Exactly.
Also, the smaller landlords tend to offer a wide variety of properties so (present market imbalance and ensuing problems aside) means choice for the renters - and yes, that will mean being able to pay less for a "lower spec" property. The institutional investors will provide stacks of shoeboxes, all mod cons, gyms, stuff like that - but priced to suit, so nothing for anyone but the more affluent sectors.
But certain groups (like Shelter and Generation Rent) are happy to ignore anything that doesn't support their narrative. I can't help thinking that there are two types of people driving them - some completely oblivious to reality, and others who don't care as long as they get to make a good living from it (I can't make my mind up which is more dangerous).
What IS needed is better enforcement of existing rules. We don't actually need an Aswab's Law - providing a mouldy property* was already breaking regulations, there was already means to deal with problems, but no-one has the cash to enforce the regs. So as a result we get a situation of "the rules aren't working, clearly we need more rules". Adding more rules simply ups the burden on good landlords, while the bad ones simply have one more rule to ignore (almost) with impunity.
* Mould is sometimes a property defect (as in Aswab's case), or it can be a lifestyle issue (as in a tenant I had once that sealed up all the vents, turned off the heating to save money, didn't use the extractor when cooking, turned off the bathroom extractor, dried clothes inside on an airer - and then complained to the council about mould
)
Last edited:
