Tenants with pets are some of my best bet, and many other landlords don’t accept pets, so some people stay longer than usual. The new proposal will allow landlords to request mandatory pet insurance. It is not yet known what it covers, but no animal will damage the property that humans can give.
If I sound optimistic, don’t be fooled. Despite the fact that rent management is off the agenda, it’s the ombudsman that worries me more. The ombudsman is fair, as I understood the concept. But what I’ve read about the role I’ve proposed is that it’s one-sided in favor of the tenant.
The proposal states: “The new ombudsman will allow tenants to seek relief for free if they are dissatisfied with their tenant. This may include landlord behavior, property standards, or repairs within a reasonable period of time. It may include complaints if it is not completed. Mandatory ombudsman membership will allow local councils to take enforcement action against landlords who did not participate in the ombudsman. “
In addition, “The Ombudsman has the authority to properly provide things to tenants, such as apologizing to the landlord, providing information, taking corrective action, and paying compensation of up to £ 25,000.”
Disciplinary and dangerous words come to mind. Buried in small print is the belief that landlords should offer properties where the kitchen and bathroom are “not too old”. There is no mention of whether the service is satisfactory – just the age. In an era of high inflation, if material and labor costs have already increased by 25% over the last two years, exchanging such items when not strictly needed can be costly and time consuming.
The ombudsman’s threat of “you can ask landlords to reimburse tenants whose services and real estate they offer are below standards” is alarming. This is before mentioning tenants who do not take care of the property and who is responsible.
What makes me most uncomfortable is the tone of these suggestions, not the content. The government recognizes that the majority of residents are satisfied with the accommodation, with the approval of the government itself. Therefore, it is unclear why many of the points (many I agree with) underlie the thin veil argument that the landlord must obey.
My exception is this attitude towards the landlord. It feels like the front is being drawn. If you want to remain a landlord in the long run, you should expect more bureaucratic and tax crackdowns.