Ed pledges to cap rent rises, extend standard tenancies & scrap fees

But it still leaves the provision of rented homes to the private market. I would have hoped that Labour would have been thinking about building more council houses and flats. Especially as more 1 and 2 person homes are what's needed in social housing stock, apparently. Why would we want to pay rent through our support of the housing benefit system, when the same taxes could be spent on actually building homes for social housing?

It's weird, as individuals we aim to buy our own places and stop renting, but we dont want the government to do the same.

do get facts right before doing the anti-landlord whine.

Where on earth do you get the idea I am anti-landlord. I am looking at a few possible BTLs for myself next week

I am merely commenting on the possible effect that Ed's big idea would have on the property market.

We don't know the detail but already we're getting things said like 'you can only move to terminate the rental if the landlord seeks to sell the property'. That's far more protection that a tenant currently has.

This uncertainty, coupled with more stringent mortgage eligilibty could kill the property market stone dead.

And I do believe we have a housing crisis in this country and I believe it's country-wide. There are just as many vacnat repossessed small terraces up north than there are unaffordable properties down south - probably more.

A young couple I know, both professionals, have had to return to leave rental to return to live with the parents as they simply could not service 800pcm for a house and have any hope of ever getting on the property ladder. That's when you know there is a crisis.

But if your nett population is increasing by 220,000 each year, as ours is, it's hardly surprising that something as scarce as housing is virtually unaffordable.

So are we going to build sufficient to house next year's nett 220,000 and the year after's?

Wet August …we agree on something.

Until we start building more homes annually than the roughly 115,000 average over the last 20-years, whether social or not, this country has to rely on the private rental market to provide to homes to those that cannot, or will not buy, as in the rest of Europe – so to put fear of big government regulating after 2015, when our Mortgage/funding levels could be trending upwards can only discourage the builders, the investors and the agents NOW projecting forward, is politically irresponsible at best.

The cost of renting abuses have to be addressed, but the fundamental facts are that THE PRICE of a home and INTEREST RATE FUNDING cost are key to the viability of private renting, so if big government wants to impose their own formulas on landlords, they will just sell, reducing the stock of properties to rent.

This is what Labour left on supply/demand, and ‘controls’ to discourage the current rental stock isn’t the answer to the current cost of renting.

england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis_landing/the_housing_crisis

I don't see how it will force people to sell their houses tbh. maybe down south it is bad but here most lls own the homes out right and invested for the future not to make a quick profit.
Even without a profit there is no need to sell, its only those who got a buy to let mortgage and I'm not sure that's much of the rental property market, not here anyway.
Most stay long term as they have dc settled in schools and as long as they are good tenants the lls don't want to have to keep finding new tenants.

ps wear and tear allowance is only for furnished properties, not all rentals.

do get facts right before doing the anti-landlord whine.

ah, I see how the Scots do it now - tenants don't pay the agency fees. In England (as someone has said) both sides pay for the same work. So it looks like landlords will end up paying more. That may mean cheaper properties become not worth renting, so will be sold.

quote:' Landlords will only be able to terminate contracts with two months' notice if the tenant falls into arrears, is guilty of anti-social behaviour, or breaches their contract; or if they want to sell the property or use it for their family. Crucially, they will not be able to end tenancies simply to increase the rent.'

seems fair enough, IF the eviction clauses actually work and are robust. There are professional rogue tenants who keep their arrears just below the level to prevent eviction - if this comes in many landlords will want bigger deposits to protect against this.

In my area (nice place, lots of facilities, work, lovely countryside - but oh dear, too far to commute to London) the market rate for an immaculate two bed semi is just under £500 pcm. Charge more, no tenants. Property not immaculate or not as well located, charge less or no tenants. Increase the rent, tenant leaves. That is market forces and how it should be.

those who pay a fortune for a dump have only themselves to blame.

TV programmes lie. As do politicians. I don't trust promises from any of them.

Meant to say...

But Milliband's blunt stick way of going about this is stupid.

He could stop mortgage tax relief on 2nd properties. landlords can claim mortgage interest as an expense - stop that. He could stop the allowances for wear and tear - they rent should cover that. He could add a purchase tax for 2nd properties and should certainly abolish any council tax relief for holiday homes. He could increase the capital gains tax on BTL proerties when they are sold.

There's lots he could do.

No landlord is going to want to have to be locked into a longterm contract with their tenant. Many of these landlords are just renting to gave advantage of longer term house price increases or because interest rates are low., Once interest rates rise or house prices fall, they are quite likely to sell.

Something needs to be done about private sector rents, that I do agree.

Watching Homes Under The Hammer and seeing a landlord buy a wreck for 30,0000, spend a few thoushand to do it up and then rent it out for 650 a month is ridiculous. Some of the returns they are achieving are in the 12% range!

