To think we should ban private renting?

But profiting from people's need for food, clothing and transport is ok? Or are we nationalising supermarkets, the High St and car manufacturers as well?

LL’s are drowning in regulations, that’s why many are selling up.
Tenants on the other hand can trash your home and not pay rent, it takes almost a year to evict them and they then get given free storage for their furniture whilst the LL gets a huge bill.

I don’t think banning private renting solves the actual problem. It just creates a different one.
There will always be people who need or want to rent, whether that’s students, people relocating for work, those saving for a deposit, people going through a divorce, or people who simply don’t want to buy. If private renting disappeared, where exactly would all those people live?

I also don’t really understand the argument that people shouldn’t own more than one property. If someone has worked hard, paid tax, has the money to invest and chooses to buy property, why shouldn’t they? People talk about the cost of living crisis, but investments are also how many people try to provide for themselves in retirement instead of relying entirely on the state. Property is one way of doing that.

On top of that, plenty of pension funds invest in property. Those investments are there to generate returns so people have an income when they retire. Property investment isn’t just about individual landlords.

The biggest issue is that we simply haven’t built enough homes for years. We need more housing full stop, including more genuinely affordable and social housing. But social housing should be there for those who genuinely need it, not something everyone is automatically entitled to. There are also parts of the country where there is very little council housing available, and the fact people can remain in a council house for life, regardless of whether their circumstances change, or in some cases buy it at a discount, raises questions about whether the system is always helping those in the greatest need.

Bad landlords should absolutely be dealt with, and tenants deserve decent standards and protections. But banning private renting without replacing the housing stock first would just reduce supply even further and make an already difficult situation worse.

I have often thought this for those that NEED to rent. It would prevent the two tier rents and presumably create a better record of people that abuse housing.

But want if I just want to rent? Say I’m between houses and just need to plug the gap before I’ve found my next one. I would want quite a nice house tbh which I doubt the council would have on the books. I also don’t think I’d be top of the pile.

This in droves.

As I said Op be careful what you wish for.

Councils:

a. Can’t afford to renumerate current owners
b. Can’t manage the tenants they have
c. Can’t manage the properties (rent, repairs etc) that they currently have.

They buy very cheap ones. We recently sold our flat in zone 1 in London, HA’s are not buying or rent guaranteeing properties in that price range.

It would make the industry huge. MASSIVE

So massive that it would be privatised in part or all. So then you'd be renting from private equity firms. Profit profit profit

Good luck with that. If you want a preview you could see what PEs have done with vet firms for a start (they own pretty much all of them now)

And deal with/ evict the problem tenants that live in them. I rented privately until I bought precisely because I didn't want you live anywhere near social housing

Most of those post war houses were only built to last 50-60 years, though (even though there's still a lot of them around!)

@honeyrosesandwich be careful what you wish for.
THE PRS is shrinking and private landlords are currently selling up in droves. My dh along with his db and dbil are currently offloading a lot of their portfolio. No-one’s being evicted their being sold as tenants move out.

Let’s be realistic here. The council and HA do not have enough properties so Blackrock, Legal and General and Lloyds Bank are aggressively expanding into the private and social sector housing.

Here’s an example of what they’re offering:

https://www.lloydsliving.co.uk/developments/abbey-fields/

I wonder why there are no prices!

So basically you’re swapping your private landlord for a corporate landlord who will be acting as your social landlord. as that will be the reality. I wonder how empathic they’ll be when you’ve broken your arm and can so can only pay half rent for a few months and pay the remainder in £50 a month instalments over the next year.

Btw I have no intentions of selling my portfolio as I mine are for my children.

However I can be persuaded to sell them all if I can be guaranteed a 3 bed house in Hampstead for £600 a month as per @Zov’s suggestion, once they’ve bought it back from the landlord for the original 1970s price of £50k, of course.

Lots of people own homes and don't live in them. Some are dilapidated but few.

Councils/HAs can’t afford to buy all these houses.

You can ban private rentals, sure, but the homelessness numbers will go through the roof.

Far better to devise some sort of rule enforcement on the behaviour of landlords and tenants.

Capitalism has its issues, but I don't think communism is the answer. Your proposal leaves renters with no choice, and no freedom, and it leaves landlords out of work (which means less tax coming in, which makes it even more impossible to finance)

The ideal system would have adequate council housing for those who need it, with the option of private rentals for those who want it.

It feels similar to the private school argument - if the government really wanted to get rid of private schools, all they'd have to do is make the state schools better.

Do you know why? In my area it is the same 3 greedy families that hoover up everything then sit on it til it falls apart. Laws need to be made against this and enforced.

I rented privately and I loved it. I paid a premium to have a modern flat in a good area. Not everyone who rents is struggling or wants to live in HA or LA housing.

I posted upthread almost 1 in 3 families used to live in council homes in the past. Why was it ok for previous generations to live off the state?

You forgot the most important factor! Private landlords pay TONS in taxes. Companies pay much less in taxes than individual landlords who are also working.

Like everything, it always sounds good when it means less cost to the beneficiary, but totally unrealistic when there isn't enough coming in the pot.

I supposed you could consider a system that mean lower rent but also a reduction in benefits, but then, is it really beneficial?

It’s not reliant on the state, it’s providing basics needed to allow families to live and progress rather than (as many do now) exist and struggle, due in no small part to eternal high housing costs.

It’s happened before. After World War I when homes for heroes did not materialise, massive house building took place after World War II as the people were in no mood to be again fobbed off or shortchanged. Governments don’t often give without agitation but with enough support it could happen. For too long too many have suffered insecurity of tenure and high housing costs, it’s unearned income for landlords, many have done extremely well yet mass private rentals have harmed more than have benefited. Housing, energy, water. These should be nationalised, state funded en masse imho.

On the contrary, I think we should ban social housing!

Yes @RedRock41 our economy would be much healthier if people didn’t have so much income tied up in housing costs.

Yes great idea - let’s all become reliant on the State! Race to the bottom and all that 🙄

I agree with you OP. Profiting from someone’s need for housing is not good economics. Increases inequality and widens social mobility too. It’s no coincidence that your model in 1950s and 60s led to better quality of life for many. Plus if implemented families like your brother would have £500+ a month to spend in the wider economy to support jobs and growth. Thatcher to blame. If she replaced the stock she sold, right to buy could’ve been a great policy. As is, many more have suffered vs gained.

Given that most rented properties in the UK are privately owned, this would require an absolutely massive investment by the state, as more than double their current housing would be required. Extremely unlikely to happen.