MNHQ here: Shelter's campaign for longer rental contracts

www.thecanary.co/2017/03/07/one-woman-faces-down-a-housing-bully-and-keeps-her-home/

can take 40 weeks to evict a bad tenant, if Shelter backed a more rapid process for this landlords would be more inclined to offer longer contracts.

my questions were addressed to Shelter, not to redpoll. At the moment the law doesnt work well either for good landlords or good tenants, it does for bad landlords and bad tenants. Shelter ought to recognise that.

Also, Shelter have already said that under their proposal landlords will be able to evict tenants who breach the agreement so not sure why you are stating otherwise.

I am quite alarmed that you say you work in the sector yet appear to have no knowledge of the rules that operate within it. Redress for breach of any contract is a matter of civil law, not criminal, and the same enforcement methods apply across the board. Entering into a contract to create a legal interest in land is in no way comparable to stealing from a shop.

And if you don't mean that tenants should be liable for five years' worth of rent when they enter into a tenancy agreement, then what do you mean?

Do you agree that landlords should be able to evict tenants who don't pay or trash the place or act illegally (drug dealing, for example) more rapidly

In a nutshell; no shelter won't back that processas they regard tenants in all cases as the victims no matter the circumstances.

If you walk into a shop and walk off with goods and don't pay its shoplifting-A criminal offence. If you dont pay rent for what ever reason it's a civil matter. Can't quite work that out.

I worked abroad and even some what you could call well developed/democratic countries have some pretty strict rulings on the conduct of tenants as well as landlords.

Redpoll are you seriously suggesting that tenants should be liable for rent for a five year term ie have less freedom to move home than home owners do?

No I am not but shelters ideas is all one sided. So you want a landlord to commit to 5 Years but tenant can still go with two months notice.

You want commitment because you are a tenant and want your children to have stability schooling for example but still be able to piss off on a whim.

I think the assault on landlords will end up going too far IMO, as I have said in earlier postings if you did not have them at present the country will be in a pickle.

No good relying on social housing stock and with all the refugees flooding in there will never be enough to go round.

I am also not speaking as a landlord but a business owner who works in the sector. I see it from all sides. The problems of low security exist in high value areas where rental demand high, so landlords are setting demand high which is primarily London. The other end of the spectrum is low income deprived areas where tenant turnover is high normally by occupants poorly managing their tenancies. Both create a power vacuum of in many cases it is the infants which suffer.

This is my thought- If you want commitment as a tenant, then you give the landlord commitment by staying. Unless there is good reason in return the Landlord will set agreeable rent levels consumerate with the property for the five years and repairs should be managed by independent third parties to allow an even playing field.

Just my thoughts as someone who works all over the UK maintaining housing across a wide spectrum of ownership, and not from a landlord prespective.

Redpoll are you seriously suggesting that tenants should be liable for rent for a five year term ie have less freedom to move home than home owners do?

when is the ban on letting agent fees happening, if ever?

Do you agree that landlords should be able to evict tenants who don't pay or trash the place or act illegally (drug dealing, for example) more rapidly?

Why are you not campaigning for proper protection against revenge eviction, when you know the law isnt working?

Shelter,
I think what you propose is reasonable to a certain extent but if you as a tenant want security then why should it be still one sided should the tenant want to leave? If the matter of security is paramount then the level of commitment should parallel on both sides

You would also give credibility to your cause if you supported swifter evictions for problem tenants such as those which commit anti social behaviour- That's often causes as much discomfort for other renters in the area as it does to the landlord which is has to deal with them.

Hi everyone,

Thank you very much for all your comments and feedback on the campaign. It’s really helpful for us to hear your thoughts and consider how we can make our campaign messages clearer and more effective. We are aware that a number of people asked specific questions on this thread, so we wanted to respond directly to those.

For those interested, we do have a longer FAQs page for the campaign, which should cover off any major questions you still have. It is available here: blog.shelter.org.uk/2017/02/longer-rental-contracts-how-would-they-work-faqs/

Below, we’ve answered the main questions you had about the campaign. We’ll try and update you again if there’s anything else you’d like to know.

Many thanks,

Shelter team

--

Questions about our proposal

Overall, there were requests for more clarity about the detail of our proposal. Beyond the FAQs linked above, this blog post provides a good overview of the proposal and links to the in-depth policy report which informs our policy recommendations.

Q: A couple of users asked why the campaign is necessary, given that landlords can legally already offer 5 year tenancies is they want.
A: While this is true, the reality of the situation is that longer tenancies with a rolling break clause are not generally available in the market. This is despite the fact that 1/3 of landlords say they like the idea of longer tenancies and a further 1/3 say they’d be interested if they saw them working in practice. So while it is currently legally possible for tenants to get a longer tenancy, in reality they aren’t available. This campaign aims to change the default position, so that renters get the security they need by default. This is particularly important for families with children – a staggering 1 in 4 of whom now privately rent.

