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

Yes, I'm a tenant. I'm also a student, so not what you're imagining :) I've experienced hardship, lived on my own since I was 17 and had to deal with landlords and all that malarky. But it's true, it's still a business transaction. It's still a service and product being provided.

I don't give a shit about politics. I give a shit about action....people need to stop being so complacent and start doing something. Is there such a thing as a tenants union? Some sort of guild of tenants? If not then there bloody well should be.

Charities like SHELTER go a long way to advising tenants of their rights but they're sadly under funded and under staffed so the help is often not there at the crucial moment...

Exactly that tequila.

Tequila it's far from a product. A home is a right and not comparable to buying a haircut or a spade.

Its a business mate. And unless you are housed by the council or housing association, it remains exactly that.

A home is a right

yes but someone elses home isn't I'm afraid.

Brian mate...do you consider the right to have a baby safely as "business"? The right to bring a child safely into the world? Or what about the right to education?

How is housing those children adequately any different to making sure they arrive in the world safely and get a decent education once they're here and established.

Tequila no...so those landlords who don't want to provide a decent, secure home to someone else, can go off and do something else with it then can't they? OR does their right to make money off someone elses financial status trump the right of someone else to have a home?

"I don't give a shit about politics. I give a shit about action....people need to stop being so complacent and start doing something. Is there such a thing as a tenants union? Some sort of guild of tenants? If not then there bloody well should be."

Being emotive and passionate does not lead to good law making. Laws have to be desgined with the brain rather than the heart. Making laws on impluse leads to loopholes and horrible consequences for the people you might be trying to protect.

I think you are being daft lumping all tenants together. One of my tenants is on a short contract and plans to return to south africa. His needs are very different to a family. I doult he wants to belong to any "guild of tenants".

A tenancy can be anything from a two week holiday let to a 6 month AST to a 125 year lease. Laws have to adapt to all these situations.

No, but the nhs and education is generally publicly funded. Private landlord is something very different. More like your local shop.

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.

Brian

How come it's ok to get emotive about education and not about housing? A child's home is more important than it's education actually. A child who lives in poor environment cannot learn well or enjoy it's life or be healthy...or even live up to it's full potential and there are many children in situations right now which I wouldn';t wish on my worst enemy as far as housing goes.

would you come on this thread and tell Spaghettio she is being ridiculous and greedy.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/property/a2060501-Landlords-retaining-some-of-the-deposit-fairly?msgid=47005780#47005780

I think clearer guidelines on what a tenant can do their home would help both tenant and landlord. Some landlords have totally unrealistic expectations about wear and tear.

I think this thread shows how important it is to make expectations clear from the start.

MrsWinnibago

The thing is I think some tenants want more than want a landlord can possibly give. Landlords situations change too, landlords need to sell up, repossess, go back living in the property even.

Tenants do need more security, but there has to be middle ground. People seem so so quick to condemn landlords on here.

If you really want full security then the only option is to buy. Obviously the majority of us can't do this so have to rely on renting, but whilst we're living in someone else's house we have to understand that we are limited, there are risks involved. I have a one month rolling contract. It's shit, but I accept it. Would I like longer? Yep. But my want shouldn't trump someone else's right to their own property in my honest opinion.

You know Winnie, when I had to go to court to get my tenants to move out (because they didn't pay rent and trashed the pad) they turned up to defend their position. The judge turned round to them and said Miss Brian is not a charity, nor is she the benefits agency. And on that point he gave them notice to move asap.

This is exactly the point. I am, or was, a good landlord. But at the end of the day, not a publicly funded service. If you want security then HA is the best option. I'd always do my best for a good tenant anyway. But being a private landlord is a business, same as any other.

Tequila no...buying is not or should not be the only option. For many people it's simply never going to happen and nor should it...buying isn't something which NEEDS to happen for most people. Limits are of course something which would need to be considered...but, having said that, when all most people want is a home for a decent amount of time and a decent amount of notice (more than 2 months!) then that's not a lot to ask.

I have been a tenant for less than a year of my life, bought just before the crazy years, so have benefited hugely from the housing bubble.

I still think it is utterly wrong, I can't understand how in the 90's there was enough housing stock that anyone could buy it for a reasonable price and by the early 2000's there was such a shortage it was worth 2 or 3 times the amount? It's wrong, but if a 'correction'of the market comes, it will destroy everyone who bought in the last decade, so that's also unthinkable.

I do think much better rights for tenants is the way forwards, not least because it would weed out the less useful parts of the buy to let market.

Tequila, in your argument you need to decide whether it's a business or 'an individual'. I see providing rental property as a business, and a business of providing an essential human right, so there should be more stringent safeguards than other businesses.

And let's not kid ourselves. Most landlords are not renting out the property out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they make money from it. If they aren't making enough money, they'll sell. I wouldn't be sad to see some contraction in the BTL sector simply because BTL helps to push up property prices at obscene rates, pricing out would be homeowners and driving up rents at the same time, way out of proportion with incomes.

An individual can have a business. It's actually called a sole proprietorship.

