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

[cestlavielife]

allowing BTL to take off mortgage interest from their income for tax purposes is a massive tax concession.
wear and tear yes,
maintenance yes.

but the mortgage interest relief is huge.

[cestlavielife]

I am on a two year AST. it allows for annual increase up to 8%. (and having tog et landlord to make basic repairs to appliances and windows etc but that is another issue)

my last landlady did not raise rent in six years.

[AgaPanthers]

The difference is that Tesco are manufacturing and importing food, which is basically unlimited in supply relative to UK demand. Landlords are buying up supply. Also food is fungible, unlike say homes for someone working in London.

The supply of properties to live in is very strictly controlled in the UK and it's not comparable at all.

"Landlordism supplies shelter to those who cannot or don't want to get a mortgage. People need choice and if the only landlord is the council then people won't be able to find accomdiation quickly."

That is because landlordism PREVENTS people getting mortgages. We have far too many landlords now. Compared with 20 years ago, home ownership has fallen and private rental increased, and this is because there are now so many more buy-to-lets.

It doesn't constitute 'choice' when your only option is to rent off a landlord.

Buy-to-let is a bad thing.

[ReallyTired]

"But landlordism is not any other business, it's based on buying up the supply of shelter, which is a basic human right. "

Tesco sells food. Is that a human right? Should TESCO, Sainsburys and Waitrose be taxed differently because food is a human right.

"
But landlordism is not any other business, it's based on buying up the supply of shelter, which is a basic human right. "

Landlordism supplies shelter to those who cannot or don't want to get a mortgage. People need choice and if the only landlord is the council then people won't be able to find accomdiation quickly.

[AgaPanthers]

"No more than any other business."

But landlordism is not any other business, it's based on buying up the supply of shelter, which is a basic human right.

Also I'm pretty sure it's easier to avoid capital gains tax on a £500k BTL sale than it would be selling £500k worth of shares, say.

[ReallyTired]

"Landlords already get substantial tax concessions."

No more than any other business. What tax concessions are you thinking off. Landlords can ofset the cost of maintainance from their income. If you prevented them doing that then landlords would not do any maintainance and that would hurt the tenant. Encouraging landlords to do maintainance is good for the ecomony.

"Is there room for a graduated scale of tax? "

We have a graduated scale of tax already. All landlords have a personal allowance. Depending on their income they are either base rate tax payers or pay tax at the higher rate.

"So, higher tax on short-term lets, lower rates for long-term."

The only way to do that would be to reform stamp duty. At the moment a long term let is considered to be a lease and attacts stamp duty.

[HoopyViper]

Is there room for a graduated scale of tax?

So, higher tax on short-term lets, lower rates for long-term.

I don't know what impact that would have.

[AgaPanthers]

Landlords already get substantial tax concessions. Tax increases would be more appropriate.

[mimishimmi]

It's a bad idea to impose controls but I do think LL's who offer longer leases and moderate rent raises could be rewarded through tax concessions for doing so.

[writtenguarantee]

another thing they can do besides a cap is give tenants more and better rights.

[writtenguarantee]

None of you are special btw. There are no special circumstances any of you are in which entitle you to leech any more money off the general public than can be objectively considered fair.

there is no such thing as "objectively fair" rent.

A cap is a silly idea. it will do exactly as predicted; create an even bigger housing shortage. A cap does nothing to solve the real problem, and that's a supply problem. what the govt needs to do is address the lack of supply. it either needs to build some housing, or let the private sector do it by easing planning permission.

[SnowinBerlin]

Well Labour introduced an amendment to the proposed Consumer Protection Bill, which would have banned letting agents charging fees to tenants.

Yesterday the amendment was defeated by a majority of 53, 281 to 228, with all but three Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs present voting against it.

Still, we're all in this together, eh?

[IdealistAndProudOfIt]

What makes me laugh is the way they get "accused on Wednesday night of attempting to introduce rent controls like those blamed for damaging the property sector during the 1960s and 1970s."

Yes, they're trying to do something for ordinary people for a change and put the property market back to the way it was in 70's, ie affordable, instead of doing yet more for the rich - and incidentally moving us back more and more to the situation pre-public sector in 1800s like the Tories. What exactly is wrong with that?

It's like accusing people of being socialists, or of 'idealism'. I wish there was more need for such accusations, we desperately need to readjust the balance back to the working classes.

[PennyTheProcrastinator]

We have issues at the moment with the property we rented 3 weeks ago. I was told by the Letting Agent that the LL was happy to give a one year tenancy which is what I wanted as next year I hope to be a position to buy a house again. When I went to sign the contract I was told that as I was paying the 6 months rent in advance due to a bankruptcy 5 years ago, they would only give me a 6 month tenancy but would do me a new tenancy for a further 6 months afterwards. I had already had to pay £1250 at that point and they said if I withdrew I would not get it back! I also needed somewhere to live so OK fine, I thought.

I find out from next door that the landlord had been trying to sell it without success and the previous tenants had left as they didn't want people coming round to view it all the time. The property is still on Rightmove today and I fully expect in 3 months time to be told that the landlord wants me to agree to viewings! I was also told by the Letting Agent AFTER moving in that I would have to pay the additional 6 months rent in advance as well or they would charge me £250 for an new credit check/admin fee and an additional £75 tenancy renewal fee!

Toddler DS opened a letter addressed to the Landlord the other day (I did not see that he had got the post and ripped it open) from their mortgage lender saying that their mortgage payment had bounced. I am assuming that they have not told their mortgage co that they are renting the property out as it was sent here and they have not lived here for 2 years at least. They live abroad and seem to have a 100% mortgage on this property on a not very good rate as the mortgage payment is much more than the rent and the rent is not cheap. They also have this UK mortgage while not living or working here so not UK resident. Is that even allowed?