And who can afford 650 a month for a one bedroom flat outside London, or 1200 for a family home? What sort of salary would you need to have that amount nett and available to hand over as rent, in addition to all your other living expenses. If you have that sort of money available you could probably afford a mortgage - if you had the deposit.

It's even worse when you consider that in many cases it's the tax payer who is paying these obsencely high rents to house people on housing benefit.

We now have a rental housing sector that primarily relies on private small business landlords - hobbyists in many cases.

It's absolutely obscene.

The Venezuela response shows just how much of a shite the Tories give about those of us who can't afford to buy our own homes. Laughable.

I was pleased to hear about this proposal this morning. I live in privately rented accommodation in the south east. I'm lucky (so far) in that I'm being charged a reasonable rent which has only minimally increased in the 5 years I've lived here. My ll isn't greedy (though he is a bit tight with repairs) and I feel reasonably secure. However, that isn't the same as actually being secure and knowing that the roof over your head isn't just going to disappear.

The tenants in the flat below us (different ll) were given two months notice when they made the mistake of mentioning to their management agent that they were thinking - just thinking, mind! - of maybe moving out towards the end of the year. The agent passed this info onto the ll and notice duly arrived - my friends were devastated. It just doesn't make any sense.

Something has to change in the rental market. Frankly, I'd be happy to see an end to the 'BTL numpties' and a reduction in house prices. You know, so then maybe 40-something professionals in fulltime jobs with an above-average salary and a family to keep, like me, might have the tiniest chance of a bit of actual housing security. Too much to ask?

Family business has something like fifty flats let out, and we purely despise the buy-to-let numpties. Tenants who've been through that mill come to us expecting all kinds of shenanigans and behave accordingly until they settle down.

The proposed changes will make not a jot of difference to how the professional housing providers do business. And the more bloody amateurs it drives out of the market, the better.

As for 'you can't intervene in markets with laws', that's purest horseshit. Without laws and the enforcement thereof, there'd be no market at all. You write the laws to shape the market to serve the society it's part of.

The proposed ban on letting agents' fees for tenants is long overdue and follows the Scottish model which came in a few years ago. At the moment agents get paid by both sides for the same work, and rip off the tenants with extortionate charges.

I do think that 'rentiers' will have a huge influence at the next election and they've been neglected for far too long (and yes, both parties can be blamed for this). All the parties need to address this in their manifestos.

The initial Tory response is extremely disappointing. I don't think Grant Shapps has any idea about how precarious renting in the private sector is.

Our rent (Belgium) is only allowed to increase in line with inflation. Rental contracts are for a minimum of three years. We have more responsibility for maintaining the property and it's contents. Landlords can raise the rent at the end of the rental period. They also have a reputation for screwing tenants at the end of the contract with high charges for 'damage' to the property (think €10 for each window that hand't been cleaned on the outside or people being charged for watermarks on the inside of the dishwasher).

I don't have a problem with a government intervening in a market which is not allocating resources efficiently.

I'm a LL BTW. I want to have long-term tenants who would rent the property for a number of years.

Fanjango that's exactly it - why should families have to move frequently to deal with the whims of LL? Not even the States allows such naked profiteering at the expense of tenant rights (BTL strongly discouraged through federal legislation). I understand and have some (but not much) sympathy with people who invest in BTL as an alternative to shares for a pension, but as someone who was personally made homeless 4 times in 5 years due to LLs selling up etc and having to bear the cost of moving and new fees each time think it's impossible. The presumption in favour of right to occupy is much more sensibly arranged in Europe, where in Germany for example if the LL has to sell, the tenant's rights are protected (and the property is then purchased with them in situ). If LL can't manage the vagaries of investment (instead of relying on such tight margins on BTL mortgages that they need to up rent if they have a financial problem) then they should exit the market. A good result all around. Apart from the poor LL who no longer make 16% margins on rental properties along with 12% capital gains here in London - my heart does not exactly bleed for them.

If only all landlords took that approach! Sadly too many are all about fast money than long term steady money

Rents should be in line with what the market can bear, not how much the landlords mortgage is though.

We haven't put our tenants rent up in 5yrs, when I enquirer about it recently with our property manager he advised against it as people were really struggling. Being reasonable people we took his advice. We could have pushed for another 50quid or so a month but may have our tenant leave and house unoccupied, not worth it really.

And I agree Lesson. I rented for many years and feared the call from the landlord asking for more money or, the worst, that they need the house back after all and you have 2 months. Not always an easy task when you have 4 kids and a school catchment to think about. Why should renting mean a transient existence, especially when more and more have to rent due to exorbitant house prices.