Category: London

business, housing, Law, London, real estate, society

A Landlord who fails to do this could be fined up to Â£7,000

bruceandholly

Once the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 takes effect on the 1st May 2026, private residential landlords in England will have only 1 month to get tenancies correctly documented or face fines of up to £7,000. This means serving existing tenants with a tenant information sheet explaining their new rights under the 2025 Act. These new rights can include lifetime security of tenure, protection against unfair rent increases, the ability to vacate on as little as 2 months prior written notice, and the outlawing of discrimination against tenants who are on welfare or who have children living with them. For landlords who get it wrong, there may be no second chances. Just a financial penalty.

For new tenancies, or those which were previously undocumented, landlords must issue tenants (as well as prospective tenants) with a written statement of terms containing all the information required by the Assured Tenancies (Private Rented Sector) (Written Satement of Terms etc and Information Sheet) (England) Regulations 2026. The content of that written statement of terms must conform exactly to the requirements of the schedule to the 2026 Regulations. That statement can either be standalone or incorporated in a formal tenancy agreement. The Information Sheet to be served on existing tenants must be downloaded as a PDF and must be issued to tenants either as hard copy or by email but exactly in the prescribed format. To help landlords with this, the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has issued guidance published 20th March 2026 titled, ‘The Renters’s Rights Act Information Sheet 2026: The information sheet about the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 that landlords and their agents must give to tenants’.

Whilst there is no prescribed template for the statement of terms, it is important that particular care is taken to include within these statements of terms any legitimate non-fault grounds of possession to which the tenancy may be subject. Landlords who fail to do this may later have difficulty in recovering possession even when they might otherwise have had legitimate grounds to do so.

The MHCLG Guidance includes the following advice:

  • the information sheet does not have to be given to lodgers but must be given to every tenant named on the tenancy agreement
  • the tenant information sheet is only valid when downloaded from the Government website;
  • the information sheet must be given to tenants either by printing a hard copy and posting or hand delivering to tenants or alternatively sending a PDF electronically as an attachment to an email or text message where it is appropriate to do so. However it is not sufficient just to email or text a link to a tenant;
  • the legislation does not require landlords to change or reissue an existing written tenancy agreement;
  • where a tenancy was informally entered into before 1st May 2026 without a written agreement, the landlord must provide a statements of tenancy terms (see above);
  • Social landlords do not need to provide this information sheet.
business, culture, London, society

Post Office Blues

bruceandholly

Earlier this week I took delivery of a letter-scale. It joins my laser printer as well as my scanner; computer monitor; headphones; wired mouse and keyboard. I bought it because I just can’t be bothered to stand in line at our local sub post office behind a long queue of people spilling out of the door and only one person serving. It’s never used to be like that. There were always at least two people behind the counter and the queue moved quickly. Not anymore. And I also read in the news of plans by the post office to close its remaining crown post offices in city centres

I had a letter to post. It was not valuable. It did not require a signature. But it was bulky because it contained a book. So I went to a couple of local sub post offices because I wanted to hand it over the counter and pay the correct postage. In the end, I gave up. So it sat on the shelf for a week whilst I decided what to do with it. Anyway, the scale arrived and I was able to calculate the postage myself and put on the required number of stamps and drop it into the nearest pillar box. Job done.

I had thought about trying the post office’s advertised door-collection service. But I didn’t fancy waiting indoors until the postman arrived. Though maybe I’ll try using it if I have a recorded delivery letter to post.

The long and short of it is that I won’t be going to my local post office anytime soon. In fact, if things carry on as they are, I’m sure that the next official announcement will be the closure of the remaining local sub post offices.

Like everything else in the UK, it’s all gone down the pan. And after the scapegoating Horizon computer scandal, who would want to be a sub postmaster?

business, housing, Law, London, politics, property, real estate, society

Kings Speech 2024 – What it means for conveyancers and other property professionals.

bruceandholly
Photo by SevenStorm JUHASZIMRUS on Pexels.com

King’s Speech 2024 – what it means for conveyancers and other property professionals.

We are not talking about the big-ticket stuff – like House of Lords reform.  Instead, we are focusing on the small-print in the Starmer agenda.  The things which are likely to affect our day-to-day work.  We also mention things which we would have expected to see mentioned in the King’s Speech, on which there has so far been silence.  Here are the things which interest us.

A Planning and Infrastructure Bill

This is exciting.  For too long, the ‘no’ lobby has been in the ascendancy.  And all at a time of housing crisis. Planning has become two politicised.  Planning pre-conditions have become long shopping lists, within a process which has become like treacle.  Even so, the government’s announced proposals for reforming the planning system are modest: with the restoration of house-building targets and the reclassification of some parts of the green belt.  When what is really required is a speeding up of the whole planning process.  Which shouldn’t be problematic for a self-financing public service.  We’re sure many developers would be willing to pay a little bit extra by way of planning-fees, to pay for the additional staff needed to get their applications through the system.  And if it is blocked by local politicians, to get it quickly in front of a government-appointed planning inspector.  Why should that be difficult? 

