Current minister for the homeless

[ChevronB19]

Kicked out tenants, then increased rent by £700 pcm.

Not exactly good optics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czerl5dy0kgo

[Mrr T]

ChevronB19 said:

Kicked out tenants, then increased rent by £700 pcm.

Not exactly good optics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czerl5dy0kgo

Once again even reading the article that's not what she said happened.

Gave notice to tenants as she wanted to sell. They could have stayed on a monthly basis but choose not to. A good idea to sell with Labour coming to power. Put on market but did not well so rented out again.

[Rufus Stone]

ChevronB19 said:

Kicked out tenants, then increased rent by £700 pcm.

Not exactly good optics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czerl5dy0kgo

Are the former tenants now homeless?

[pavarotti1980]

ChevronB19 said:

Kicked out tenants, then increased rent by £700 pcm.

Not exactly good optics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czerl5dy0kgo

Summary for those unable or unwilling to read article.

Tenants given 4 months notice of non-renewal of fixed term contract as owner wished to sell property

Offered them the chance to be on a rolling contract after end of fixed term while on the market

Tenants reject offer and leave at the end of fixed term contract

Property does not sell

Property relisted for rent at increased rate

[Mandat]

ChevronB19 said:

Kicked out tenants, then increased rent by £700 pcm.

Not exactly good optics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czerl5dy0kgo

As much as I am not a fan Labour at the moment, this story seems to be a non-story, apart from the poor optics that are going to be exploited for political purposes.

As others have already pointed out, the actual facts of the story are not really newsworthy, unless misrepresented in the way it has been to make it seem like outrageous behaviour.

[Gareth79]

pavarotti1980 said:

Property does not sell

Property relisted for rent at increased rate

Apparently it was listed within weeks of them moving out. This would be prohibited under the government's Renters Rights Bill currently moving through parliament, even if relisted at the same rent. If a tenancy is ended because the house is going to be sold then the house needs to have been listed at a "far price" for at least six months, and have not had any "suitable offers".

Edited by Gareth79 on Thursday 7th August 11:45

[TwigtheWonderkid]

And apparently the head of the govt's Low Pay Unit is on £150K/year.

[Mandat]

Gareth79 said:

Apparently it was listed within weeks of them moving out. This would be prohibited under the government's Renters Rights Bill currently moving through parliament, even if relisted at the same rent.

Doesn't this show the new bill as being flawed in this situation?

The tenants decide to move out and the landlord would not be able to re-let the property.

[rodericb]

Mandat said:

Gareth79 said:

Apparently it was listed within weeks of them moving out. This would be prohibited under the government's Renters Rights Bill currently moving through parliament, even if relisted at the same rent.

Doesn't this show the new bill as being flawed in this situation?

The tenants decide to move out and the landlord would not be able to re-let the property.

If one wants to yeet up the rent then do what she did....... nice little loophole.

The agent managing the property for Ali also tried it on with the tenants for £2,400 for the joint to be repainted and cleaned but the tenants refused to pay, as there was no damage to be repaired.

The minister for homelessness........

[craigjm]

Minister for the homeless whatever next? what happened to the days of real politics when to be a minister you had to be heading up a ministry. Has there been a ministry of homeless created? we need to get rid of these bullst cabinet positions.

Also, non-story. People who are renting gets months notice of the requirement to leave as per contract, wow must be a slow day.

[sugerbear]

rodericb said:

Mandat said:

Gareth79 said:

Apparently it was listed within weeks of them moving out. This would be prohibited under the government's Renters Rights Bill currently moving through parliament, even if relisted at the same rent.

Doesn't this show the new bill as being flawed in this situation?

The tenants decide to move out and the landlord would not be able to re-let the property.

If one wants to yeet up the rent then do what she did....... nice little loophole.

The agent managing the property for Ali also tried it on with the tenants for £2,400 for the joint to be repainted and cleaned but the tenants refused to pay, as there was no damage to be repaired.

The minister for homelessness........

The people renting her home were hardly sleeping in a cardboard box under a bridge were they?, the tenants where renting a place for £3300 per month. given that kind of income they would have absoluetly no problem renting a house in most parts of the country and could easily afford a mortgage in most parts ot the country.

Amazed that anyone can get frothy over this story. Is it a slow news day or something?

[BikeBikeBIke]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

And apparently the head of the govt's Low Pay Unit is on £150K/year.

£150k in central London for that job *is* low pay.

[Tom8]

Mandat said:

ChevronB19 said:

Kicked out tenants, then increased rent by £700 pcm.

Not exactly good optics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czerl5dy0kgo

As much as I am not a fan Labour at the moment, this story seems to be a non-story, apart from the poor optics that are going to be exploited for political purposes.

As others have already pointed out, the actual facts of the story are not really newsworthy, unless misrepresented in the way it has been to make it seem like outrageous behaviour.

Perhaps when she rents it out at even more to the government for some illegal aliens then it will become a bigger story.

