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?

Really Aga no tenants want short term lets? That is simply not true. It depends on the intended market.

Fideline you started with the rudeness just try reading back some of your posts.

Would be interesting to hear from some calm rational LLs though

Yes a small % of tenants want short-term lets therefore you aren't part of the problem.

Is that what you want me to say?

No Caitlin you lost the plot because I described you as an amateur rather than a professional LL,( based on your description of potentially needing your flats back for your or your son at anytime)

You then spent several posts insisting I had called you 'unprofessional' (which I hadn't) and getting rather hysterical.

HTH

Tenants who want short term lets would still be catered for under the return to the traditional model that fideline is proposing though - they would just give notice and move on.

I do agree, as I have said, that right to buy has been a disaster for this country. But it was done with the express intention of privatising housing, and of privatising it in a way that a small business owner's daughter would understand - lots of little people, none of them regulated, none of them answerable to anyone.

I may have to move soon. If I do, it will be at short notice. Because of the time taken to sell a house and because of not wanting to change my DC's school mid-way through an academic year, I may become a LL because I may choose to let my own house and rent in the area I need to move.

I am fortunate that I have a large amount of equity in my house. It means I can set rent at what I think is a reasonable amount and it will still more than cover my BTL mortgage repayments. The 'recommended' amount I could ask is ludicrous and downright greedy in my opinion.

Renting was always supposed to be the cheaper alternative to buying. Rents now - at least those through tenancy agencies - seem to be almost as much as, if not more than, a mortgage.

I can't help feeling that if a rental property is owned with a mortgage and needs to have rent set above what is sensible, then the owner can't really afford to have a rental property. A fair rent should be a fair rent irrespective of the owner's needs. But then I feel that this would perpetuate the inequalities between the haves and have nots and penalises those trying to work hard to achieve more.

I don't know what the answer is TBH. I suspect very strongly that in order for things to become fair, there would have to be a lot of casualities somewhere along the line. Meanwhile, the babyboomers responsible for the huge inflation of house values are dying/going into homes and passing on their equity to their children, which is simply shoring up the situation for another generation. As long as some can afford to pay these prices, the rest of us will have to suck it up I think.

"I can't help feeling that if a rental property is owned with a mortgage and needs to have rent set above what is sensible, then the owner can't really afford to have a rental property."

This,

It also maintains a vicious cycle.

Fideline you're not interested in hearing the landlord's point of view. There are plenty of people who are landlords on this forum. If no one has piped up it may well be down to your tone.
I've posted on threads where I've been happy to tell tenants their landlord was in the wrong about deposits and repairs. I've told other landlords when I think they've been out of order witb their tenants.

I've stated I've no objection to complying with the very high level of regulation in Scotland; I've stated I have never actually ended a tenancy. I am not exploiting the benefits system as none of my tenancies are that type; I've stated I have no problem with maintenance of building or contents it's in my interest to do so.
I've given you real examples of tenants who positively don't want long term lets. But as far as you and Rommel are concerned I'm an evil capitalist and no one should own more than 1 house.

Oh another point someone mentioned the fact landlord's obligations on repairs can't be enforced. Try reading the case reports of the PRHP. If a landlord is taken to the panel and they order repairs ending the tenancy does not lift the repair order. Whilst there is an order the house can't be relet to anyone. A landlord with a poor record at the PRHP may well lose his registration. (I don't think you have that in England) Letting without a registration is a criminal offence which the Scottish courts do pursue.

" But as far as you and Rommel are concerned I'm an evil capitalist and no one should own more than 1 house."

Making things up again there Caitlin

Some very interesting and reasonable LLs contributed earlier. I am sure more will be along.

I'm a LL.

I've only ended 1 tenancy out of 7. That's because if non-payment of rent. I've been clear to explain to tenants that the property is a long term investment for me.

It's taken in average 4 years to break even on each of the properties (and that's with a pretty good yield percentage compared with many areas of the UK) so it's hardly a monthly money making machine. My main profits will come on that sale of the properties when the market is right and that matches with when I want to cash them in. It's a long term investment for me. 1 house for my DD (who's still only 11) and the others for my pension as I've been a SAHM for the past 13 years so don't have much if a pension.

That said, when the houses reach the top of the market it'll make sense for me to sell, bung the money in another investment and then liquidate again to buy houses again at the bottom of the next downward cycle.

That's saying nothing happens in the meantime and we don't need the money for unforeseen reasons. We hope this won't happen but we are glad we have a buffer of equity should the need arise.

Dahlen Would you object to stronger tenancy rights? Or is that harder to contemplate in the case of the family home?

Rommell right to buy was instigated as a means of safeguarding the Tory vote. The more home owners the less Labour voters. The intention was to create a huge number of petit-bourgousie.(I know that spelling is wrong)

I was opposed to it at the time. It was a clever (but not admirable piece) of social engineering but short termism of the worst kind. Defenders of course would say it was the biggest single step of creating social mobility we'd ever seen. I personally think it has resulted in terrible social division.

As for buy to let, I don't have a mortgage and even when I did I wasn't dependent on rent to pay it.

If I ever had to be a tenant again, I would rent from someone like you Joys

You sound business-minded. But you wouldn't want secure tenure for tenants either, I take it? You want the freedom to liquidise assets according to the market?

There's at least one poster on here who commented no one should own more houses than they can live in. There's been plenty of comments about exploitation and cashing in.

None of them me.

I haven't said any of those things.

Not that you've let facts get in your way, so far...

Fideline you'd have no difficulty letting from me. I am a very good landlord but like Joysmum I want to be free to sell my houses when I want. Unlike Joysmum I'm not playing the market and have no intention of cashing in at the height of the market and buying cheap when it's at the bottom.

She hasn't confirmed yet whether that is something she would only do if it was empty anyway or whether she wants to keep ASTs to enable it.

So Fideline you don't object to Joysmum being free to ending leases, cashing in and selling in a good market and buying cheap in a poor market as that is just being business like?

Of course I do

She hasn't confirmed that she does/would though.

She states when the houses reach the top of the market she will sell. There is only a limited market for houses with secure tenants. We still have them in Scotland(Assured as opposed to Short Assured usually created by mistake) except when they are part of a larger sale of a farm or an estate they are unsaleable.

Well lets wait for her to come back and clarify whether she would actually evict tenants to do so, shall we?

I hope she does although she wants to be able to make the most of het investment by the "sale of the properties when the market is right"

How would you suggest she could do that in your scenario of unlimited security of tenure? I'm interested- how would you square being able to play the market to the best advantage with a tenancy that cannot be ended?

Fideline I was addressing you - you are the person I have had a (limited) dialogue with on this. I would hope I came within the bracket of calm, rational landlord.

I am interested to know how you define professional landlord because you appear to have different categories and I wonder if, for example, an accidental landlord can be a professional landlord in your book.

What is wrong with a landlord making money and what is wrong with wanting to liquidate your assets when you choose to?

I think it would be really interesting to go back to the consultation documents and white paper which led to the Act which introduced ASTs and see what the rationale is.

Professional and amateur landlord are widely used terms wow, it's not up to me to define them.

I haven't that there is anything wrong with a landlord making money. There would be a very odd thing to say about any business.

I do, however, think that good conditions for tenants including security of tenure should be an integral part of the rental market, which probably means that rented property is not a suitable home for savings that a LL might need to liquidise in a hurry.