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?

Nothing silly about investing money that may be needed for care homes / retirement in property. I rent out two properties, and they are my eventual pensions. I'm only 40, so that's pretty long term. I've never needed to chuck out a tenant yet, nor have i refused to renew a contract. I suppose if I had a sudden catastrophic reversal of fortune and needed to sell urgently then that might happen.

What do you suggest? A ban on owning more than one property? A ban on private landlords?

I can see an argument for having a 'rental middleman' whereby landlords turn over their properties to professional 'rental companies' for specified periods of time, and those companies rent to tenants.

Only thing is, I suspect those 'professional rental middlemen companies' would be inefficient, sloppy and useless. I say that through long experience of using estate agents to rent out and manage my properties (I am too far away to do it myself)...

"What do you suggest? A ban on owning more than one property? A ban on private landlords? "

People really are making all sorts of leaps

OP you wrote to Caitlin17:

I have 2 flats let on the Scottish equivalent tenancy. I need to be sure if my circumstances change I can get either or both back for me or my son to live in or sell them with vacant possession. "Suggests an amateur LL

So does this; And as for it's not very nice for a tenant to have to move out, well no one's life is perfect. My flats are my pension fund . I bought them with earned income. So you seriously think my tenants have to be protected for ever more even if that might cause hardship to me?

They are not things a professional LL would say

Why not? I'm a professional, as a solicitor, far more qualified in being a landlord than any of the LA Departments I deal with, having worked professionally in the sector itself advising LAs. And those are exactly the same remarks I would make.

You are confusing large scale property owners with small scale, which mixture is characteristic of the rental property owning sector. Why on earth would you think a school leaver working for a company which has lots of rental properties is more "professional" than a person managing their own properties?

There is in fact no such thing as a "professional landlord". There are no such things that a "professional landlord might say" because a professional landlord does not exist. There is no such profession, no such qualification. Setting up as a company is merely a business form, not a guarantee of professionalism. Companies which can of course hide behind the corporate veil and limited legal liability, and be wound up to avoid their responsibilites and liabilities. You have no idea what relevant qualifications any landlord may or may not have, and in fact yourself are not qualified to make comments on the rental sector, as you have shown time and time again that you do not understand it but have a personal agenda to push.

The expression "professional landlord" exists.

You are the one who seemed to confuse this with a) being qualified in one of the (capital P) 'Professions' or b) professionalism

And now I have to get some work done.

I have not been hectoring. I asked you a question as part of the debate and you won't answer it.

You seem to be doing plenty of hectoring yourself.

Telling me to 'calm down' is rude and condescending.

FWIW I am happy with the status quo. How about HAs compulsorily purchase privately rented housing stock? They can then manage it, set rents, deal with tenants, etc. Maybe they can do all that, charge lower rents and give tenants increased security of tenure. Maybe they couldn't because it would be uneconomic and sounds rather like old Soviet bloc communism.

Its actually quite hard to work out what you are trying to say OP.

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

Again, we come back to the issue that you consider private investors to be "amateur landlords" and larger, corporate owners/managers to be "professionals".

That is your mistake. There is nothing more professional about a large property management company and a small private landlord. Neither are professionals, unless they are solicitors, bound by professional practice rules, with an academic qualification which requires passes in exams relating to the law of landlord and tenant.

Setting yourself up as a company and expanding to own or manage many different properties is no guarantee of professionalism. There is no professional governing body to enforce standards on the sector. I know that in Scotland, we have far more problems with certain large portfolio owners set up as companies not complying with their statutory requirements than small.

So your proposal seems to be that any company which owns more than a certain number of properties (5? 10? 20?) should be regarded as "professional" and should be compelled to let their properties on Assured tenancies rather than SATs (as long as they are not HMOs).

That sounds like a recipe for slum landlords to me. There wouldn't be enough profit in it to compel high standards when complying with such a strict and limited regime. It would run at a loss. It is an unworkable business model, unless a very high minimum rental were set for this type of property alongside.

