To think that Landlords have a bad name.

And let me guess the landlords would have to pay for all this extra regulation? But they wouldn't be able to recoup any of that extra money that they have to pay out? Have i got that right?
Because if i have there would be even more landlords selling up and even fewer rental properties available. So where would they sell to? Housing associations? The government?

It should be a job. With extensive regulation.

Safety certificates are the very barest minimum. Of course nobody should rent out a dangerous property, ever.

I’m talking about landlords as a structurally regulated business. Licensing, cash holdings, fit and proper tests, restrictions on sale, rent caps and reviews, indefinite tenancies and so on.

Full time landlord? Is that a job now?
Who says someone who rents their house out isn't a proper landlord? They still need all the safety certificates etc.

No. If you own a house you should live in it, sell it or become a properly regulated full-time LL.

If people (usually women) want bricks and mortar security, go on the deeds, get married or don’t move in elsewhere.

That’s good to hear.

The bigger problem is imbalance. Everyone would condemn a tenant who misbehaved. But LLs regard it as a natural right to end a tenancy as they wish and do with the property as they wish. In the power relationship I’d say both are misconduct. LLs have a moral duty - and they should have a legal obligation - to house a tenant as long as the tenant wishes it.

This is just an example. There are many, many reasons why private LLs should be in the business professionally, under strong regulation and essentially as a solo, permanent trader. It’s not a business suited to ‘dabbling’, ‘for the kids’, ‘nest egg’, ’supplemental income’ or ‘accidental’ 🙄 LLs.

You see it on here all the time....
I own my own house. My partner and i are thinking of living together. Shall we buy a place together? Response..... don't give up your house that you've worked for in case it all goes wrong. Rent your house out and buy with the partner
Are those kind of landlords OK?

I've found on here that it's the tenants that usually get the unfair comments. There's always people saying that tenants don't look after the house properly because they don't own it. I've rented two houses, and my previous one when I left the landlord said it was in better condition when I left than when he rented it to me.

There's good and bad tenants, just as there are landlords. I'm really lucky to have had two lovely landlords.

Well done mumsnet for deleting the personal attacks on landlords that I read. 👏

Wr rented for 12 yrs and our experience was crap. Long term in Essex was OK. The last 4 yrs in London were appalling. We bought before we would have done. We wanted a better deposit but because it was so dire we bought what we could afford with the deposit we already had.

The landlords we had were in it for the money. The corners cut, poor fixtures, bodge jobs, leaks, structural holes (that let in vermin) etc etc means I personally have little respect for landlords and nothing will convince me otherwise.

They are just giving away massive sums of money at this point

They are indeed, Applescruffle, and this from organisations who constantly whine that they're short of it; see also corrupt deals where they're paying exhorbitant amounts to the contractors who "maintain" the remaining stock

Then there's the requirement for buyers to live in the property themselves for 5 years once it's bought before even thinking of letting it out ... if only that was imposed

Build enough council houses for rent and affordable properties to buy, and then see how many people still prefer to rent from a private landlord. There's your answer.

I’m talking about structural regulation, not just gas appliance safety and the like.

I envisage property rental being a proper, ‘in it indefinitely’ business, like all significant businesses. Private LLs should not normally be able to terminate tenancies or sell properties except to tenants or other regulated LLs, for example.

There are problems with the mechanics of RTB but as a policy I don’t have a problem with the principle of it. And I’d extend it. Private renters should have a right to buy.

The people I’m most concerned about are those who want to buy eventually but are kept from doing so by disproportionate rental levels and well-heeled speculators buying up houses as investment, so distorting the sales market.

Social housing provision, in the sense of LA and HA housing, has an important place in the mix. It’s drawing a greater equivalence between profit-making private LLs and non-profits that I think would make the biggest difference.

There are millions renting privately many of whom want to be and should be allowed to be owners.

A massive house building programme is, IMO, pie in the sky for numerous reasons. I do agree, though, that we can build some more and make better use of land and vacant properties - including presently commercial property.

Right to buy is absolutely ridiculous.

The rules at my local council are that if you want to sell your council house after you have bought it, you must offer it back to the council first. 8 times out of 10, they will buy it back from you, and they have to give you market rate for it, even though you bought it at a massively reduced rate.
So they sell you a house for 89k and five years later they buy it back again for £300k. These are exact figures from someone I know by the way
They are just giving away massive sums of money at this point.

Quite, I think right to buy needs to be abolished now and social housing should remain absolutely that.

I know you did, JeysusH, but I was referring to the little heard about it generally rather than on a personal basis - especially about the mismatch between tenants' expectations while on a waiting list and what over 2 million so far have been prepared to do once housed

And multiply that by ten for those who take the discount to buy the house, move in with family elsewhere and then themselves rent out what was once said to be so precious

But it over time has rocketed house prices, supply and demand and all that. If less were buying then the prices would be lower and so those renting would have a better chance of buying. Also at the level most can buy at the houses are snapped up by landlords who fix them up and rent them out so pricing these potential buyers out of the market and therefore have to rent. It's been a spiraling effect over the years. I was able to buy in my area and my mortgage is 550 quid, rent next door is 1300 a month. It's not that people can't buy it's that the system created won't allow it

I did mention 'right to buy' in one of my earlier posts as a contributory factor in the current situation.

Thank you, but my point is, noone, or rather an extremely small number of people who I can't help but think are really bad at economics, are choosing this as an option. It's way more than an actual insurance policy would cost and there's no reliability that your landlord will be a decent one that will actually fulfill their obligations.
People are renting because they have no choice. Not because they are concenred about what to do with their leakey taps.

There should be profit in it, but only from carefully controlled rent levels
And that's the issue as things stands. With taxes added on capital + increase in mortgages, adding to costs of regular maintenance, savings for refurbishment, potential non payment of rent, which sadly is becoming more common, a profit on rent is becoming rarer and rarer, hence so many rental properties having gone for sale.

That's what so many were calling for. They were adamant that with higher supply, costs of property would go down allowing more first time buyers to get on the ladder.

Well not only has this not happened but now, there is a huge shortage of decent rental properties available for the many who still can't get on the ladder but are seeing increase costs of renting.

Talk about backfiring! I don't make any monthly profit on my property, but my goal is to pay it off from my FT job income so that I can then get an income upon retirment. Then of course, there is always the risk that I don't make it until then!

Landlords already are regulated. The government could do more to tackle irresponsible ones.

Let's imagine a thing called 'social housing', decent stock, provided by government, at a reasonable price, where it's needed, with, I dunno, a life-time tenancy
And then let's imagine that was available to those who needed or wanted it

Yes, and then let's imagine selling off that much needed stock, sometimes for a pittance, to folk who once made a lot of noise about the need for it but were only too glad to grab the discounts for themselves

Strange how we hear so little about this, and strange too that - for all their moaning - Labour have done almost nothing to change it

Yes I do know how much rent is and how much properties cost. I’m sorry you have a bad landlord.

Yes!! Exactly this is needed. Have you lobbied your local MP for this? Have they taken action? Hate towards private landlords (like in all walks of life 95% are good ones) is not solving the real problem which is lack of supply.