Jamie Ratcliff (on Twitter), links to the BBC article about changes to Section 21 (i.e. reinstating the original pre-1996 position):
The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) said its survey of 6,400 landlords suggested that 84% of its members would be more selective, picking tenants on higher incomes and leaving those earning less to fight over fewer properties. Landlords could even decide to let fewer homes to tenants with pets, as they would be considered as carrying a higher risk of causing damage.
and points out the obvious flaw in their logic:
It's interesting that landlords groups seem to think there are unlimited numbers of dual-income households ready to take the place of low income tenants (& tenants with pets).
I suppose this is the flip side to the Disappearing Homes Conundrum. Common sense tells us that landlords will always prefer higher income tenants to lower income tenants, whatever the rules are. Lower income tenants have always been at the back of the queue. Do they seriously expect us to believe that so far they have been turning away higher income tenants?
Debate Magazine
