MNHQ here: Shelter's campaign for longer rental contracts

I agree with KP86, and I thought something was going to be done about this? We are living with my dad (as temporary accommodation) after losing our tied accommodation (and job) when the farm dh worked on sold up.
I would need approx £2400 in deposits and fees to rent a 3 bed house here - if I could find one which would let us have pets
.

Also at present we would get minimal hb as dh has found some temporary work, but if this changes we would need to claim and everywhere says no hb.
I haven't changed dcs schools yet, as I dont want to move them, and then move them again if we find somewhere to live. So at the minute I'm doing 40 minute (by car) school runs - which is crippling us cost wise.
Now I need to start paying my dads rent, (housing assoc gave us 6 months for him to keep getting his rent paid - he's a pensioner) but cannot get any help with this as the tenancy is not mine. As it is a ha property the rent is affordable so we can manage for now, but will stop us saving for a deposit.
I am terrified of living in a private place and having to move every so often, particularly as we haven't found one jn 6 months! Well we did find one, but it would have been 65%% of dhs current income, so we couldn't risk it, as his work is temporary.
We are stuck and I don't know which way to turn

There is also the slight issue that most mortgage lenders will not allow landlords to offer an AST longer than 12 months.

Contractor6 that would depend on the agent, and any insurance or mortgage the landlord has

I agree with the majority. It's a flawed proposal

Those pricks Liberty Gas.

www.burytimes.co.uk/news/15004016.Elderly_woman_left_without_hot_water_at_Christmas_after_delays_in_replacing___39_dangerous__39__boiler/?ref=twtrec

And agree with poster above more regulation of estate agents is required

What needs to be changed is letting agents insisting on a salary of 30x wages without taking into account any benefits.
..how is anyone supposed to move given that situation..

Lots of common sense from Ginny - pity shelter won't campaign for this kind of thing. Being able to evict the non paying drug dealing wrecker and all their rubbish without waiting months would be great.

Landlord registration tends to aim at the wrong issues and is not working well where it is introduced. The main thing is to stop unfit properties being rented out in the first place, given that in some areas people will take anything. Rather than the useless epc, it would be better if there was some kind of inspection for basics such as working heating (of whatever form) , windows and doors that work, no evidence of leaks, electrics that work to a standard ( this is coming), clean and tidy. Basic stuff that no one should be without.

No inspection, no legal rent. There will still be slumlords renting dumps but anyone who takes a place without a cert would at least know they have a crooked landlord.

It would need to be available quickly though, no good if a house has to sit empty for months.

I've often thought that a solution would be to make the 'no-fault' eviction period longer, but to shorten it for 'bad' tenants.

I.e. a landlord wants to sell etc mid tenancy, they need to give a longer period of notice of, say, 4 months, to give people more of a chance to organise themselves.

This would have to be balanced by tenants needing to give more notice and, perhaps, having to allow a limited number of viewings in the last 4 weeks.

The trade-off would have to be a much faster non-payment/wilful damage eviction process. And, yes, councils should be forced to take an notice to leave as addiction of homelessness.

The whole system just needs a good dose of common sense. Most landlords don't want to screw tenants over; most tenants just want a home they can live in.

I think there are lots of things which could be done to improve things for tenants: the abolition of tenant fees, compulsory LL registration & enforced repairs - these already happen in Scotland.

When I rented, I did not want a 5-year contact, and most of my tenants don't want that either (average tenancy length is 18 months).

I would like to see better regulation of estate agents & LL, which the current government will never agree to.

Amelia leopard landlords should be be allowed to kick you out for requesting repairs - so called 'revenge evictions' no longer allowed but of course could be difficult to prove.

And special subject I think you are right in maximum terms - I was just thinking of the type done in the agent I work for.

And those mentioning fees - yes this is being made illegal.

I currently rent and the only reason I would want a longer term tenancy is so that I couldn't be kicked out for requesting repairs. My landlord pretty much leaves me alone - I pay my rent on time and keep my house in a good state. But I didn't complain about a repair taking far longer than it should have (3 months rather than a few days) because I was scared of them not renewing my tenancy. That shouldn't be an option.

There should not be any cost in leaving.

The greed of London agents has caused a big problem - here the fees are half that ( but still far more than the work involved) . however the rents are also much lower so the percentage is higher, and both landlord and tenant pay. Fees to tenants are apparently going to be outlawed and the effect of that may not be as expected.

My issue is with the ridiculous fees imposed by agents when you move in or out of a property.

We are interested in moving to a bigger flat/semi but I don't want to pay the £400-600 in contract and reference fees, let alone whatever we might have to pay to the current agent when we leave.

That needs addressing far more than long term leases. Lots of talk but never any action to stop agencies fleecing both LL and tenants.

Once your initial lease is over you move onto an rolling month to month agreement anyway so I really don't see the issue with length of agreements.