Leasehold Reform

Some of it we have heard before. Like replacing a leasehold system which has existed for more than 1000 years by a new system of commonhold.  The legislation already exists in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.  But it didn’t work when Tony Blair tried to introduce it more than 20 years ago.  Because nobody wanted it.  So why will it work now?  Despite its imperfections, residential leasehold is the most workable system for selling flats and maisonettes.  So wouldn’t it be better just to make the reforms needed to get the existing residential leasehold system right, instead of trying to force something which nobody wants.  At the moment, we are waiting for the new government to bring into force detailed provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which received royal assent in the last days of the Conservative government.  But it is not just about bringing it into force, because the detail will be in the regulations which, as far as we’re aware, have yet to be published.  So there is some work for the new government to do before that legislation can take effect.  We are also expecting the new government to waste no time in pushing forward with the Renters Reform Bill, which had been tabled by the previous Conservative government but dropped as soon as the general election was called.  It always seemed to us that the last government’s commitment to removing section 21 no-fault evictions was always a little half-hearted, we assume because of the landlord-lobby.  Funny thing about the section 21 evictions process, was that it was not seen as problematic in 1989 when the private-rented sector was opened up, because the residential market was so different, with residential landlords competing with each other for the best tenants, not the other way round, as it is today.  It meant that if, in 1989, you were a reputable tenant who was unlucky enough to be given the section 21 notice of eviction, there would be dozens of other potential landlords bidding to accommodate you.  And remember, that in 1988, most councils still had their social rented stock.

Absences

As well as the reforms which the new government has announced, there are also some things missing, which we would have expected to find within the King’s Speech or other government announcements.  We are surprised that there has been no mention at all of any scaling back of right-to-buy, not even from the crazy discounts introduced by the Cameron government.  What is scandalous is that up to 40% of ex-right-to-buy properties are now in the hands of private landlords, meaning that local authorities are having to rent back ex-right-to-buy properties on their own estates, just to meet their statutory housing needs.  What nonsense is that?  Is our system of housing benefits really so generous that it can afford to throw money at private landlords, because there is no longer any significant affordable rented sector?  No wonder first-time buyers and private renters have been priced out of the housing market.  The other thing, for which there has been no mention, is any revamp of the measures brought in by the Gordon Brown government to bring long-term empty dwellings back into occupational use.  The problem with Brown’s empty dwellings management orders, was that the whole process was too cumbersome to be of any use.  At the last count there were approximately 260,000 empty dwellings in the UK.  What a waste!

Legislative Agenda

We have also taken a few moments to look at the government bills which are currently before Parliament.  Presently, there are only five government bills, most of which we think are uncontroversial.  These include a new Arbitration Bill, building on the existing 1996 legislation, to restore London as the world’s arbitration capital.  Who is going to argue with that?  And there is also the bill to re-nationalise Britain’s railways.  With only four clauses, this bill is astonishingly short for what has become one of the new government’s landmark policies.  It does no more than prohibit a re-letting of existing railway franchises except to a government-owned company.

housing, Law, London, politics, property, society, Uncategorized

Right to Buy Service Charges

bruceandholly

Thousands of people have done well out of Margaret Thatcher’s right to buy, including Labour’s Angela Rayner.  But not everyone has been so lucky.  Amongst the least-lucky are those leaseholders who purchased high-rise flats under right-to-buy and are now facing sky-high service charges.  Amongst those, are the leaseholders in Verulam House in Hammersmith Grove who are facing service charges of between £17,500 and £21,500 for window replacements which they say are not needed.  One of the problems for right-to-buy leaseholders is that although they are the ones picking up the bills, they have little say in the matter because they will always be in a minority.

Although residential leaseholders now have extensive rights to take over the management of their flats, they can only do this by acting collectively.  For example, the statutory ‘right to manage’, introduced by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, can only apply where a majority of qualifying leaseholders are on board with it.  But this is of no help to right-to-buy leaseholders where the majority of flats in a high-rise block are still owned by the local authority and let out as social housing.  The most, to which those right-to-buy leaseholders are entitled, is the right to be consulted over proposed service charges under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.  But even this right to be consulted, is cut down for right-to-buy leaseholders because they do not have the same right to nominate their own contractor as is enjoyed by other private leaseholders.  And even the prices may be higher as councils are constrained in their choice of contractor because of the need to comply with rigid procurement regulations, which means that they cannot shop around for the best deal.