Campaigns Finance and Taxation Reform

Landlords could be offered financial incentives for longer tenancies

Sally Walmsley
Written by Sally Walmsley

Financial incentives could be offered to landlords willing to offer long term tenancies, under plans revealed by the Government today.

In a consultation launched today  the Government is proposing a number of options to bring in a three year tenancy model.

It is bringing forward the plans in response to the demand for longer tenancies from the growing numbers of families and older people in the PRS.

The RLA has been calling for the introduction of financial incentives for longer tenancies – with the Government agreeing it “could be quicker to implement” then mandatory three year agreements.

The report cites RLA research on the issue extensively, including that 63 per cent of landlords have said that tax relief would encourage them to offer a longer tenancy.

David Smith, Policy Director for the Residential Landlords Association, said financial incentives would be welcomed, while warning against the dangers of introducing minimum three year tenancies as standard.

He said: “With landlords having faced a barrage of tax increases we believe that smart taxation, such as that being proposed today, would provide the longer term homes to rent many families and older people want.

“We would warn against making it a statutory requirement to introduce three year tenancies.

“Many tenants simply do not want to be tied to a property long term. It is vital that the market is able to provide the flexibility that many need in order to swiftly access new work and educational opportunities.”

To read the consultation document in full click here.

About the author

Sally Walmsley

Sally Walmsley

Sally Walmsley is the Communications Manager for the RLA and Editor of RPI magazine. With 16 years’ experience writing for regional and national newspapers and magazines she is responsible for producing articles for our Campaigns and News Centre, the weekly E-News newsletter and editorial content for our media partners.

She issues press releases promoting the work of the RLA and its policies and campaigns to the regional and national media and works alongside the marketing team on the association’s social media channels to build support for the RLA and its work.

7 Comments

  • It is not financial incentives that are the primary objective though any relief from the penal changes in recent years would be welcome. The biggest concern is the ability to recover the property in a timely manner for breaches of contract such as non payment of rent. The claim that section 21 for example allows 2 month removal of tenants for non fault may sit well with the bbc and others but the truth is very different. I recently had a tenant who was receiving housing benefit but deciding it was better to keep that and not pay any rent. The section 21 was served as soon as possible and by the time the courts had found a slot for us and the bailiffs had turned up to evict the tenants (the council having told them to sit there until the bailiffs arrived despite the court under the law of the land telling them they must leave) 7 months of non payment of rent, solicitor and court costs had passed. Needless to say none of this will ever be recovered. Give landlords some surety that they can recover their properties in a timely manner for events such as this and you may find more sympathy to longer leases.

  • The government should protect landlords from non paying tenants, what are the implications of someone having a three year tenancy and not paying, it should be made possible to evict these sort of tenants much more quickly and efficiently in return for a longer tenancy, resorting to long drawn out court hearings should be quashed instead an expedited eviction should be availavble in return for such non paying tenants.

  • I have had tenants in for longer than three years and been lucky they pay on time. However I have also in the past had one awful tenant who I had removed which took time and thus caused a lot of stress. I get tired of this government sticking its nose into every petty little thing they can dream up and continually looking at ways to punish landlords. They should look at all the council properties that have been left to rot and do something about that. Tax relief might be welcome by some but not those like me who own properties out right. Landlords should not be ordered to give three year tendencies and I’m sure a good solicitor would agree.

  • Completely agree with Simon Parkins and PD Green above. Any good tenant will be able to continue renting the annexe to my house for as many years as they want on a 6-month rolling AST, and they know this, as I tell them before they sign anything. I imagine the same applies to most other tenancies – landlords tend to want to hang on to good tenants for as long as possible – it’s only the bad ones they want out asap! So if tenants want permanence, all they have to do is be good tenants (barring unforeseen change of circumstance of course).

    In my case, my tenant lives next door (2 halves of a semi, in effect) and we share the heating system, some outside space such as car parking area and garden etc. Therefore if I were forced to stick to minimum 3-year tenancies from the outset, I’d simply eliminate the risk of being stuck with a bad tenant for that length of time, by no longer offering long-term tenancies and going for the short-term holiday market instead (luckily I live in a beautiful part of Yorkshire). I imagine I wouldn’t be alone in following such a strategy, in which case the Govt. enforcing a 3-year minimum tenancy would be very counter-productive indeed.

    • TO: G R Turk

      I thought if you were renting out part of your own home (whether sharing kitchen, bathroom or not or as a separated annexe) you didn’t need an AST agreement in place.

      https://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/documents/tenancy_agreement/non_assured_tenancy_agreement.shtml

      quote:

      NON ASSURED TENANCY AGREEMENT

      When should this tenancy agreement be used?

      This is for use in three situations:-

      You are resident as landlord but do not share living accommodation with the tenant. This means that you must not share toilet, bathroom, kitchen or a living room with the tenant. However, your residence elsewhere in the same property must be your only or main home and not your second home.
      unquote:

      • Interesting, G. Hunjan, thanks, and yes the main house is my only home. However, the annexe is classified as a separate property by the Local Authority, pays its own Council Tax, and is also classified as a separate property by Ofgem – I get the Renewable Heat Index payments for having a Biomass (wood pellets) boiler serving two properties. I might well not have chosen that path if I’d known this latest proposal stood a chance of becoming law, but sadly, none of us can see the future!

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.