What is it you are actually proposing, because it sounds very muddled?

The expression "professional landlord" exists

What on earth is it? Which qualification is there and what is the governing body? How does one set themselves up as a "professional landlord" and what is the criteria for doing so? What is the sanction for non-compliance with professional standards?

It sounds a fiction to me. Or an urban myth, if you prefer.

"Again, we come back to the issue that you consider private investors to be "amateur landlords" and larger, corporate owners/managers to be "professionals". "

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

There really is no point in arguing with posters who are intent on misrepresenting what I have said and what I think.

OP, do you understand the complexities of the subject you have taken on?

You seem so muddled.

Sounds naive as well LesMissAbs........ I asked for fideline's definition of professional landlord because all the way through this thread the implication is that anyone who doesn't meet the 'professional landlord' standard/description/definition - call it what you will - is being denigrated.

I don't like being called a bully when I am nothing of the sort and have not behaved in such a way.

There really is no point in arguing with posters who are intent on misrepresenting what I have said and what I think

You haven't said clearly what it is you are saying. You have simply trotted out a piece of personal ideological dogma and then got annoyed when other people have pointed out pitfalls.

You also seem to continually confuse the adjective "professionalism" with some guaranteed adherence to certain esoteric standards, but have no idea how the noun "professional" relates to it.

Someone simply stating that they are a "professional landlord" does not make them a professional. There is no such generally or legally recognised concept as a "professional landlord" and any fiction of such does not guarantee a higher or better service.

wowfudge Sounds naive as well LesMissAbs........ I asked for fideline's definition of professional landlord because all the way through this thread the implication is that anyone who doesn't meet the 'professional landlord' standard/description/definition - call it what you will - is being denigrated

Well, exactly. Its this careless misuse of professionalism and "professional" as if it is a magic word which somehow guarantees something superior.

So within that definition, someone who has left school with no qualifications but who wants to make a lot of money and is quite streetwise, sets up a ltd liability company and gets lots of mortgages on cheap rental properties and/or manages other's properties, and who describes themselves as a "professional landlord" is a "professional landlord", when the firm of solicitors down the road which manages a few rental properties on behalf of long term existing clients is not. Or someone who is a genuine professional in a relevant field who owns 2 rental properties but continues to work in that profession for a living, is not a "professional landlord".

How illogical!

You're quite right Abs - that definition of yours is v odd

LessMissAbs - who knows what fideline means by professional landlord because she won't say. Sure, your definition could well fit the bill. Although fideline says not .

There is no legal definition of "professional"landlord" certainly not under Scots law. Landlords may or may not use that description but it's meaningless.

All landlords in Scotland must be registered with their LA as fit and proper persons to be landlords. LAs and Scottish government make no distinction on types of landlords, the rules apply to them all. The suggestions about accidental landlords, small landlords/ HMOs having different and lesser rules are nonsense and would be rejected out of hand by Shelter or any government housing policy unit.

I see Fideline ignored the point I made that a portfolio of rental properties does not qualify for business property relief from inheritance tax so from that point of view no individual could be a "professional"landlord.

Maybe it is a defined term under English law, in Scotland it's no more than a self appellation by someone who may or may not be fulfilling the statutory obligations.

LessMiss in my professional capacity as a solicitor the worst examples of bad landlords I have come across who think none of the regulations apply to them are the "professional" landlords-" meaning exactly the sort of person you mean.

Someone whose only income is from a portfolio of cheaply bought and cheaply managed properties. These people are "professional" in the strict sense of the word.

LessMissAbs - who knows what fideline means by professional landlord because she won't say. Sure, your definition could well fit the bill. Although fideline says not

Seems to be if she or some other posters on here call them one! The "professional sanction" also seems to be if some posters on mumsnet bitch about them.

Her other comment I found contradictory was why do landlords keep rolling up and insisting they make no profits from their property?

