I should have the right to buy from my my to let landlord after 6 years here

[chocolatekatie]

No government will ever do it as loads of them are into buy to let hence why they do all they can to prop up the bubble.

My landlord thinks he's some businessman doing me a favour by letting me live here. Actually he's the problem, he just had money so can afford to buy up property - push up the price and force people like me to rent.

Out2pasture, no, I don't believe she has been back.

She, like a number of people, seem to find it odd that landlords should actually be a business, that needs to at least cover costs for now and not be forced to sell on at a loss at some point in the future.

That is too "capitalist" and "right wing" for some to grasp, it seems.

I'm 99.9% the OP posted this to highlight the ridiculousness of the government reinstating right-to-buy for council tenants, rather than as a serious suggestion.

Oh, I agree although until we see the draft legislation we don't know if it will be at market value or not. There is precedent - nationalisation of industries in the 1900s. Secondly freeholders of long leases can be bought out. Both those raise issues of private property ownership but in general in a democracy the state does tend to have those rights to force sales of property and also compulsory purchase of land.

cruikshank well we could force landlords to let tenants live in their properties for free and make them sell to their tenants at a price which ensures the landlord has no capital gain, but then of course we wouldn't have any private landlords and we would have lots of people who can't / don't want to buy property unable to find anywhere to live.
Yes, peoples hard earned money pays the rent but the landlords hard earned money bought the house.
We could stop paying housing benefit to private rentals but then people on benefits would have nowhere to live if they can't get a council house.
Landlords provide something that people need and are willing to pay for.
Nobody should be forced to sell their assets at below market price if they don't want to (or sell them at any price if they don't want to) and I include councils and housing associations in that.

MrsFrumble having read the other thread the OP started at the same time as this on yesterday I'm 99.9% certain the OP did not.

Communism really does not work well in other countries.

Socialism does ok in quite a few.

What is it about threads like this that incite people to shout 'communist!'? It's weird, and... not the right use of the word.

Is be happy with a more tightly regulated rental sector, simply as a way to force the hobbyists to treat it as a business and behave professionally, and to level the playing field and stabilise property prices.

We need a private rental sector - we don't need this one, though.

I agree that the rental market needs tighter regulation. I would fully support changes to make sure that all rental homes meet a minimum standard in terms if maintenance and that repairs are completed within a strict timeframe (with an allowance for boiler parts etc to be ordered). Those standards should be applied to all rental homes including council housing.
I would also support rent caps during an individual tenancy so that people's rent doesn't suddenly shoot up.
I would support longer tenancies where desired by the tenant but I would also want the process of eviction made simpler and quicker in cases where the tenant refuses to pay rent or wrecks the property.
I wouldn't support any system which gives the tenant the right to buy the property at a discount, no matter how long he has rented the property for (including council and HA homes).

It's that very simplistic black and white thinking, 'if you don't like it why don't you go and live in north Korea'
where people behave as if there are only two alternatives, extreme free market capitalism and and total command economy.
We have a capitalist economy but markets are regulated and controlled in many ways,n capitalism is not a rigid monolithic system, there are many ways to organise and run a capitalist economy ?

OP the moment private tenants are given the "right to buy" my house (which for various personal/work/family reasons we can't live in atm), that is the moment that the lease to my lovely tenant is terminated.

So the stability of housing for my lovely tenant is actually made more uncertain with a 'right to buy' -- not quite the result you were aiming for, I think?

The right to buy council houses was one of the things that got us all into this mess, along with overpaid bankers and other fairly useless types. We need to have a rental market - private and public - which gives stability to both tenants and landlords. I haven't put the rent up on my rental property for 3 years, and won't, for as long as my current tenant wants to stay. That suits us both.

'Landlords provide something that people need and are willing to pay for'

oh really??

Landlords have bought up large portion of our housing stock using their greater equity leverage.
Forcing up prices so that owner occupiers are squeezed out of the market and have no choice but to pay rent to landlords so that they can have a roof over their heads.

Landlords are not philanthropists they are exploiting and exacerbating the housing crisis to feather their own nests ?

Most landlords own one property plus their own. A good few are mumsnetters who have just moved towns and kept their place which they let out whilst they rent somewhere new or when working abroad. The UK always had a private rented sector to provide homes to most people who could not afford to buy or did not want to be. The only period when that did not work and supply almost entirely dried up was when the Rent Acts meant rents were held at sometimes £10 a year for ever and no right ever to remove the tenant. Not surprisingly at that point before assured shortholds (which meant suddenly you could for new tenants get them out at end of term) there was virtually no private rented housing.

