To think pre 1989 tenancy rights should be restored?

[fideline]

And that Assured Shorthold Tenancies should be abolished (or severely restricted?

Pre 1989 nearly all rents were subject to 'fair rent' adjudication and private tenants had much better security of tenure.

Reintroducing similar measures would vastly improve quality of life for millions of people in the UK (including children) and help to reduce the Housing Benefit bill.

Special exemptions and phasing arrangements could be made for accidental LLs and amateur LLs with small portfolios.

Reasonable?

Wowfudge there's nothing wrong with either of those things other than certain people think they are wrong. Fideline doesn't seem to have an objection to people making money out of rent ( unlike others ) although she does object to landlords being able to end a tenancy if they want to sell.

I think her distinction between professional and non professional landlords is nonsensical. All landlords should be operating in and abiding by the same rules and standards.

There has been considerable consultation on the private sector in Scotland over the last decade and Shelter and Scottish government(neither of whom are particularly pro-landlord) have both always rejected the idea of having different rules for different types of landlords. I don't know what she means by "accidental " landlords.

Her distinction is also not sensible or even in tune with reality. I assume she thinks there are numbers of people whose job it is to be landlords. The reality in Scotland is that other than say corporate bodies like the Co-op and the traditional big country estates the overwhelming majority of private landlords in Scotland have only 1 or 2 properties. This is from research by Scottish government.

I dont see how mortgages are the same price as rent paid. Im looking at the moment for a 2 bed house in an estate the rent is £450/£475pcm for most houses. The same houses to buy (terrace houses, same street) are £49,000 on a 25 year mortgage after 10 percent depositis £210 a month! Rates bills etc are £15 per month.

I cant buy even though I have the deposit as for now im in my probation period at work. Im thinking of living at home for another year until I can buy as I cant afford to rent. Im all for rent control its bloody outrageous.

Hmm - I asked you, fideline, how you would define professional landlord, but if you don't want to, so be it. A number of terms have been used on here, some of them seem perjorative, such as 'accidental landlord'. Also when addressing one person, you have to think about who else is reading the thread as you may be offending many more.

Who said anything about liquidising in a hurry? Selling houses in the UK is not what you could call a speedy process. As things stand with ASTs both landlord and tenant know where they stand.

TOAD - that may be the case where you are, but there are limited places where you can buy a house for £49K.

Without the input of people who are tenants the discussion has become one-sided. My GPs lived in a house they rented for many years (over 30), pre-1989. They treated the place as though it were their own and looked after it accordingly. They still had an outside loo. The landlord did bugger all for his rent. Their was no requirement to check gas appliances for safety and so on.

I said people shouldn't own more houses than they can live in.

I know that's terribly 'red' of me, but I don't care. House prices are ridiculously and artificially high. We are a family earning over the national average, why should we be trapped in private rental while people who already have a home of their own buy up all the property, then expect the less well off to service their mortgages and then some, with no security?

We're talking about people's homes - some things are more important than the rich getting richer.

Op, Yanbu - the balance of power needs redressing.

I think perhaps if pensions were sorted out people wouldn't feel the need to own more than one house.

I was an 'accidental' landlord for a while when we moved abroad with the expectation of probably returning a couple of years later, and we wanted to have a home to return to. I bought my house with a hefty deposit but the mortgage was relatively large as it was a London house at fairly close to the peak of the market. We used a reputable agent, got references etc but it was a very very stressful experience. Our tenants appeared to be good and wanted a two year lease which I thought good. The agents said they would visit monthly and make sure it was all going well.

Two years later I paid out over 10 grand in repairs, well beyond any profit I might have made even with retaining the deposit (I had to produce all sorts of paperwork to prove the cost of damage, and even so didn't get to keep it all). The next tenants I had were good but the costs just didn't add up so at the end of that tenancy I sold. For zero gain overall as houses that have been rented aren't very easy to sell , plus you either try to sell with tenants in situ which doesn't make them very happy, or empty with the mortgage cost racking up.

It's not as easy to be a LL as it's cracked up to be, plenty of risk involved.

We spent most of the time we were LLs as tenants ourselves, I don't have any issues with renting myself. But then we were good tenants and we got on with our LLs neither of whom were evil money grabbing bastards, just families fairly similar to ourselves.

Bit at the idea that the term 'accidental landlord' is perjorative!

Really fideline? The term 'professional landlord' keeps being used and distinguished from 'accidental' and 'BTL' landlord. That's why I asked you what you meant by it. I don't see why an accidental or BTL landlord cannot also be classed as professional, but that's not the way it's coming across in the debate.

Wow do calm down.

Who said that they were distinct groups and that I was defining them?

I haven't published a Venn diagram and laid down diktats about how LLs should be classified.

This is supposed to be a discussion and I am using normal english vocabulary and phrases.

The question in the OP is whether tenants should have some of their pre-89 rights, including greater security of tenure and 'fair rents' restored.

Do you have a view?

I am calm, thank you.

I have to say, having disagreed with Caitlin in the past in other threads, I agree with her here! You seem unaware of how what you state can be construed. You have persistently categorised landlords, separating 'accidental' and 'BTL' from 'professional', yet you won't define 'professional landlord'.

It might help if you re-read what you have posted. I agree - it's supposed to be a discussion, but you are very rude; perhaps without realising, perhaps deliberately.

