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?

Yanbu

I do roll my eyes at the landlords who complain how hard life is for them.

Yes must be hard having a capital asset which generates income for you.

People need secure homes. It isn't happening. Tenants are the weaker in the transaction between them and the landlord.

Housing benefit is ridiculously high.

It is just like low paid wages - the state has to step in the subside landlords via housing benefit or companies via tax credits. Aside from pensioners, they are the biggest beneficiaries from the welfare state.

I never understand the attraction of camden.

Someone will buy it though, desperate for a toehold on 'the ladder'

Camden is good for a night out. But you wouldn't want to live there.

"Private landlords have fucked this country up with their carping, whining, complaining, exploitative ways."

No question.

But you can't blame them. It's the government's fault for not regulating it.

I've hung up my DMs Aga

Fast heading towards evenings of ovaltine and cross-stitch I'm afraid

Phrases like 'I might need my house back' encapsulate a lot for me.

Amateur (but well meaning) dabbling is no basis on which to house millions of families.

I bought some DMs in Camden once. Fuck knows why. I went to the DM shop and bought these horrible boots. Threw them away after about 6 months.

Ha. It would have been a sub-conscious, Camden-inspired urge for steel toe-caps.

There are a lot of places I won't go unless I am dressed to kick.

Slightly off topic but ....Not sure if it applies to all part-ownership schemes but someone I know has one and despite owning only 50% of the property, the way the agreement is drawn up she is liable for 100% of the costs of maintaining the property.

Also because she had outgrown the property she wanted to sell but was prevented from doing so because the HA appointed valuer said that it was worth more than it actually was worth on the open market so she couldn't find any purchasers (not London obviously).

If anyone intends on getting a part ownership property I would argue that a 50% of full market value should more fairly entitled the purchaser to more like 60% of the property to take account of these restrictions.

I'm an accidental landlord. The rent is covering the mortgage with a "profit" of £500 per year before tax as a safety net in case something breaks or needs replacing. While I want my tenants to be happy and stay a long time, I can't afford to subsidise there housing costs by charging less rent than the mortgage and ending up struggling to afford to pay if the boiler breaks down for example.

Most landlords do not make a huge profit, and most just want tenants to take care of their house and live there happily.

Yep I have one of those contracts Lorn

Accidental landlords are a class of their own, and another recent phenomenon created by a distorted housing market.

Something is going to have to give somewhere.

Why do LLs keep rolling in denying that they make mega profits?

Isn't it a profit if someone else is paying your mortgage? After all...you own a house...they own nothing....I'm not saying this is wrong...it's life! But surely a property is a profit of sorts?

But an adjudication system for the many more private tenants than there used to be would cost too much money. So it won't work.

Oh yes, bring in rent control and with the money saved on HB invest in good quality council housing. As a first step I would restrict rents on all ex Council properties bought under the RTB legislation (however long ago and however many changes of ownership there have been since then) to say 5 or 10% over the rent the council/ALMO/stock transfer organisation charge for a similar property.

True Bumpy

The HB savings could pay for it maggie

I don't know. I think housing benefit is the cause of high rents.

Landlords can only put the prices up because the the government is essentially footing the bill. If the government were not subsidising rents by paying housing benefits then no one would be able to afford the rents and they would go down.

So I think it's the Landlords taking advantage of the housing benefit and the government.. and to be fair they are not the only ones. Unfortunately it's the people caught in the middle that get shafted.

I am a landlord and a tenant. My rental income doesn't cover our mortgage.

Yes African I can see it is circular. Problem is if you slashed HB without controlling rents you would have a lot of stress and homelessness, before it all leveled out, IF it leveled out.

I'm sure 90% LTV BTL mortgages also feed the problem

The private sector in Scotland is very highly regulated. My 2 properties have to meet standards which are higher than public sector houses. I can't recall which one of you called me "unprofessional" but how dare you. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The housing problems today are virtually 100% attributable to Mrs T's right to buy legislation.

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?

African neither of my flats have ever had tenants on HB

Nobody called you unprofessional Caitlin

I said what you were doing was not 'professional LLing'

Fideline so what do you suggest? Compulsory purchase of my 2 flats at a price you think fair?

And what would that be ? 50% of OMV value.

Actually you did call me unprofessional and I think an amateur as well.