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

[AgaPanthers]

There was no BTL pre-1997. Legal changes created a whole new class, and similar legal changes could kill it.

[TequilaMockingbirdy]

I think people should pay council tax themselves, it pays for a whole lot of stuff we benefit from.

I say this as a private rent tenant by the way, not a landlord.

[MrsWinnibago]

I don't Tequila....I think that if you're renting a house out on a short term let...say 6 month contract, then you, as the owner of said property are statistically more likely to benefit from the services that the ct pays for than the tenants are. Also, you can't have your cake and eat it.

[SnowinBerlin]

YANBU. The private rental sector is like the wild west and I'm in London where it's particularly bad. Milliband has been the only party leader so far to at least acknowledge that there's a problem. The proposed crack down on letting agents double charging both tenants and landlords for the same service is extremely welcome.

We're a year away from a general election and I want to see the plight of renters, as well as proposals to tackle under-supply, tackled by all the main parties in their manifesto. Not that idiot Grant Shapps yelling "OMG communism!' when people point out there's a problem.

ubik is right to point out the lack of controls on sub-standard property. The other issue is security of tenure. At the moment you can be kicked out with 8 weeks' notice. The Labour moves towards longer contracts and greater security of tenure are really necessary.

[SaucyJack]

BTL landlords as a whole monopolise the housing market Tequila. It is absolutely comparable to fuel companies. Those who cannot buy and cannot get a council place- which is the vast majority of people round here (Sussex coast)- have no choice but to rent privately in exactly the same way you have no choice but to pay your local water board.

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.

[MrsWinnibago]

We have not long ago secured a Housing Association property and I can't BEGIN to tell you the relief. It's like a HUGE weight has fallen off my shoulders and DHs too. We spent ten years in private rental...always at the mercy of "Oh I'm selling" landlords.

Now we have a place we can basically call our own and the feeling is indescribable. It's much less "fancy" than some of the rentals we had but that's not even an issue compared to the knowledge that the council won't turf us out on a whim.

THIS is one of the main reasons that LLs should be rewarded for offering secure tenancies.

[TequilaMockingbirdy]

Yes but they're still individuals saucy, they aren't the part of the same profit making company, whether they're under the same title or not.

It just worries me because if they can force landlords to cap what they charge on their own property, for their own service they provide they've set a precedence to do it elsewhere. To have that control. Will they do it with nannies, since childcare is so high?

Who's none of you are special to? I'm not a landlord.I'm a tenant.

[SaucyJack]

It doesn't matter if they're individuals Tequila. They have gone into the business of providing an essential service, and therefore they should be subject to certain controls. People do not have a choice but to privately rent (unless you count living in a cardboard box as a choice). Having a roof over your head is a basic human need.

There isn't a precedence for other services IMO. Childcare/hairdressing/cleaning/plumbing are not essentials. People are not forced to use them so there's no need to make sure they're charging fair rates.

[morethanpotatoprints]

I bought to let as did many of my generation.
Your inheritance makes no interest in a bank, so for the long term is a better investment.
Most I have come into contact with don't have a mortgage on the property.
People have always invested in property to let, it was going on in the 80's and 90's and fewer people were entitled to council houses, or they were all being bought on a right to buy basis.

[MrsWinnibago]

So what's your point potatoprint?

[ReallyTired]

I think we need a royal commision to look at the issue and make recommendations. I believe that some of labour's policies could backfire on tenants. (Ie. longer tenancies would reduce supply of property.)

At the moment labour are taking a knee jerk approach and care more about winning votes than sorting out the letting market. The rental market is an area where politicans have little understanding.

"THIS is one of the main reasons that LLs should be rewarded for offering secure tenancies."

Landlords are quite heavily financially penalised for offering longer tenancies. At the moment rules on stamp duty discourage longer tenancies. A six month AST avoids stamp duty as the amount in the contract is less than 5K. I feel that tenants would get longer tenure if the stamp duty system was reviewed.

I feel we need more regulation of letting agents who push up rents.

[MrsWinnibago]

Longer tenancies would not reduce supply. There is what there is....that's it. Unless you think tenants are on some merry go round of homelessness and housed?

[SnoozingAndLosing]

Hear hear. I'll be voting for the party who looks at this issue. I'm sick of being ripped off and sick of my young kids having to live in substandard property, with no garden, horrible, dangerous blinds (I broke down and cried when I discovered the management company had installed blinds with dangerous loops which they had actually left dangling in my baby's cot). I wrote to my MP and got a letter from
the relevant minister saying that private tenants had a "choice". I do have a choice and I will be exercising that choice at the next election.

[BrianTheMole]

3 year tenancy? Really? If people know how long a tenancy is for at the start, then they can choose to go elsewhere. crosses labour off the list

[ReallyTired]

"Longer tenancies would not reduce supply. There is what there is....that's it. Unless you think tenants are on some merry go round of homelessness and housed?"

If landlords are forced to offer longer tenancies then it will reduce supply. For example a landlord who goes to live abroad for two years will not want to rent their house out.

The problem with longer tenancies is that they become a lease rather than a rental property. Our tax/ rental system is not set up well to cope with this. Stamp duty is not applicatable on most ASTs.

We need to think what laws need to change to facilate short term leases. With a short term lease what repairs should a tenant be responsble for. In a long term lease I would expect a tenant to install blinds, to be able to re decorate without needing permission and take on more responsiblity for maintaince generally.

[MrsWinnibago]

Tired they won't be forced to offer longer tenancies but they won't benefit from being able to pick and choose any more. So your landlord who wants to bugger off abroad for two years CAN do that...but he won't get the same benefits as his brother who has allowed his tenants to stay for 5 years.

Families do not want short term leases. They want HOMES in communities they can stay in....so their children do not have to keep uprooting and changing schools.

[TequilaMockingbirdy]

ReallyTired made a good point, if people want longer tenancies there will have to be more responsibility on the tenants part surely

[TequilaMockingbirdy]

I broke down and cried when I discovered the management company had installed blinds with dangerous loops which they had actually left dangling in my baby's cot



Really? You didnt just think, oh that's easily sorted - I'll tie them up to the top? Job done.

[MrsWinnibago]

Yes....I am sure most people would be happy to take on some maintenance and repainting etc for a longer lease.

But let's not get this twisted....landlords are sitting pretty right now...sure, they can whinge "Oh but we're paying for everything" but at the end of the day they're also making money...while the tenant has a borrowed home.

[MrsWinnibago]

Quibbling about "who paints the walls and repairs the pipes" seems pathetic really. When we're talking about families with no home....and landlords happy to chuck them out on a whim.

[TequilaMockingbirdy]

You can make it emotive all you want MrsWinni but at the end of the day it is still a business transaction and we can't rush into making decisions without looking at things like that - to protect both tenant and landlord.

[MrsWinnibago]

Tequila are you really a tenant? You speak like a mustachioed evil landlord straight out of Dickens.

[MrsWinnibago]

And I bet LOADS of LLS would be all precious about their tenants undertaking repairs and decorations....I've met some who want to do their own bloody gardening! And others who won't let tenants hang a picture on the wall!

[ReallyTired]

Labour's policies are a lot of hot air with no real substance. The housing market is a complicated beastie and changes to law best decided with careful consideration.

Sadly most of our political parties seem to make up policy on the hoof.

[BrianTheMole]

Sadly true tired. And when it gets to it, they never deliver anyway.