to be happy that "Generation rent" is finally being recognised

[vitaminZ]

Ok, I know Labour have a lot of responsibility in causing the ridiculous housing bubble and encouraging BTL but I am happy that the issues experienced by tenants in the private rented sector are finally coming into the political consciousness. I know it is cynical of Labour to use this issue to get votes but since none of the other parties seem to care about the millions of renters stuck in shitty accommodation with no security of tenure and no hope of ever owning their own home, any party that raises this is going to get my vote. Well done Miliband. It's not perfect but it's a start.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/10799998/Labour-to-cap-landlords-rent-on-buy-to-let-homes.html

Any government that is prepared to cap rent will get my vote.

It seems like shit to me. They want to cap rent, but rents aren't rising, not in my experience. My rent has gone up 3% in seven years, and they want to make it 3% EVERY year.

Rents aren't the problem so much as the fact the BTL exists at all. Without the BTL plague largely presided over by Labour from 1997 to 2010 I wouldn't be renting.

Bastards.

Aren't a lot of rents dependent on mortgage rates?

If so what happens when the magical figure of rent = 125% of the monthly mortgage becomes rent = 90% of the mortgage? Will the banks demand that Landlords sell up?

I'm asking because I'm aware that interest rates cannot stay this low forever, but am unfamiliar with the ongoing terms of BTL mortgages.

I'm just wondering if as usual with Labour the soundbite will sound good but the detail will mean people (tenants in this case) get shafted in reality. Many BTL landlords are on interest only mortgages but totally reliant on one or two BTL properties for their pension.

I don't think rents are based on mortgage rates necessarily. I think they are linked to incomes - people's ability to pay.

Not every BTL landlord is mortgaged up to the hilt.

If you are, then you can't simply raise the rents if the rest of the market is charging much less - nobody will pay. Outcome should be that the overleveraged BTLs go bust.

No government will do a thing that doesn't involve protecting the housing bubble. Should have let it and banks go to the wall back in 2008.

How can it be people's ability to pay when so many working people in private rental need subsidy from housing benefit?

Aga - you're lucky! Mine has just been put up 15% in a year.

Pleased that it's being acknowledged but have serious doubts that any of this will come to fruition. Too many MPs have property portfolios and the vested interest in keeping house and rental prices high and tenants at the disadvantage remains strong

We had to beg from family for large deposit to buy a few years ago because we were being turned out of yet another rental so LL could sell up which would have meant our kids moving schools again. Renting was crap for us but only because of the insecurity. I actually dislike being a homeowner and would have continued renting had there been longer tenancy agreements available.

If you are - or aspire to be - a homeowner then one day you will be a house-seller: if not you then your executors.

Will you refuse to sell to a BTLer and only sell to a would-be occupier? Will you even ask?

If you will then you can complain about BTL. If you would just takethe best price you can get then you can't.

What a strange argument. For many people renting their home that's a purely hypothetical question. Bizarre.

I'll believe it when it actually happens. Might just be a better idea to address the causes of the problems instead of just addressing the symptoms by setting caps etc.

no, on balance this one is just going to turn into 'all landlords are rich over-entitled bastards making tons of money', so I don't think I'll bother, beyond stating that you can already negotiate as long a tenancy agreement as you and your landlord can agree on.

Milliband's promises are hot air. He cannot do ANYTHING that he is promising even if he is elected.

They aren't all rich, but they are all parasites.

The thing is, the private rental sector is providing a service, you can't get rid of it. There will always be demand, so the "parasites" are needed by lots of people.

It won't work, its a crazy policy which will unravel quickly to accompany the energy price "freeze". There are too many factors involved in the market that the Government in theory no longer has control over interest rates so how they can claim to do this I don't know

The private rental market isn't providing a service that anybody is actually choosing to use tho. People rent because the market is so fucked up normal people on normal wages cannot buy normal houses- not because they genuinely want to pay off parasites other people's mortgages for them.

You could very easily do away with BTLs actually, and I'd be surprised if as much as 5% of people felt they "needed" them back.

YANBU! Every time I see another article about it I do a little dance inside.

Paq there is nothing wrong with providing private rental accommodation as long as people have a CHOICE. A choice to rent or buy....a choice to rent a place and stay for a reasonable amount of time...time enough to put down roots....to make a home for their children without fear of being moved on.

What is needed is some serious rewards for landlords who offer long term secure tenancies.

Whilst I'm one that would benefit from it, how can you stop an individual from charging what they want for a service they provide?

Note I say individual, because we're not talking like massive companies.

Whilst I'm one that would benefit from it, how can you stop an individual from charging what they want for a service they provide?

They could make a law about it tomorrow if they wanted. They could cap rents at at third of the market rate for an average mortgage for that property size, or a quarter of the mode average wage for the area or any other method of calculating a reasonable rent for the property size in that area.

Gas/Electric/Water companies can't just charge as much as they they wnat and force people to pay it because they don't have the choice to go without fuel or sanitation. Housing should be the same IMO.

Tequilla it's more than a service, it's a human right and a necessity. That's how. It's not the same as a hairdresser charging over the odds.

We share a building - 8 flats, five of them LL owned. The 'landlords' are, in fact companies based in the Middle East. They do not pay for building works. We desperately need a new roof, water coming in to top flat, it is a communal cost but they will not pay up.

The flat we bought was netting the LL £22,000 per year. We have just had it rewired as it was dangerous. The gas meter was also a fire hazard. This flat would have housed your student children, it houses my young children.

The rental sector is a disgrace because if these people.

They could also make LL's pay council tax on the properties they rent out. And not make SOME pay it if they offered long term tenancies.

I specifically said individuals because I knew someone would compare it to Gas/Electric/Water.

When we get our gas and electric from individuals instead of massive companies it can be compared IMO.

Those monopolise the market so obviously have to be looked at.

Housing though, each landlord is an individual. I don't think it's right to tell them what they can charge to allow someone to live in their house.

Mrs it's a human right and a necessity they don't have to provide though.

No-one is entitled to their property, as they own it. They are chosing to make it available to the general public. I'm not sure how laws can be passed to control how much an individual charges for their property.

Tequila no they don't but there's plenty of the buggers queuing up to do it isn't there!

The way to make lls charge reasonable rent and to help renters feel more secure is to make LLs pay their OWN council tax even if they are renting the property out....and if they offer long term lets then they don't need to do this.