[fat80b]

sugerbear said:

The people renting her home were hardly sleeping in a cardboard box under a bridge were they?, the tenants where renting a place for £3300 per month. given that kind of income they would have absoluetly no problem renting a house in most parts of the country and could easily afford a mortgage in most parts ot the country.

Amazed that anyone can get frothy over this story. Is it a slow news day or something?

The potential "homelessness" aspect is missing the point though - it's not that that the renters ejected are going to end up on the street - And I'd argue the cost of the rent is also not significant in the newsworthiness of the story either (unless it's the Daily Mail!)

However, what we do have is another "do as I say and not as I do" story which does matter - For a government minister in her position (and as part of a government that is seeking to bring in the renters rights / legislation that outlaws exactly this type of landlord behaviour), this whiffs an awful lot does it not!?

It's in the same category as our Tulip being investigated for corruption whilst being the anti corruption minister!

[98elise]

rodericb said:

Mandat said:

Gareth79 said:

Apparently it was listed within weeks of them moving out. This would be prohibited under the government's Renters Rights Bill currently moving through parliament, even if relisted at the same rent.

Doesn't this show the new bill as being flawed in this situation?

The tenants decide to move out and the landlord would not be able to re-let the property.

If one wants to yeet up the rent then do what she did....... nice little loophole.

The agent managing the property for Ali also tried it on with the tenants for £2,400 for the joint to be repainted and cleaned but the tenants refused to pay, as there was no damage to be repaired.

The minister for homelessness........

Can you explain the loophole?

If you want to up the rent then thats what you do. There is no need to move the current tenants out. In fact you'll lose money because you've just created a void between tenants. Its a 900k home so 4k a month sounds about right for an average BTL.

Its a complete non story, and I'm no a Labour supporter.

[98elise]

Mandat said:

Gareth79 said:

Apparently it was listed within weeks of them moving out. This would be prohibited under the government's Renters Rights Bill currently moving through parliament, even if relisted at the same rent.

Doesn't this show the new bill as being flawed in this situation?

The tenants decide to move out and the landlord would not be able to re-let the property.

Agreed. They could have stayed on a rolling contract but opted to leave.

The new legislation is flawed, not the MP for abiding by the existing legislation.

[alscar]

Perhaps one day an MP might just think through any possible ramifications or media interest on a topic that they could conceivably be linked to in a negative way.
But that would involve a modicum of common sense and / or use of a brain.

[ChocolateFrog]

Mandat said:

ChevronB19 said:

Kicked out tenants, then increased rent by £700 pcm.

Not exactly good optics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czerl5dy0kgo

As much as I am not a fan Labour at the moment, this story seems to be a non-story, apart from the poor optics that are going to be exploited for political purposes.

As others have already pointed out, the actual facts of the story are not really newsworthy, unless misrepresented in the way it has been to make it seem like outrageous behaviour.

Agreed. It must have been cheap before if the +£700 is the market rate.

Which doesn't seem to be mentioned.

[Gareth79]

Mandat said:

Gareth79 said:

Apparently it was listed within weeks of them moving out. This would be prohibited under the government's Renters Rights Bill currently moving through parliament, even if relisted at the same rent.

Doesn't this show the new bill as being flawed in this situation?

The tenants decide to move out and the landlord would not be able to re-let the property.

Under the new bill the tenants would have to be served with notice to leave under the grounds that the property is being sold, you wouldn't be able to just say "your tenancy isn't being renewed". Possibly landlords might be able to get some people to voluntarily surrender the tenancy by just telling people the house is being sold and they'll "have to move out" or something, but that might end up being a constructive breach of the law, and from what I recall the penalties of breaching the new law are like those for HMOs - you have to pay back up to a year's rent.

[98elise]

Gareth79 said:

Mandat said:

Gareth79 said:

Apparently it was listed within weeks of them moving out. This would be prohibited under the government's Renters Rights Bill currently moving through parliament, even if relisted at the same rent.

Doesn't this show the new bill as being flawed in this situation?

The tenants decide to move out and the landlord would not be able to re-let the property.

Under the new bill the tenants would have to be served with notice to leave under the grounds that the property is being sold, you wouldn't be able to just say "your tenancy isn't being renewed". Possibly landlords might be able to get some people to voluntarily surrender the tenancy by just telling people the house is being sold and they'll "have to move out" or something, but that might end up being a constructive breach of the law, and from what I recall the penalties of breaching the new law are like those for HMOs - you have to pay back up to a year's rent.

How can you serve notice to leave, yet have to get tenants to volunteer to leave?

Selling a property will be a legitimate reason for ending a tenancy, as well wanting to move back in yourself.

In this case their fixed term had ended and they were offered a rolling contract. The tenants opted to leave of their own accord when they knew it was going to be sold.

If the new law was in place they would have already been in a rolling contract, and same thing would have happened.

The main difference is that it couldn't be re-let for 12 months if the sale fell through, meaning it would become another empty property!

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 7th August 19:38