I would support a move to the continental system where tenants can stay for longish periods where both sides agree, where the tenants has to pay for repairs, decoration (not sure British tenants would like that though) although even there there is not huge profit in it for landlords. UK pension funds do not invest in UK rented property because there is no enough profit in it.

'Landlords provide something that people need and are willing to pay for'

No greedy landlords buy property up, pushing prices up and often being called by ea before normal people and then change stupid prices for rent as people need somewhere to live. If i ever was in government (unlikely) id ban more than one house per person. ( comes off soap box )

'I'm 99.9% the OP posted this to highlight the ridiculousness of the government reinstating right-to-buy for council tenants, rather than as a serious suggestion'

I don't know if that was the OP's conscious intention Mrsfrumble but the absurdity of RTB for social housing tenants is so obvious that it lends itself to being pointed out in this way

On every housing thread, people blame BTL landlords for their inability to buy. However the graphs in the link below show mortgages to first-time-buyers climbing back to almost 2007 levels, but BTL mortgages at only half 2007 level. (I do think things are more difficult now, near London at least, but I don't think BTL has much to do with that.)

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/11418013/First-time-buyers-at-seven-year-high.html

Actually, on a general principal of fairness I sort of agree with this.

The actual "right to buy" scheme is about people who have lived in a house for a good amount of time being able to buy their house from a business that owns it at a discount rate with tax payers funding the difference.

There has recently been a houses thread and a benefits thread that talked about pensioners in large houses, where they'd been there for decades, all their family moved out and maybe they should be forced to move. - and a lot of people talked about how it's their home, their kids have grown up there, they have ties, would be heart broken to have to move etc. they [pensioners] are exempt from bedroom tax which may force them out, because it's a good way to buy votes their home.

So generally on principal, I sort of agree, if I've been living in a privately house for five or ten years, that place is my home and I should be able to say to the landlord "how much do you want for it", and they should be obliged to sell me my home. either at what they ask, or an average valuation based of three evaluations to determine market value, (whichever is lower, there should be no discounts or cost to the tax payer.) - it's a replaceable business asset

it's logically inconsistent to think that old people in council houses housing association houses should be able to stay put in a house where there is too much space because it's "their home" and not agree that some one who has lived in a house maybe equally as long shouldn't also have the chance to have their home.

You make a strong argument Notaunique,I wonder if there is a legal case to be brought that the same rules should apply to all tenants? ?

Lotuslight - we had Rent Acts from 1919 to 1988. At what point was there 'virtually no private rental housing??

'OP the moment private tenants are given the "right to buy" my house (which for various personal/work/family reasons we can't live in atm), that is the moment that the lease to my lovely tenant is terminated'

The landlords have the nation over a barrel 'make us behave ethically and the tenant gets it'

"'Landlords provide something that people need and are willing to pay for'

No greedy landlords buy property up, pushing prices up and often being called by ea before normal people and then change stupid prices for rent as people need somewhere to live. If i ever was in government (unlikely) id ban more than one house per person. ( comes off soap box)"

Interesting view.

What are your views on my situation.

When I was single I bought a flat about 12 years ago, I scrimped and saved for years to build up a deposit, lived frugally, no holidays, drove a shitheap car and had few luxuries. Managed to buy a beat up flat that pretty much needed everything doing to it. A few years later after refurbishing the place myself I had a decent little pad to call home, I then met my girlfriend, as it turned out she had done something similar to me and had her own one bed place. She moved in with me and let her place out, a few years further down the line we decided to buy a bigger place together as we wanted to start a family. We both took equity out of our respective properties to put down a deposit on the new house, when we moved I let out my little flat. The rent charged is just enough to cover the mortgage and maintenance. We dont have any pensions to speak of and now both view our flats as a means to looking after us when we are retired.

Are we greedy evil landlords?

Yes. You have three properties. You only need one. You have removed two properties from the. Market and pushed up prices on the ones remaining. What you going to do when you retire sell or continue to rent them out. If everyone sells them at the same time could be a problem.

Can i tell you my story. Dh and i have been living on £30 per week food so we can afford to pay the going rate on a rental property. We dont earn that mich money. We have no family near by and work meant we had to live in another part of the country. In the last 10 years i have moved around. And lived in more flats than i can remember as private renting is not secure. We always get our full desposit back each time as we leave the flat in perfect condition. Its just landlords keep putting the price up after a year. Each time we were trying to find a property to buy. I hate the fact that i cant put my pictures up or make the house or flat our home. We have scrimped and saved to pay this rent and put some money away for a desposit as what will happen when we retire. We cant afford to rent then. Finally we find a 1 and a half bedroom flat. We get to almost exchange. Bought curtains. Still living on £30 per week food. I dont own any make up and my clothes are very old. Then just before we about to exchange a buy to letter comes in and buys this flat from underneath us. First we knew about it was a phone message by ea at 10am saying we need to increase our offer by 45k in next 30 minutes. We got the message when we returned from work at 5pm. Ea knew our mobile number although tbh i cant answer it at work. Landlord then puts it on the rental market for x amount and i have to walk past it daily. It broke my heart.....and its the reason we left the area...