If they continue not paying their mortgage, the house will be repossessed and we could be kicked out even though we have paid 6 months rent and deposit up front! Anyone know how long this process takes if the mortgage co repossess? I think they were desperately trying to sell as they were having problems paying the mortgage but couldn't so took us as tenants instead in the full knowledge that they were going to shaft us and try to sell again after 4 months.

Really don't want to move in 6 months as have 4DC! Added to that, we still have not seen the gas safety certificate .

[GwenStacy]

My last landlord was pretty good! Less than a 5% increase over 5 years, and when he found out we were moving because we needed somewhere bigger, he tried his best to juggle dates for us so we could move to another of his properties, where he offered to lower the rent by £250 a month so we could afford it.

This one said he wanted long term tenants, and said he was glad a young couple with a baby were moving in as we'd make it our home. Less than a year later he's put the rent up 15% and I'm sitting here in tears because we have to move our of our home.

I would love longer, more secure tenancies. I can't buy, and I hate feeling this vulnerable. I feel guilty for having a baby in this situation. The whole system is degrading and I hate it.

[ReallyTired]

Many landlords have been tenants as well. We have been ripped off by bad landlord. I had a ghastly landlord who used to let himself into my flat and would prefix very sentence of his with "I'm a Christian" in a horribly camp voice. I don't know why I didn't tell him, "yes, I have heard you the first time. Now please will you go away and let me shag fornicate in peace with my multiple boy friends." I suppose that I was young and far too shy.

[UtterFool]

I agree, us landlords aren't all bad. My house is top notch and I've not put the rent up since I started renting (2 years ago) and have no intention to either.

As per Shewhowines, I would welcome long term lets and hope mine stay forever! They're great tenants and I make sure the house remains top notch and as cost effective as possible.

Putting a cap on rents would make no difference to me but don't like the idea either. Bad landlords need to be flushed out and tighter regulations put in place to assure the quality of homes but it'll be impossible to cap rents.

[Lanabelle]

We aren't all parasites, I don't have a BTL morgage, just permission from my lender to let. I had a flat which I owned before I got married and bought a house with DH, I let it out because I no longer live there but I will be in serious negative equity if I was to sell it just now. Its a 1 bedroom close to the centre of town and I let it for 330pcm. I let them have their cat there, they can decorate (within reason) and as long as the rent is paid then I am pretty much happy. The rent charged covers the mortgage payment, the landlords insurance and the buildings insurance, I think I make £1.26 each month and set rent to 330 just so it was an even number. Please don't tar us all with the same brush, some of us are just trying not to lose thousands on houses we bought before the market crashed that would never sell now for what we paid

[Shewhowines]

How often do people actually have to move out because of ll selling up, in reality? Is the problem really as bad as it seems on Mumsnet? Surely most ll and tenants want long term leases. I'd welcome a tenant who wants a 3 year lease after a 6 month probation period. That saves me arrangement fees and gives me security. Also saves on 6 monthly redecoration. Surely this is true of most ll?

[HoopyViper]

And it's interesting isn't it, we never hear from letting agents on these threads

[HoopyViper]

...most rental contracts I've seen include break clauses for both parties after 6 months

Jassy, I too have seen break clauses for both parties after six months, but they are certainly not in all contracts. IME (20 years renting) it depends which agency is managing the contract, they usually have their preferred, standard contract terms.

...it should be made a criminal offence to let or sublet a property without permission of the mortgage company/ head lease

I completely agree ReallyTired, and you are correct, it happens if the LL do not have permission to let. Letting agencies should also be struck off if they let out a property where they haven't documented evidence. Getting a LL to sign to say they have permission, rather than actually see the paperwork is a way too easy cop out, and utterly worthless if the LL is abroad.

[ReallyTired]

"Tired this is a subject which deserves some emotion. If you don;t think so then I doubt you're qualified to discuss it with any real insight."

I disagree with you. There are times when emotion clouds judgement. Why are my opinions on this subject invalid? Surely its important to know how a landlord's mind works if you are drafting legislation. Real life landlords will look at a situation with no emotion. A calm and cool head makes it easier to find loopholes in the law and exploit them if you are an unscrupulous landlord. If you want to avoid loopholes in the law then legislation needs to be planned and carefully researched otherwise you end up with a situation worst that what you had.

"Hoopy, most rental contracts I've seen include break clauses for both parties after 6 months, so that insecurity already exists to a certain extent I think. I agree that this would perpetuate it."

I think that with 3 year contracts landlords would be less inclined to give a difficult tenant the benefit of the doubt.

[ReallyTired]

I feel that the issue of a mortgage lender being able to evict with 2 days notice is more of a problem. I was under the impression that a lender gave a tenant 2 months notice if it was a proper buy to let mortgage. Tenants only get evicted with two days notice in circumstances when a landlord has let a property illegally. (Ie. without permission from the mortgage company). I feel it should be made a criminal offence to let or sublet a property without permission of the mortgage company/ head lease.

[JassyRadlett]

Excellent point, bigkids.

Hoopy, most rental contracts I've seen include break clauses for both parties after 6 months, so that insecurity already exists to a certain extent I think. I agree that this would perpetuate it.

[HoopyViper]

And to add to that, the being allowed to sell up or move back in with 2 months notice gives LL MORE flexibility then they have now - at least now tenants can be assured of their home AT LEAST for the duration of their contract, whether that's 6 months or a year.

Under this new proposal, a family could be kicked out after 6 months, or effectively at any time after with 2 months notice - that is LESS stability, not more. Clearly also, should a LL default on the mortgage, the lender can evict with 2 DAYS NOTICE. Only no-one lets on about this until it happens.

Come on Labour.

Could. Do. Better.