Ignoring the fact that her so-called "professional landlords" with many properties will be running them in the most tax-efficient way possible, which may well include making a loss on some of them at least for some years and off-setting against other or related business ventures.

Ignoring also the fact that most property owners have to get mortgages which they have to pay on rental properties, along with maintenance costs and increasingly, compliance costs - as you will know Caitlin17, we have now been lumbered with the costs of carpeting all HMOs in this year's change in the regime.

Oh, and what else was it? A "class of accidental landlords who weren't professional either" who were a new invention. Because no-one ever in the history of the UK has had a property which they cannot sell but can rent out.

annoys me when someone like the OP comes along and starts making rude, sweeping assumptions. I've worked very hard for my degree and career, have invested my hard earned salary in my properties and spend a lot of time and effort managing and maintaining them to the most exacting standards in the world. I'm sorry if the OP's life has panned out disappointingly for her, but that's not my fault - I've also had my share of living in rented rooms in shared flats on not much money while working towards my end goal, but I think intelligence is also about learning from your environment as much as academics, and I learned a lot from how my own landlords came about having their properties, rather than wanting to restrict them and crying out "its not fair".

Professional seems to mean, to some posters, LLs who never ask/force tenants to move out. So say I have a huge number of let properties, when I decide to retire to Spain I won't be able to sell them, according to these rules, somehow I need to find someone to take them off me (and this person must also promise to never ever make a tenant move out so not much chance of that!) - who in their right mind would attempt to put such restrictions on the sale of their property.

In fact they want nice kind council's to take on the properties for ever and ever regardless of what this might cost the council tax payer

I couldn't have summed it up better than wowfudge

FWIW I am happy with the status quo. How about HAs compulsorily purchase privately rented housing stock? They can then manage it, set rents, deal with tenants, etc. Maybe they can do all that, charge lower rents and give tenants increased security of tenure. Maybe they couldn't because it would be uneconomic and sounds rather like old Soviet bloc communism.

LessMiss, Maggie, Caitlin, etc - I can't help wondering, was 'professional' a misnomer and did the OP mean something like, 'cuddly, non-profit making, non-tenant-evicting'?

This 'accidental' landlord has been sorting out getting a broken boiler fixed for her tenant today. But was I professional? I was definitely quite cuddly and I won't be profiting, given the likely cost of repairs.

But has there ever been a way of guaranteeing a property for life, even if you buy it? If you lose your job, or have a severe illness, you might lose your property if you own it, or for all sorts of eventualities that life may throw at you. Or you might be compulsorily purchased. I don't think its realistic, although rentals do have housing benefit to help out. But to expect other people to subsidise a perfect property, for life, at an affordable non-market rent? Why should rental tenants get this benefit?

In reality, most people need the flexibility of moving about with work, and tenants also enjoy the benefits of shorter term tenancies.

As I pointed out in a previous post, there are Assured Tenancies still about, but they tend to be in rural areas and owned by large country estates, require excellent references and be quite expensive.

The trouble is that the nice kind councils don't have to comply with many of the exacting standards that private landlords do and hence a lot of their properties are not that desirable. Its also ironic that we have to install a sprinkler system, mains operated smoke alarms with battery back up tested and logged every month, 30 minute fire resistant doors, intumescent door seals, self closing doors, fire blankets and fire extinguishers all replaced every 3 years, for an HMO but councils have to do none of this for families with children.

Rents need regulating full stop. The number of people buying up property to let is ridiculous. rents should be set and not be determined by how much the owner has borrowed! Also think BTL should be taxed and 2nd homes not occupied all year double the council tax.

noddyholder rents are NOT determined by how much the owner has borrowed. If only it were that simple ! DH and I owned a large 2 bed detached house in a great location, but at the end of the day it was a 2 bed house, therefore the rent we would have gained would have been limited. We sold and bought a 4 bed town house for the same money in the next street that was worth £400 a month more in rent.