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?

In fact, if mortgage lenders were prepared to lend 95% and you could take out a mortgage for a longer term, say, 40 years, it could be much more affordable for younger people to buy. Let's face it, they won't be retiring at 60 anyway.

40 year mortgages and 95% mortgages would just drive prices even higher, and force people into debt slavery till the day they die. It's just about the worst thing you could do, and only those with an interest in selling houses at inflated prices could want it.

Fideline yes Noddy is doing something positive to increase the housing stock. Unlike you and your husband holding on to the spare house you "accidentally" acquired. You'll get far more letting the way you do as holiday lets than of you let it out permanently.

Caitlin17 LessMiss I can't find anything which obliges anyone to use the Council's model style or have your own style approved by them. There's nothing in the legislation which gives them this power

Its changed. There was a point last year when their info did compel landlords to either use their standard lease or seek their approval of your own lease. I did raise my concerns with them...!

Their site does say a landlord has to have buildings insurance, which is not true. It might be sensible to but there is no obligation to insure your house

Absolutely. Information appears on there from time to time which is at best inaccurate and at worst, misleading.

Caitlin DH wants to sell his house and buy into mine, (thus releasing an ideal FTB cottage on to the market) he doesn't want to be a LL. Lots of people don't. It really isn't complicated.

If it hadn't been for the floods it would have sold months ago. This proselyting is just odd.

Aga I don't think we even have agreement on this thread that ever-increasing prices are undesirable.

Then why doesn't he sell it ? You've said yourself it was an easy holiday let so presumably quite a nice property. The market is picking up and despite the doom and gloom on here mortgages are available.

Caitlin what are you on? He is trying to sell it. He has accepted three offers, all from FTBs, all of which fell through (two of them for mortgage reasons). It will sell. It's just taken a hell of a long time. Why am even explaining this?

The point was that I understand how accidental LLing can happen to people who don't want to be LLs. In DH's case he is lucky to have a third option that allows him to cover mortgage without compromising vacant possession.

NoddyHolder I don't want to be an amateur landlord. I buy old houses and renovate them. I buy with my own money and do the renovation with my own money and hope to sell for a profit. But its a risk. No house I have ever bought has been habitable before I have done the modernisation so not suitable for letting. And I am not a landlord I am a designer

I've done up a few properties and sold them on as well as having to do work on the rental properties. I admit I sub-divided a room to make two bedrooms in one but considering it was 28 feet x 17 feet to start with the result is still pretty large. In Scotland, the HMO Regulations are so strict that, although their interpretation varies from LA to LA, you need planning permission for change of use for large rental properties and a certain number of bathrooms per number of bedrooms, bedrooms having to be a minimum size, etc.. All this is useful, some of the more esoteric interference such as having to carpet the whole flat and chain cookers to walls because one tenant once pulled a cooker over on top of them, is less so.

I have to say, even if I won the lottery, I would still do up, sell and rent properties. I'm a bit obsessed with the property market! I also enjoy the design side. I must admit to being a bit puzzled about the comments re the cheapest kitchens and bathrooms possible though. Yes, it would be lovely to put in luxury stuff but in a rental, its not always practical, unless you are aiming at the luxury market. The chances of it getting trashed are quite high. And I realise there is a snobbery element against using B&Q or Ikea, but tbh I will be putting B&Q gloss units in my own house, which I'm currently doing up and extending. Its good enough stuff for me. Same with the bathrooms, I mean how good a toilet do you need to sit on! I've faffed around with marmoleum and Amtico floors and I honestly find a good lino just as good and in practical terms, if its going to be damaged, lasts just as long.

Of course Fideline he could offer a secure long term tenancy to one of the first time buyers who couldn't get a mortgage.

If he professes a sudden urge to be a LL, I'll point him in your direction.

Interesting Guardian article about the life upheaval caused by the instability of living in the private rental sector here

There are plenty of younger people who pay horrendous monthly rents for one room in HMOs in sought after areas so they can be near the action. For the same money they could rent a whole, small house a couple of miles away. They would be no worse off. I'm talking about areas outsider London.

Also the woman in the Guardian article should have stood up for herself at the time instead of bleating about it afterwards.

Wow wow you really are hardcore.

She explains in the article that the last time she 'stood up for herself' re repairs, she received a notice to quit soon after. She is explicit that she didn't dare insist(despite the ceiling being crumbled on the carpet) for fear that the same happened again. You really can't understand that?

As for 'younger people' wanting to be 'near the action' - where's the evidence? Even if a few people make that choice, are you really saying it is widespread? That is explains the well-documented rental crisis?

Re The Guardian article the situation isn't the same in Scotland but:-

1. Tenants in Scotland can't be asked to pay any agency or landlords'fees. It is illegal and a criminal offence. Any tenant asked to pay should report this to the local authority private housing officer.

1. The Private Rented Housing Panel investigates disrepair and standards. If it agrees the house isn't in good repair it will make a repair order and the house can't be re-let to any one until the order is lifted. It is a criminal offence to re-let.

1. The PRHP case load and decisions are made public on their website.

1. Any landlord who falls foul of these rules risks losing his registration and without being registered no property may be let and there is the potential of fines of up to £50,000.

1. All of the above has been widely advertised by Scottish government. The Scottish courts do enforce this.

Perhaps she should be looking to lobby housing officers to enforce existing rules (private rental is not unregulated) and for England to adopt the additional rules which apply in Scotland.

Bloody bleating tenants, damn nuisance eh what? Bring back the property qualification to vote. That should keep the vassals in their place.

