Member

Turning to the argument that this is Section 21 by the backdoor, while I respect that concern it is misplaced. This is the bogeyman that has been used to reject practically every amendment proposed to this Bill and, in the case of this amendment, it is wholly false. The Bill clearly sets out the four grounds on which a landlord can require a tenant to vacate a property. Any landlord abusing these—for example, by failing to produce evidence that a genuine sale has been tried and failed—will be acting illegally, full stop, whether that is for 12 months or six. Under this amendment, even if acting legally, landlords still face a punitive period of six months with no income. To heap, by the 12-month ban, yet further punishment on every landlord who fails to sell, even if a sale falling through is not their fault, is excessive, even gratuitous. It is to move the Bill from rebalancing renters’ rights to inflicting a kind of renters’ revenge. Instead of seeking to strike a balance or a compromise, it is wilfully irrational and punitive of all landlords, seemingly just because they are landlords.