And your saying it should be the other way round
The first prerequiste of any landlord should be to provide affordable and reasonable accommodation (all mod cons). If the landlord cannot provide this, then do not enter the market, or if already in the market, leave the market.
I offered a person a job last week, the one of the issues they had was, crikey LS, If you pay me more this will affect my Hap.... I need to weight this up..
What happened? Did they turn down the job offer? Did you not offer less to try and persuade them otherwise?
Are you suggesting that landlords should be motivated by altruism?
No. Im suggesting that being a landlord requires huge consideration before becoming one.
Oh, we had a fight, I can't live at home anymore....
I do not think that is one of the 'reasonable' factors set out above.
The institutional landlords have the financial resources to take on the Govt through the courts. The individual landlord does not.
This is a good thing that Govt can be tackled through the courts. It offers more of a level playing field. If either party is feeling aggrieved they can take the other party to task. In the end, hopefully, you end up with an acceptable equilibrium of rights and obligations for both landlord and tenant.
If an individual cannot tackle the government in the courts then they perhaps should be minded not to become a landlord.