Q: Don’t lots of renters want shorter contracts?
A: Shorter, flexible contracts do benefit some tenants. That is why in our proposal we include a 2 month break clause, where the tenant would be able to leave at any time, so long as they provide 2 months’ notice. However, the number of families in the PRS is higher than ever – 1 in 4 families now privately rent, as opposed to 1 in 10 just ten years ago. Longer minimum tenancies would give all tenants the option of staying longer, even if they ended up not wanting to. 7 in 10 renters say they’d like these longer minimum tenancies.

As one user posted on this thread, ‘the only reason I would want a longer term tenancy is so that I couldn’t be kicked out for requesting repairs’. This is good example of how long tenancies could benefit both tenants who still want flexibility, and landlords. With suitable security, tenants are more likely to report issues earlier and have them resolved before they develop into a bigger problem.

Q: Someone asked if this campaign suggesting that rental price would be fixed for the five years.
A: Our campaign doesn’t advocate for a fixed rent over the five years. Instead, we propose that within a five-year tenancy, rents couldn’t go up by more than inflation each year. This would give renting families more certainty in planning their finances and they would be protected from being evicted through the backdoor by a massive rent hike.

Q: What is the tenants decide to stop paying rent or caused damage to the property?
A: Landlords would still be able to regain possession of their property within a tenancy when they had a good reason. Serious rent arrears would be one of the reasons why the landlord would be able to regain possession before the 5-year period is up, as would causing damage to the property. Someone on the thread suggested making the ‘no-fault’ eviction period longer, but shorten it for ‘bad’ tenants – this is essentially what we are proposing.

Q: Won’t taking away a landlord’s ability to remove bad tenants lead to landlords selling-up and exiting the market, which would reduce available housing?
A: As with rent arrears, there would still be a number of reasons why a landlord would be able to get back possession of their property, such as anti-social behaviour. But longer minimum tenancies provide stability and security to all tenants who abide by the law.

Q: What is someone inherited a house and wanted to sell the house a year or so later (but not immediately)?
A: The landlord would be able to break the contract if they needed the property back i.e. if they wanted to move in themselves or needed to sell. But the landlord would have to provide proof that they were definitely going to sell the property.

Q: What happens if the landlord goes bust?
A: If a landlord defaults on their mortgage payments and their mortgage lender repossesses their property, then they become the tenant’s legal landlord. They would be able to regain possession of the property at the point that they wanted to sell it.

Other questions

Q: Someone raised the situation of tenants having to wait for eviction to get council help.
A: This is something we are all too aware of through our services - our advisers in all areas of the country report this happening. There is statutory guidance which tells councils they shouldn’t do this, and this was reiterated by a letter from the Housing Minister last year. Unfortunately, however, it still happens routinely. We have recently been campaigning on the Homelessness Reduction Bill and had hoped the legislation would address this practice – we highlighted this issue at every opportunity in our briefings for MPs and Lords. We were unable to get a commitment within the legislation, but secured a commitment from government to continue working with charities, local authorities and landlord groups to try and find a solution.

Q: Someone mentioned the ridiculous fees imposed by agents.
A: This is something Shelter has been campaigning on for many years and we were delighted when the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement that the government will be banning these fees to tenants. This was a huge win for Shelter and for all private tenants. You can find more information in this blog post: blog.shelter.org.uk/2016/11/government-to-ban-letting-agency-fees/

If anything the eviction procedures should be streamlined, and in some cases (but not all) speeded up.

Cases of Anti social behaviour, damage to property etc should done and settled in two weeks IMO, just as it is in the United States.

The country is too soft as it is- A bigger stick now again will normally benefit the majority rather than the minority.

I would like to see more information on the eviction notices
Section 21 in many cases is used for trashed property and rent arrears as its usually the quickest route
This should be recorded on the forms the courts hold a vast amount of information regarding evictions. I would like an independent body to analysis this on a regular basis.
I often talk to the office and they say the social sector are always evicting
I also think shelter should work with landlords to improve the sector but as their funds and jobs depend on slagging landlords off they wont
Most of their reporting is very much one sided for max effect and to keep the donations rolling in

Yes agree it would have been better if the fault had been detected and rectified before. I am glad the property manager acted promptly. And hope its soon sorted

" You should try going into a housing association property which was brand new six months ago and now still has to be near on totally re-furnished before it can be re-let"

"HA properties dont come furnished."

And as for damages to things like plumbing pipes A lot of damage has been done in HA homes by the dodgy plumbing companies they use because they are cheaper.

If landlords are all so well informed about tenancy law, why are there so many threads here on MN (from both landlords and tenants) about landlords who just don't understand that they can't just let themselves into their tenants home without permission? It may seem like a petty issue if you're not on the receiving end of it, but tenancy law agrees that tenants are entitled to privacy and safety. We even had it from our property manager during this tenancy, who blithely emailed me and told me that if I wasn't available to oversee an inspection on the following day, not to worry because she'd just let herself in!

As regards a property being substandard, not all issues are visible to the naked eye during a 10 or 20 minute viewing! Problems like faulty wiring or ventilation that aren't immediately apparent to a layperson will be overlooked; that's why people who are buying a property engage a professional surveyor.

