England including Newcastle, London and Leeds.
According to its manifesto: Acorn and the Renters Reform Coalition want an end to Section 21, tenancies to run as long as the tenant wishes, a national landlord register, rent controls and other pro-renter changes to the system.
All fair enough, so long as they do not terrorise landlords. Zobia Rafique, the landlord in the harassment case, describes her ordeal here.
Goodlord report shows that rents are up and voids are down
This week, PropTech supplier Goodlord reported in their index that a recent surge in rental price and dropping void periods have continued into the spring of 2022.
The average rent within the UK rose by 4% from £968 to £1,006 per property. The biggest shift was properties in the North West of England, which rose by 6% while there was also noticeable rises in London, West Midlands and the South West. Rent is now at its highest level since August 2021.
Voids also dropped: the average void of a property in March dropped from 18 days to 16 on average.
However, this may be attributed to the rising cost of living and the current energy crisis.
Letting Agents & Landlords warned over increasing charges for all-inclusive HMOs
This week, Housing Minister Eddie Hughes warned letting agents and landlords to only increase charges relating to all-inclusive HMOs what is necessary amidst the increase in higher energy costs.
In a question posed to him, Eddie Hughes warned that:
Where the landlord is responsible for paying the energy supplier and bills the tenant separately to rent, the landlord can only charge for the ‘maximum resale price’ which includes the energy the tenant has used, the tenant’s share of the standing charge, and the VAT owed.
Ofgem guidance states that while landlords and letting agents are entitled to increase the charge to cover the amount undercharged, they may face civil proceedings for the recovery of the overcharge.
Tenants ‘clueless’ over their liabilities, according to PaymentShield
New research shows that many renters are vulnerable to losing money because they areunaware of their liabilities. The survey – whilst relatively small, showed that 46% of renters don’t have a contents insurance policy in place.
This statistic is worrying considering the latest England Housing Survey by the Government revealed that of the letting agents and landlords that did not hand back the full amount of the deposit at the end of the tenancy, around 62% of instances were down to damage to property and its contents.
Paymentshield spokesperson Rana Ali commented on the report by saying:
Our latest research demonstrates that many leaseholders continue to be unaware of the merits of tenants liability insurance and therefore highly exposed to financial loss. Every single renter in the UK should have tenants’ liability as the absolute minimum protection, and we want to encourage an industry-wide effort to echo this message.
Tenant insurance is not particularly expensive so is worth investigating. More information on tenants contents insurance and liability can be found here.
Snippets
- Rental Reforms – activists heap pressure on election candidates
- Agent: Uncertainty around EPC plans confusing the industry
- Paws For Thought – trade bodies survey landlords’ attitude to pets
- Cost of living crisis for landlords and tenants set to worsen
- Women-only rental website expands service to tenants
- How time flies – DPS celebrates 15 years of deposit protection
- Latest Build To Rent scheme is flagship for regional expansion
- 10-fold rise in tenancy fraud triggers new guarantor service
- Government swings behind heat pumps with £30m fund to install 5.5m by 2030
- It’s time to regulate rent-to-rent and kick out the ‘bad eggs’ says NRLA leader
Newsround will be back next week.
“Renters Reform Coalition want an end to Section 21, tenancies to run as long as the tenant wishes, rent controls and other pro-renter changes to the system.
All fair enough”
It’s not fair enough at all. It is economic stupidity that would hit the bottom end of the market hardest.
Its fair enough that they want it. Its not fair for them to terroise landlords.
I don’t necessarily agree that what they want is a good idea!
It was perfectly clear what you meant in context Tessa, notwithstanding HB Welcome’s tiresome sniping.
The Acorn case is extraordinary. I assume that the £100,000 figure which has been widely reported includes Ms Rafique’s legal fees.
Acorn have clearly acted in a way which disgraces them, but the other members of the Renters Reform Coalition including reputable national charities such a Citizens Advice and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation will surely need to consider whether they wish to continue acting in partnership with such a group.
The Ministers comments are nonsense. Landlords don’t have to give a reason for rent increases and even if they did say it was due to general increased costs, no challenge would be successful provided the local market rent wasn’t exceeded.
Other members of the Renters’ Reform Coalition are listed here;
https://rentersreformcoalition.co.uk/whos-involved
Apology and correction by ACORN here on bailii;
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/414.html
“We have agreed to pay libel damages “
I must confess that I am a little intrigued as to how a ‘union’ can so readily find £100,000 to settle the claim made against it. It has only recently (15 Feb 2022) incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. It isn’t a registered Trade Union and so doesn’t publish accounts. Its website solicits memberships and subscriptions and advertises paid positions. FWIW all the currently advertised positions pay around the £18K per year mark. That £100K settlement must surely be equivalent to a great many members’ yearly subscriptions. Not that one can readily see anywhere how many members the union has. Perhaps its public liability insurers may have funded the settlement. If the organisation employs people it ought to carry such insurance, I suppose.
Having now looked again at the case report on BAILII I see that the union Acorn is fully named there as The Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now Limited. And being a limited company they do lodge accounts with Companies House
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09408898/filing-history
However the organisations website now says it is a different company, Acorn the Union Limited
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13916884/filing-history