And im not the only one. I have loads of friends in same situation. I also know people with 2 children stuck in one bedroom flats as the market has run away as everyone is cashing in on the buy to let misery and they cant afford to move to next stage.

But maybe the tide is turning. My friend and her dh have just managed to buy their first house. The seller refused to sell to buy to letters and wanted the house to be lived in by owner. From what i hear her dc have suffered like alot of young people. Alot if my older patients are worried sick about it for their grandchildren. You intitled in your opinion just as i am but you will never change my mind. Its a horrible business which you wouldnt understand unless you see it from those struggling to rent....

If i ever was in government (unlikely) id ban more than one house per person. ( comes off soap box )

And where would people live who don't want to buy / can't buy a property? They would be nobody for them to rent from and an even bigger shortage of council houses.
Banning ownership of more than one house is a stupid idea.
In most of Europe private renting is the norm, nobody complains that landlords are responsible for excessive property prices or that house ownership should be limited to one per person.
Part of the problem is that here in the UK some people see home ownership as a basic right.
Sure, we do need to take hints from across the channel and have more secure tenancies, well maintained rental properties and some form of rent control but I agree with the poster up thread who wrote that we also need to see tenants taking more responsibility for minor repairs and decoration too.

There were, of course, plenty of private properties available to rent during the time of the Rent Acts - home ownership was much lower in 1919 than it is now - lots of people rented. Prior to that, in Victorian times, we were largely a rentier economy. It's only relatively recently that more people have become owner occupiers. And even under the Rent Acts, people could be evicted - iirc there were four scenarios where you could apply to court and evict your tenant - needing to sell, moving back into the property, a family member moving into the property and I forget the other. Also, if the tenant was in breach of contract, eg by not paying rent or letting the property fall into disrepair, you could also get them removed. Now, given that according to mumsnetter landlords, who are only landlords because they want to provide a public service, make no profit (apart from eventually owning a house paid for by someone else and in many cases the state but we'll gloss over that) and have lovely tenants who worship the ground they walk on due to said landlord's largesse, landlords would never evict a tenant in order to get a higher rent, or to turn a property into an HMO and turf out a family, or in revenge for doing essential repairs etc, so presumably there would be no problem with re-introducing security of tenure for tenants, especially since pretty much all landlords are a combination of Jesus Christ Himself, Ghandi and Santa Claus.

notauniquename So generally on principal, I sort of agree, if I've been living in a privately house for five or ten years, that place is my home and I should be able to say to the landlord "how much do you want for it", and they should be obliged to sell me my home. either at what they ask, or an average valuation based of three evaluations to determine market value, (whichever is lower, there should be no discounts or cost to the tax payer.) - it's a replaceable business asset

I disagree - and not because replacing such a "business asset" entails massive cost and business uncertainty (which is harmful to the economy as a whole).

Very few people have the luxury of living in one home for life. If you are going to be economically active (which in the modern day world is a reality), you have to be prepared to move for work. I let my property to people who normally want to stay for six months to a year for work, sometimes longer. These tenants work hard and pay a lot of tax, but suggesting that properties should be removed from the market for those who don't want to move around for work will simply make it more expensive for people to be economically active.

Such a policy would encourage people not to be economically active, but to establish ties to one person who could presumably provide them with a stable future, who had in some way been duped into renting them a property in the first place.

People who own property move all the time - for work, or for downsizing in retirement, or because they want more space, or because they want less space and need somewhere cheaper. Suggesting that somehow tenants should be exempt from the normal economic pressures of life is ridiculous - and of course what do you think will happen once they have forced this under-priced sale? They will sell up and cash in on their tax-free profit.

I find it ironic how socialist countries like Sweden are held up as an example of rental europia - if you want to live in a small, crowded apartment in an indentikit suburb which has taken you years on a waiting list to achieve, yes, well go and live in Sweden! You probably won't be able to afford more than a clapped out old banger or the rather slow, expensive public transport due to the high taxes you will be paying, and you'll statistically almost certainly end up as a single parent, because socially aware Sven's commitments usually end at paying his tax bill!