You're quite right as usual Aga. In fact a vote per property owned would seem the rational and fair way forward. That should entrench the situation nicely.

Maybe the first step should be for the whole of the UK to emulate Scottish regulation then Caitlin. The question is does the Scottish system work?

Fideline did you read my post and previous posts about regulation in Scotland? I've already said it works; I've already said there have been prosecutions.

I've referred you at least twice to look at the website of the PHRP. Their case load and decisions are public.

Oh and one thing for you to consider which I know you won't believe but I have never been instructed to end a lease just because the landlord can. SATs (our ASTs) can be ended at the end of their contractual period. With a bad tenant a landlord can use the "natural end" ground or try to prove fault. It's far easier to go for the natural end as bad tenants can and do string fault cases out for many months by lodging spurious defences, turning up at court as an unprepared party litigant and requesting extensions all whilst not paying rent. A decree will eventually be obtained but it's a long drawn out process.

An SAT tenant whose lease has been terminated at its natural end isn't going to own up to Shelter or the local authority that actually he had huge rent arrears and/or had trashed the house. But then I expect you don't believe tenants cause damage either or ever behave badly.

I'm wondering whether a preponderance of Scottish LLs and tenants think it works. Those taking caes to the PHRP necessarily being a self-selecting sample. It certainly looks like you have a better system than the English/Welsh one.

"But then I expect you don't believe tenants cause damage either or ever behave badly."

Really?! Anyone would think I had proposed radical commnist property re-distribution and all-vaunting squatters rights rather than mildly suggesting slightly improved tenancy rights.

Some of these landlords make me feel quite ill with their amateurism and selfishness.

Here's one, she has bought her house 10 years ago to live in, and got married, moved into husband's house and decided to let her own house. Doesn't have a clue what she's doing, tenants are late on rent, etc., but now lease is up at end of March (post is in early Feburary)

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4889006

A couple of posts in she's called in some kind of cut rate estate agent, who's going to come in and take photos and hold an 'open day', which involves literally hundreds of people traipsing around the home of the unfortunate people renting from her, on the basis of some bullshit from the estate agent about 'more properties coming on to the market in April', so basically fuck the tenants and their right to peaceful enjoyment, she's going to sell now (and she believed the EA's lies spun to get the deal).

Her concerns are:

(a) her own convenience, doing as little work as possible
(b) cutting costs right down to the bones " we rented out my place earlier in the year and got an agency in ( which ended up costing a bit. Lesson learnt)" " I am wary of using agents to get a hefty bill back" "i have been out of the property just under the year then i have 6 months before capital gains tax comes in"
(c) charging as as much as possible "The agents underpriced the house so I know that rental could go up"

Puts house up for sale, and she is apparently

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4907746

" tearful in fear that no one would buy it"

"Today lunchtime agent called to say they have booked in over 10 viewings at that time. The house has tenants. I know I could wait for tenants to leave but we are currently house hunting for a property- put an offer in yesterday which was turned down and EA said we'd be in a better position if this house has an offer on it or sold. "

So, 10 viewings booked, tenants still paying to live there.

And apparently following this, they had an open day as well, so the tenants were deprived of use of their house while unknown members of the public came traipsing round.

She seems a bit confused about her duties as a landlord, e.g.

"There is also the growing things to be done in the house, when i was there I would tackle them straight away but the tenants seem to leave them until they need to be replaced rather than mended. ( fences which blew down in the storm - could have been taken down and replaced when over but have been left to become battered and smashed.)"

Bear in mind that the storm was in October, and it's now February/March and it was absolutely the landlord's duty to fix the fences.

So the unfortunate neighbours living next to her house have got no fence (and various other unspecified dilapidations) because some amateur landlord has decided to just fuck about a bit in renting out houses but doesn't want to pay out a penny in maintenance.

She also has her eyes on the tenant's 'large deposit'.

It's very very wrong that people like this are allowed to dabble in being housing providers, in cahoots with shyster agent scum who do not give one flying fuck about tenants 'Tenants current in the house did not seem to concern him as long as there was a leaving date. '

Of course her selfishness in context of the country's limited housing stock doesn't end with the impending sale of this property, nope she wants to buy a second house by the seaside 'to relax', at the expense, obviously, of those without a first home there.

And just to say selfishness is an outcome of government policy, it's nothing personal about that seller, it's the government that is at fault for allowing this behaviour.

Fideline your response is just what I thought it would be; basically it can't be true because a landlord/someone who works for landlords said it and PRHP cases aren't reliable as they are self-selecting.

Perhaps you should drop Mr Salmond a note telling him the 2004,2006 and 2011 Acts and the big advertising campaigns to tell tenants about their rights were a waste of time.

Fideline a Scottish government survey a couple of years ago found the order of preference for housing was owned, privately rented, housing association , local authority. So some of them must be doing it correctly. I mentioned that before and also mentioned the overwhelming majority of landlords in Scotland own only one or 2 houses. Again from government research Both points you ignored since neither fit your agenda of evil, amateur landlords.

"Fideline your response is just what I thought it would be; basically it can't be true because a landlord/someone who works for landlords said it and PRHP cases aren't reliable as they are self-selecting."

Not remotely what I said, or indeed what I think.

I don't doubt that the Scottish system works better than the English (for e.g.) one. 'Better' and 'perfect' are two different things however.

And I am not going to accept your sole word for it, no. Nor accept the prhp website as a sole source. Not doubting it - just maintaining an (optimistic, receptive) agnosticism for now.

My pesky academic training coming out there. Sorry!