We couldn't see the damage to the external wall that causes our damp problem, as we're on the 3rd floor and the cracks on the coursing aren't visible from ground level. We initially thought the mould that appeared was due to the wall being uninsulated; and it wasn't until DH removed the fixed panel concealing the toilet cistern that we realised the extent of the issue.
Fortunately the letting agent responded promptly and so far some remedial work has been done. But it is a big inconvenience, as we have small children and only one bathroom, and I suspect the owners are weighing up the cost of getting the wall fixed properly against losing rent if we have to move out while the work is done. It would have been better for everyone if the problem had been detected and repaired between tenancies.

We're not daft or entitled. But we pay a lot of rent (London) and don't want to be scrubbing mould of our bathroom walls every 2 weeks.

Yes, like a habitable home. The greedy deluded bastards. Don't they know they're better off than people living in the slums of Calcutta and therefore have nothing to complain about?

Incidentally, I would hope we could aim rather higher than "better than the developing world" in terms of housing standards in the UK.

Landlords are not ignorant of them in most cases, what I don't understand is that when you view a property and it is clearly substandard why rent it?

I can't believe people are that daft. Let's look at it another way.

Tenant views a crap property but rent is cheap.
Tenant moves in and then complains about it.
End result; landlord evil scum

Landlords rents a nice property for market rent.
End result; Happy tenant but then tenant bitches all day long on social media about greedy landlords

Final result; Landlord can't do right from wrong.

Let the country try a society without that option of private accommodation; Change of government then the safety net goes on a whim with a change in policy, build sprawling housing estates and create the social ghettos of the 80's

I just don't get it. Let's face it a lot of people can't stand up in this country unless they are helped.

Let's work on helping everyone be independent like most want to be. I grew up renting and never was a landlord looked upon as being nothing more than a loveable rogue.

I've spent 20 years working across the property sector in all areas and attitudes change but I do think people expect a little too much from society nowadays

Have you asked the letting agent to get a housing surveyor to take a look
If I was the landlord I would want it sorted as soon as

There are more than enough laws to protect tenants these days

But they do no good if landlords are ignorant of them!

I posted earlier in this thread about the repairs that need doing to our (rented) flat because of penetrating damp, and the inconvenience it is causing us.

If we'd known about the problem beforehand, we obviously wouldn't have moved in. We might have requested the work be done before we moved in (as we weren't in any particular rush), or we might have chosen a different flat. But now - after living here for 6 months, getting our children into the local school, paying £100s for reference checks and to movers (including specialist piano movers to carry a piano up 3 flights of narrow stairs) and putting up shelves and pictures and generally making the place feel like home - we don't have the money and the inclination to move again, so we're putting up with it.

I don't think our landlords are evil. They live abroad and haven't even seen the property for years. I don't even really blame the letting agents who manage the property; in their haste to get new tenants (us) in as quickly as possible the fabric of the flat was probably given the most superficial of checks and a coat of cheap emulsion. I mentioned before that periodic, mandatory and more thorough checks to ensure that rental properties are structurally sound and habitable would help weed out the unscrupulous landlords, and draw attention to overlooked issues in cases like ours.

Last figure I saw was 9.6billion in housing benefit
Housing benefit in many areas is below market rent
If the prs did not supply the houses then BB and hotels would have to be used at 3 times the cost
Landlords pay back via the tax system and employ many trades
They also lose thousands in trashed properties and rent arrears
It's not a free handout and landlords are not a charity
Tax credits paid to top up wages so large employers can pay lower wages is probably more
I think social landlords get around 15billion

The bit I posted was a government report can u supply the link to shelters stats pls

Believe me when you talk about appalling conditions you are not really cutting the mustard with me, as I said this country is not third world yet and their is enough out there to help you sort it out. You should try going into a housing association property which was brand new six months ago and now still has to be near on totally re-furnished before it can be re-let.

I am not taken in at all by half of what I hear. From what I see tenants can be as bad as landlords in their conduct.

As for the 12 million in housing benefit paid out to private landlords do you think people live in social housing for free? All it is is another landlord who is paid from the same pot as a private one who behind the scenes is actually paid more in the small print than a private landlord. How do you think these housing associations fund the land acquisition and building of new homes? They don't do it by making money magically appear and then use the housing benefit to pay their staff and have change to build new homes do they?

Some tenant completely trash the place plus cut electric wiring and cut plumbing pipes
An extreme example petrol poured all over the cellar as he was evicted with 5 months none payment of rent
If you steal form a shop you are punished so if a tenant steals rent from a landlord ie spends the housing benefit why should that be acceptable
If someone trashed your car you would expect that person to be held responsible
Until a deterrent is in place these tenants will not stop

You may well think so but you are wrong - Shelter identifies the private rented sector as having the largest proportion of substandard homes compared to all other sectors.

And the 33% figure comes from the government's own survey, again regardless of what you "believe" or "think" or "get a message in your left toe about".