MNHQ here: Shelter's campaign for longer rental contracts

Thanks Mumsnet. It sounds like a very good cause. Thanks for the link to their cause.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3890656/Five-year-old-HOSPITALISED-Circle-Housing-fails-make-home-warm-dry.html

YY special subject. There is a strange reluctance from Shelter to mention HAs in any of their campaigns.

The email about 'Rachel' and her carpets - if her kid treads playdough thoroughly into it, that is damage. The deposit deduction will be value of carpet adjusted for its remaining lifetime and the damaged area.

Unless the carpet was brand new at the start, and totally unusable within a couple of years, the sum involved would be small. I know, and the substance involved was not playdough.

There is no need for paranoia. A cheap rug or using playdough elsewhere would be even easier.

'Rachel' also lives in a draughty chilly dump, it seems. Perhaps that is what shelter should be bending their energies towards sorting. And the madness that means that someone else will apparently pay 40% more for this tatty chilly dump.

Improve standards. Fine with me, my rental is warm, clean, immaculate (again...). As all properties should be , including the housing association shockers that.come up on here.

KP We are only here for six years, and due to the weird rules in Belgium and the stratospheric buying costs, it is easier to rent for us. It is about 20% of the purchase price for buying and selling, and 21% VAT if you buy a new build. The market here is opaque, and if you sell within 5 years, you are taxed on any profits. Renting avoids the hassle, and means if Dh's contract is cut short, or we have to go home for other reasons, we can leave without being tied to a property here.

We have had to move through sale of property or landlord going bust on several occasions

That must have been very tough for you, and especially your DC. It's not clear, though, that Shelter's campaign would actually have stopped that from happening. It says landlords would still be able to sell the property - it doesn't specify whether or not they would be obliged to sell it with a sitting tenant. The event of the landlord's going bust isn't mentioned at all.

The proposal needs some gaps filling in before it can be realistically considered.

There needs to be something.
We have had to move through sale of property or landlord going bust on several occasions. Our dc have lived in five houses by the time they were five and another three in-between then and now.

Yes to what the email said about being paranoid about the carpets and walls.

That said I'm not sure how the five year thing would work. We need more social housing more than anything.

Additionally, what if the tenants decide to stop paying rent? What if the LL discovers they are not caring for the property at all, quite the reverse, to the extent that the property would be rendered uninhabitable by others and not in a fit state to be sold without major work. What do you say to the LL? Tough shit - they have a five year contract?

I know there are a lot of posters on MN who hate landlords. There is this totally illogical view that had the LL not acquired or bought the house, the tenants would somehow have been able to do so which completely ignores the fact that if the tenants had sufficient savings for a deposit they wouldn't be renting.

Take away LL's ability to remove bad tenants for five years and I reckon a large majority of those renting out single houses (as opposed to those who own multiple properties) will simply either leave it empty or sell up which results in a reduction of available housing.

How is this helpful?

Five-year tenancies would also give landlords more security, reducing periods of vacancy and lost rent.

How can this be so, if:

Renters with five year contracts would be able to leave their home at any time by giving two months’ notice.

Arch my thoughts exactly. And I also agree with the rest of your post.

And I wonder if they have considered shared houses. Not to be able to evict someone from a shared house would be terrible. Sometimes people are just difficult to live with and wind up all the other tenants. For everyones' sake LLs need to be able to get rid of them.

This is an interesting campaign, but the information on Shelter's website isn't sufficient to explain how it would work in practice.

Five-year tenancies would also give landlords more security, reducing periods of vacancy and lost rent.

How can this be so, if:

Renters with five year contracts would be able to leave their home at any time by giving two months’ notice.

What situation is the campaign trying to prevent? If a landlord has a good tenant, and doesn't intend to sell the property, why would they want to change the tenancy for the sake of it? If the landlord has a bad tenant, would they not evict the tenant anyway?

Is the campaign trying to say that the rental price would be fixed for five years? I don't see how that would be feasible, as the LL couldn't predict market conditions, mortgage interest rates etc. five years in the future. On the other hand, if the landlord was at liberty to adjust the rent, surely if they wanted to get rid of a tenant without eviction, they would just hike the rent to an unaffordable level?

I'm neither a landlord nor a tenant, so I'm asking these questions from a position of ignorance - apologies if I have missed anything.

I know people who have such contracts under these terms already in England/Wales. So I'm not sure why such a campaign is needed. As far as I am aware there is no maximum term for a rental tenancy if the insurers/mortgage company (if applicable) allow it.

You say 'landlords would still be able to sell the house if needed'. Only to another landlord, as there will be a sitting tenant. If another landlord doesn't come along and the first one still needs to sell (ill, dead, lost job), what then? Perhaps Belgium has an answer.

I am all for dealing effectively with bad landlords and bad agents, by closing businesses and enforcing repairs, although what happens if the landlord won't pay? Presumably the property is then declared unfit to rent and the tenant has to leave.

Answers, please?????

I rent a property and think this is a good idea. 3 years might be more palatable to others though.
There should also be a register of landlords and basic safety checks should be obligatory.

I am not a landlord but can only see this resulting in there being far fewer homes available to rent. For example a person may inherit a house and not be in a position to immediately sell for whatever reason, so the house is rented out for, say, a year. Under the new rules they will not want the house tied up for a potential five years, so house remains empty for the year. How is that helpful to anyone?

If they are going to impose five year tenancies, why would that not also apply to the tenant?

For both of the above reasons I think its a bad campaign.

Scaryteacher, what is the benefit of renting then? It seems like you're paying the entire cost of living in that house except it's not yours to keep at the end! Are mortgages significantly more expensive than rent?

I rent in Belgium and we have 3,6 and 9 year contracts here. If you leave during the three year, you are liable for all the rent iirc.

Longer tenancies could be good, but there must be a break point for the l/l as well if they want the house back. If you want 5 year tenancies, then notice should be 3 months either side.

If you look at some of the continental models, it is different with a longer lease. Everything I pay for as a landlord in the UK, I have to pay for as a tenant here, insurance, boiler servicing, gardening, maintenance, and the bond is substantial as well, and won't be released until the l/l indicates that it can be. It is held in a bank account.

The l/l would have to be able to ensure that their property was being looked after, so I hope inspections would still be able to be continued.