And once they've done that, they are choosing to act as a business subject to relevant regulations. Emotive nonsense about them being individuals who are willing to rent out their homes, and this should not be treated in the same way as other businesses providing essential services doesn't alter that fact. If you choose to provide an essential service you should be willing to be subject to appropriate regulation. If not, open a different business.

And it's quite ignoring that many landlords are not sole proprietors or even partnerships renting out one or two properties, but rather extremely large concerns.

I have not once stated they shouldn't be subject to relevant regulations, what I am defending though is the landlord's rights as the owner of that property.

What I am questioning is the level of control the government wants to have over what a person does with their own house, how much they chose to charge for that service/product and when they'll actually be able to get it back at the end.

If you choose to provide an essential service you should be willing to be subject to appropriate regulation
Which they are aren't they? All this talk in this thread of new legalisation, just won't happen. It's an absolute minefield.

There just seems to be far too many people who seem to think landlords are there to act as a charity and shouldn't have the right to look out for themselves. If a landlord is charging x price, that's the price. If a landlord wants you out after the agreed 3 months, sorry but that's that. It's their property to do what they will with - as long as they abide by the law. I don't think taking away rights from landlords is the way to go.

I'm in the exact same boat as millions of other tenants, I'm not secure, I can't have a pet, they don't accept DSS, I can't paint a wall, I probably won't be able raise a family here... but I accept it. Because I don't own the place. I don't expect legalisation to change so I can take more control over someone elses property.

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.

Really? What about students, or young people who want to live in shared houses with their friends, or people moving around who need the flexibility of a short term let, or people living together for the first time who don't want to buy a place together, or those with bad financial records who will never get a mortgage, or older people who wouldn't be granted one because of their age... I could go on.

There has to be a private rental sector, so there has to be BTL landlords. For every rip-off landlord who runs a substandard let, there are five who have invested to make a property habitable again, bringing it back into to housing stock where it would be otherwise lost.

As you have probably guessed I am a landlord (residential and commercial), it was the right financial decision for me. I'm not rich, or a parasite, I'm running a business providing a service. I would love stricter regulations on the private rental sector, and would even welcome rent controls. I am equally sick of criminal, lazy or draconian landlords who makes the lives of their tenants miserable.

After years in my own home, I rented privately as part of a cross country relocation while we looked for somewhere to buy. If I can help it, I'll NEVER return to the private lettings market!

It's permanently colored my approach to a long held ambition of acquiring a BTL property as a pension. (Getting stuck in the carers trap has ruined my previous pension plans). IF I ever manage to raise the 25% deposit needed for a BTL mortgage it'll be for a fixed term tenancy that lasts as long as the longest mortgage fix I can manage - hopefully 5 years. The idea being that both tenant & I can have some security.

I'd also manage the property myself as these agencies seem to charge Landlords and awful lot for doing not a lot as far as maintenance is concerned. As the property is not theirs, if there's a leak etc they have no financial incentive to fixing things quickly which means the tenant suffers and the property degrades over time. I thought I'd just picked a dodgy agent, but talking to people who have been stuck in private rented all their lives in various parts of the country tells me this is the norm, not the exception.

Add in a few dodgy, possibly overseas landlords to the toxic agency mix and it's no wonder so many tenants are unhappy. Changing tenants often so rents can go up, and repairs undetected/undone seems to be the more profitable route for too many in the current system.

Some London councils are negotiating 5 year tenancies, and for many families this does seem the way to go for families with children at least. The days of rent controls in the 1970's didn't seem to help curb private cowboy land lords. Often rent controls kept rents too low to do essential repairs.

I'm glad the issue has been highlighted but lack faith in any of the political parties to DO anything, given their own addiction to using the housing market to disguise the terrible state of the wider economy. Labour also over saw the largest decline in social mobility in modern times during their last reign and I don't see any commitment from any of the major parties to reversing that trend.

I would not want to offer a 3 year tenancy initially. I like to treat the initial 6 month period as a probation period.

In my town. Much of the market is 6-12 month rents because we have people from all over the UK move here temporarily with the forces. 3 year lets wouldn't work here.

All of my tenancy agreements have a clause written into them that the maximum I can raise rents per year is £25. That's 4.5% for my cheapest house and under 3% for my dearest. Despite this, I've never raised rents during a tenancy as it's in my best unrest to keep my good tenants and not want an empty house and the expense and uncertainty of ending and finding new tenants.

If I were forced to offer 3 year tenancies, my properties would remain empty, reducing the housing stock, if I knew I wanted to sell within 3 years. I, and other landlords in the area would also be likely to raise rents in accordance with regulations which would actually raise rent prices faster than is currently happening.

Sorry peeps, these measures won't have the purely positive effects you believe they will.

I don't think capping rents will work - there'll just be some sneaky way around it as per always e.g. Landlords kicking out old tennants who pay low price to get in new tennants to rip off.

I'd rather they regulated landlords more and prosecuted people who refused to complete necessary repairs such as boilers breaking down, massive leaks, damp etc.

JoysMum "In my town" that's EVERY town....no matter whether the renters are families from the area, forces or whatever...your town is nothing unusual. Your properties would not remain empty. Families would live in them.