FWIW, having seen very little on here to convince me otherwise, I am happy with the status quo. How about HAs compulsorily purchase privately rented housing stock at market values in order to provide homes for those who need them? Then they can manage them and deal with the tenants, rent setting and so on.

And anyone, corporate or private who holds property as an asset may need to liquidate that asset at some point. That does not mean that they are not cut out to be landlord.

" You have persistently categorised landlords, separating 'accidental' and 'BTL' from 'professional', yet you won't define 'professional landlord'."

At no point have I 'separated' as you put it BTL landlords from any other kind of LL. The financing is not the point.

I haven't been rude. I was eventually slightly brusque with Caitlin because she kept telling me I had called her unprofessional. Which I hadn't.

You are also making a habit of telling me that I have said things that I haven't.

Your hectoring is not the same as debate.

Anyone who says that they need to reserve the right to evict at any time in order to move their child into the property or pay bills, is not a 'professional landlord'. They are small scale amateur landlords.

It's really not complicated or perjorative.

Fideline I've never come across any landlord even corporate portfolio landlords who are happy with unlimited security of tenure. That is why the 1988 Acts in both Jurisdictions were introduced.

I see you're choosing to ignore my point that in Scotland at least the vast majority of landlords are the small scale "amateurs" who will be as reluctant as your preferred "professionals" to accept unlimited security of tenure.

What you are proposing will simply remove letting stock.

Oh I imagine England and Wales are not dissimilar. Never thought otherwise.

I somehow doubt the OP is campaigning for return to pre-1989 standards in rented property either. We now have two HMOs which are far, far safer than any council house to which the HMO regulations don't apply. They are inspected every year, rigorously and we set aside £2000 a year for complying with the new "safety" measures we must comply with each year, on top of the £1500-£2500 we spend on general maintenance/repair (gas boiler servicing, roof repairs, window repairs, replacement of carpets, replacing kitchen and bathroom fittings and so on). This is all on top of annual gas and electrical safety checks, EPCs and fire safety checks. In fact our properties are far safer than any office in terms of fire safety that might have hordes of people working together and be full of electrical equipment.

If you think I'm bloody doing that for a tenant who will have security of tenure, whom I will have to go to court with to raise the rent, whom I will have to wait to die until I can sell my property (even if they are destroying it).

I also cannot plan my finances retrospectively, in terms of what the government will do in 30 years time to change the regime (although they have done that to a certain extent anyway) and will simply sell up in advance and buy in unregulated Germany instead.

By the way OP when you talk of professional landlords, I assume you mean that all landlords should be solicitors? (which seems rather unrealistic). I cannot think of any other profession which encompasses the requirements of landlords so comprehensively. I am a solicitor, and therefore am constantly pointing out to the HMO Department when they make legal errors, as they often do, because they are not properly qualified to tell people how to lease out their property.

"By the way OP when you talk of professional landlords, I assume you mean that all landlords should be solicitors?"

That's a rather bonkers presumption Abs

Why on earth would you presume that?

This doesn't seem to be a subject that people can discuss calmly.

OP - are you in Scotland? In a previous job as a solicitor, I had to advise HMO Departments on the legalities of what they were doing. I was horrified by some of the LA's strongly communist views towards private rented housing stock and the comments made ("all landlords are capitalist scum"). It was only a few LA representatives that were like that, all from the west of Scotland, and they were quickly shushed by the more sensible representatives.

However a lot of these old fashioned ingrained socialist/communist mindsets remain and I wonder if this is what you are harking on about. It is not a view shared by a majority of local authorities in Scotland, and several of the things you advocate would be in breach of human rights legislation. Scotland already has by far the most over regulated private rental sector in Western Europe, and I do question what treating tenants like incapable children will do to society long term.

However I think it should be pointed out that your views are not mainstream, have very little support and are completely unrealistic and borne more out of perhaps a personal and rather old fashioned strongly socialist agenda which you would like to push, rather than a workable position.

I'm a Londoner in London Abs

"By the way OP when you talk of professional landlords, I assume you mean that all landlords should be solicitors?" That's a rather bonkers presumption Abs Why on earth would you presume that?

Well make up your mind OP. Do you want them to be professional landlords or not? What other profession is going to understand the complex law of landlord and tenant, leases, liens, and so on? Or do you not want landlords to be professionals after all?

I'm a Londoner in London Abs

So do you have no idea of the rental market in Scotland, which is after all part of the UK then?

It really isn't an ideologically suggestion, more a practical one.

Geography might come into my thought process. Prices are sky high here and there seems to be a lot of rental 'churn'. Always seems to be some acquaintance or other on the move at short notice.

Can I ask what your bonkers presumption re LLs being solicitors was all about?

Incidentally, I have seen two Assured Tenancies advertised here today. ie with security of tenure, in Scotland. The landlords are looking for offers over £1100 a month for a two bedroom cottage on a country estate. I assume the rent is high because they will have to go through a lengthy statutory procedure with appeals to raise it during the lifetime of the tenancy or put in clauses to do so every few years, which can also be appealed. As opposed to re-negotiation with SATs. And also to put off people who cannot afford the rent.

In other words, there is premium for this type of property and the security of tenure it offers.

Incidentally, all the Assured Tenancies I have seen advertised are not for HMOs and the high standards provided for them, but for properties to be let to families.

I doubt anyone would ever seriously propose secure tenure for HMOs. Can't see how it would be workable.