To think we should ban private renting?

I have always private rented. I would not have a home if not for private renting. I have moved around a lot so HA would not work for my situation. Better to make rents more affordable or easier to buy a house without needing a massive deposit (which is what I don't have). That said, I still wouldn't stay always in one place even if I did own a house, I have connections in another part of the UK and in India and I basically divide my time. Would probably rent it out! Plus I don't meet any criteria for social housing I don't think. So I would be homeless.

As another example, I have a friend who is a homeowner and they went travelling for a year and rented out their house in the meantime. People have different lifestyles and you have to account for that.

Being honest and we rent nice houses, I have had 2 houses that involved these big conglomerates and they were 20 times better than several of the private landlords I’ve had - one who was an ex ‘Tory mayor’ who decided to just let himself in my house when I was a day late paying once as I had forgotten to take a device with me and was away from home that I used to have to key into when doing online transactions and had informed him as such too- I found repairs easier too- thing is there are good and bad landlords, same as tenants, but there are an awful lot of landlords who really shouldn’t be , like the one we had with 4 houses and couldn’t afford to maintain any of them

Pension providers/funds buy entire blocks of flats off plan to rent out as do overseas investors. I know of two blocks in Manchester bought by a Chinese consortium. It's not the nest egg people with one home that live locally, but the untouchable owners on another continent.

Council housing standards are higher than a typical house - there are minimum bedroom sizes, minimum of a C EPC rating, external noise insulation, minimum kitchen and bathroom sizes.

To buy houses on the open market (and new builds) is incredibly difficult because most don’t meet the minimum bedroom sizes for the smallest bedroom. You have to pay the price of a three bed but we have to classify it as a two bed so it isn’t financially viable. Lots of older houses do not meet minimum EPC levels and getting them to that level would be incredibly expensive. The taxpayer is already paying for existing older housing stock to be brought to a C by 2030 at a huge cost for things like external wall insulation, solar panels etc… The cost will never be recouped.

I love the idea of all renting being social housing - I remember pre-Thatcher when there was so much more certainty & affordability. However the differences that would be vital include a massive investment in maintenance, safety & security; this would obviously include removing toxic damp, cladding etc etc.
The capital cost of purchase is incalculable, obviously.
Sadly it’ll never happen.

edited for typo - social horsing may be nice but it isn’t what we’re discussing!

NorthXNorthWest

We don't have enough of the right houses in the right locations for the right people.

Lexibletheflexible

We do, many of them are owned and empty

So I asked if that is true, explain Bristol's housing shortage.

In terms of pensions, just LGPS the government pension scheme owns c.£1.1bn (5,500) residential properties and plans to significantly expand this.

Anyone who works for the government with a pension within LGPS effectively has part of their “nest egg” in buy to let property.

LGPS is focusing on resi property partly to try to improve the supply and quality of rental property.

The other thing you would do if you banned private rental is incentive landlords to convert to commercial use, where it could still be let, taking their property out of the housing market altogether.

Rents increase because of the deep pockets of DWP.

If UC didn’t cover rents, or even part of it, then rents wouldn’t rise so much.

You are so right. Outside a communist country there’s no way the state could run something that massive and chunks would be outsourced.

What does this mean?

There was a long and sincere experiment throughout the 20th century by those who thought “better for the human race” meant the govt providing and organising all major aspects of life, like housing.

It was a human catastrophe in pretty much every country it was tried.

What about my friend who was put in emergency housing which was a room and the owner charged the council something like 659 per week per rooms. She owned 24 house and rented out something like 110 rooms per week to the council

social housng sometimes costs the earth

No, this isn't correct. UC is capped at the local market figure and is often less than landlords are charging, creating a shortfall between the two. It increases with the market, it doesn't drive it.
Also, while UC is a newish benefit, the payment of rent via benefits is at least 4 decades old. Before there was a cap on how much rent benefit would cover, landlords were able to exploit the system scandalously, charging what they liked and fleecing the tax payer.
This has somewhat improved.

Housing Associations or the government don’t have enough money to buy all the homes from people who have second homes.
Sometimes people become landlords because they move and can’t sell their home. They need the rent so they can rent/but another home.
If no one had a second home there would be no holiday rental properties. In another thread, I have explained why hotels don’t work as a holiday for everyone.
I only have one home and being a landlord is my idea of hell but truthfully not everyone deserves a home. People don’t pay their rent, they abuse neighbours and don’t treat a property properly.

I think you are arguing about something I didn't say?

Anyway, to answer your question, the answer would be that it's different because it is not just the owner's investment, but also the renter's home. Don't like that, invest in something else. Loads of investments come with conditions.

Banning it goes a bit far. However increasing the amount of social housing so that it is available for almost all the people that need to rent would fix the problem. Private rents would then need to compete by offering something different as families would always have the option of reasonably priced social housing. Thats basically how it worked until the 80s

All these cheaper rents and home improvements are then backed up by the tax payer!!

Insulation. Double glazing. Wiring. Heating. Loft access to attic conversions. Diy electrics and plumbing. The list is endless.

I worked a temporary contract in Manchester a decade ago. I couldn't a council house there obviously. I wasn't going ro get a mortgage either. So I rented a bedsit. That job was very valuable for my career. Without landlords what would I have done? I think it added worth to society because it allowed me to pursue an opportunity I otherwise wouldn't have been able to take advantage of.

It's a nice idea in theory but in reality there are too many 'what ifs'

When DH and I first moved in together he was in the army. I didn't want to live on base so we always private rented. Members of the armed forces can move every 3 years or so, so private rent suited us perfectly. In your scenario would we be entitled to a social house if a house on base were an option? Many bases are out in the sticks so lots of wives who lived on base struggled with work if they couldn't drive. I wanted to chose where we lived and I wanted minimal disruption to my work.

What about people who want to test a new area before they commit? We did this after my DH left the army. How easy would it be to transfer to a new area? I can see people being stuck in the place they were born and having opportunities limited if they can't afford to buy.

How is the state supposed to afford to buy all the homes that are required by renters? Also, why do you think the state is inherently better?

the problem is though the council don’t own enough housing, that’s why private landlords are used. I worked with one borough yesterday who don’t own any! They all got sold to a company who take care of them all and rent them out! It’s shocking but the money isn’t there. Personally I think the government should build high rise flats that are big 3/4 bedrooms like in Dubai to house people, with a GP at the base. But again where would the money come from?! Where I live most of the social housing have been sold to the residents. Most of the people I know have sold theirs now. That should never be allowed as it’s taken homes away from those in need.

and that’s what social housing is for - why push everyone into social housing to fix one issue?

What other government spending have you asked your "genuine question" about?

I find this comment fascinating- what sort of things mean that the properties don’t meet the decent homes standard?

My DD works in TV and film production and one of her jobs is sourcing and checking short (ish) term lets for cast and crew filming in our area. Sometimes these can be quite elaborate/expensive properties for well known actors.

Would this be banned under your plan too OP? Because those productions bring a massive amount of money to our local economy that goes way beyond the rent payments.

I agree we need more social housing but banning the private rental sector isn't the solution. Now the universal income on the other hand ... But that's another thread entirely.