As I understand it, there is no maximum on an AST although the process is different if more than three years - needs a witnessed deed. More than seven years needs to be registered with Land Registry.

I work in rentals and find people are happy with 1 year, sometimes they want longer (longest AST allowed is 3 years less one day) but they always want a release clause in case situation changes. I'm not clear what this campaign is aiming for.

Council properties offer longer tenancies, but I think the tenants have to pay for decoration etc?

Shelter are aiming in the wrong direction here, as a LL in the SE l rarely have tenants who want longer than a 12 month contract as they wish for flexibility, job wise. All want a 6 month break clause in case of a job change.

Majority are in the 25-35 age bracket and don't want to be tied down to a permanent home.
On many occasions l have asked if they are planning/saving to buy and at least 75% say no, not because they cannot save but because they like the flexibility of renting and lack of responsibility.

On only 2 occasions have l had longer term tenants, slightly older couples on good incomes who automatically renew every year, (my rent increase for these tenants is 2% per annum, to cover increased insurance and maintenance costs) Again they could easily afford to buy but choose not to. As l speak regularly to my tenants, l know if they want to stay long term and plan to renew the AST as an ongoning matter of course.

l could not continue as a LL if l was forced to give long tenancies as already the tenant holds most of the rights.
If they are a bad tenant, it is already difficult and expensive to evict someone not paying their rent, or trashing a property.

I have had tenants cause me close to 7K of repairs and an empty flat for 2 months whilst it was repaired, if l couldn't get tenants like this to leave under this new longer tenancy then that would make my position untenable and l would sell.

Sadly all the increased checks and regulations recently introduced has done little to tackle bad LL's, and added lots of costs to LL's which are passed on in part to tenants so we are all worse off.
l have had wired smoke detectors for many years along with electrical checks, new well maintained boilers, etc. The bad LL will just still avoid maintaining their properties.

l understand families renting will want more security but most LL also want longer term tenants, l think communication is the key not more regulation.

If a family wants a longer contract they should discuss with the LL directly if possible, rather than the agent and get an idea if the property is a long term investment or a short term one.

I always meet my tenants and have a frank discussion, if thay want a long term tenancy l suggest a year AST renewable if they pay rent on time and keep it in reasonable order.
Good tenants have always been happy with this, as they know they will adhere to the agreement and therefore be able to renew.

Sadly there are as many bad tenants as bad LL's.

Regarding the awful situation of having to wait for eviction to get any council help - councils were told not to do this but ignored it. However a bill is now going through which will enforce that a section 21 means eventual eviction and so the councils must not treat those who leave at the end of the notice as voluntarily homeless.

Doesn't produce any more housing but saves the tenant a grand or so in legals.

Doubt we will hear from shelter on this but any comments from mnhq or supporting what seems to be a campaign addressing the wrong issues?

Agreed it's not clear what the proposal is, which makes it pointless. Landlords can and do already offer longer leases, usually a year after the initial 6 months, but current problems are mainly down to not enough homes to rent, insufficient enforcement of living standards, and the LAs refusing to assist until eviction (which is just delaying the same people - it surely can't reduce the numbers LAs have to deal with that much?)

And yy to the 'voluntarily homeless' thing as well.

I'm a bit confused by this. AFAIK there is nothing stopping LL offering longer fixed term AST already. It's not clear what Shelter are actually asking for in terms of changes in the law.

I think we need much more proper social housing, also HB needs to be made much more reliable so more LL are willing to take tenants on benefits.

'LA's need to stop thinking of tenants who comply with notice to leave from the landlord as 'voluntarily homeless'. It just puts both the landlord and tenant in a horribly stressful situation.'

Yes to this. It is bloody horrible to stay in situ with tiny children, stressed because of a pissed off landlord who rightly wants their property back and waiting for the baliffs to come and throw you out. Even more stressful when you don't know what day and time, have no car and no where to store belongings in-between.

THAT needs addressing.

As others have mentioned, there are lots of renters who don't want a longer rental contract - my DD has just rented a flat with her friend, they don't want to be tied in for years, they want to be able to move on if their circumstances change.

It feels as if more HA properties are needed for people who want more security of tenure. And, as as SuperSheepdog says, LA's need to stop thinking of tenants who comply with notice to leave from the landlord as 'voluntarily homeless'. It just puts both the landlord and tenant in a horribly stressful situation.

Shelter have not given enough information about this for anyone to take it seriously, it seems very poorly thought through on their part.

Longer tenancies are a good idea for many tenants and landlords, however some tenants and landlords want a shorter contract.

Something needs to be done about councils encouraging tenants in private rentals not to vacate if they can't afford the rent. Forcing landlords to go through the stress and cost of eviction is totally unfair. It is also unfair on the tenant who may feel very stressed and guilty about the situation.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/06/life-flagship-housing-estate-orchard-village-east-london