I was amused by Oliver Shah's assessment of the cross-party misconception as to landlords who have upwards only rent review ("UORR") clauses - it made me think of the casino scene in GoldenEye, where Bond meets the villainous Xenia Onatopp. 

Shah has written a brief editorial about a proposed ban on UORR that has been slipped into draft English devolution legislation. This has left the property industry somewhat scrabbling: as the BPF has noted, this has happened "without any prior notice or engagement with the industry".

The Government's Impact Assessment is unambiguous as to its intentions: "There is one objective for this intervention: All new commercial leases in England and Wales should have provision for rent reviews to be both upwards and downwards."

There are some bold/overly-simplistic views expressed in that Impact Assessment. For example, while it is an inherent consequence of UORR clauses that rents do "not adjust to the prevailing market conditions", the assessment goes on to say, "By having rents that reflect market conditions, this helps to reduce the likelihood of businesses closing down or cutting investments in adverse situations." Yes, a ban could "help" tenants (though the proposal largely ignores the impact on investors, not least in terms of its impact on valuations and therefore on landlord borrowing); however, as LandSec's Mark Allen (a proponent of a UORR ban) has commented, there are other factors which may have had a greater effect on tenant distress, such as business rates and increase in NI - areas which the Government alone can make changes.

On Tuesday 22 July, the BPF is updating its members, and discussing the Federation's position and planned response. Unlike the Government, the BPF wants to "[h]ear your views and thoughts, and better understand perspectives across sectors". I would encourage BPF members to express their positions, so that Parliament makes a decision based on evidence, rather than on a clichéd and inaccurate caricature of how evil landlords are.