Alan Shields, the landlord in question, opened up to The Telegraph about the “reluctant” decision to part ways with his tenant of 18 years, citing concerns over tax reforms and an end to no-fault evictions. Unfortunately for him, the response has been less than sympathetic.
When £261k Profit Isn’t Enough
Shields explained his predicament: the prospect of selling his property—bought for £164,000 and now worth £425,000—came with a hefty capital gains tax bill. At current rates, it stung, but rumours of Labour hiking rates up to 45% pushed him over the edge.
Turns out, Rachel Reeves didn’t actually raise capital gains tax rates on rental properties, but by then, the damage was done. Shields had already decided being a landlord was more hassle than it was worth.
“Good Rent Payer, Bad Gardener”
The now-former tenant, a 90-year-old man who had always paid his rent on time, was also, according to Shields, not great at house upkeep. “He was very understanding,” Shields said of the eviction, which was issued under Section 21—a law allowing landlords to evict tenants without needing to give a reason.
To soften the blow, Shields and his wife helped the tenant relocate to another home nearby, but that hasn’t stopped people from rolling their eyes at the situation.
Sympathy? Not Much of That Going Around
While Shields insists the decision was “horrible” for him and his wife, critics have been quick to point out that cashing in on a £261,000 property windfall hardly makes him the victim. On social media, reactions have ranged from snarky to outright scathing.
As Labour eyes reforms to housing laws, including scrapping Section 21, it seems landlords like Shields will continue to weigh up their profits against their consciences. But in this case, the court of public opinion has rendered its verdict—and it’s not in his favour.
You may also like: WATCH: Diane Abbott blasts ‘out of touch’ Starmer over Waspi betrayal
