To think that if a landlord evicts you ie makes you homeless to sell you shouldn't get stiffed for cleaning charges by the agent when you move out?

[Bleddry]

Clean your own house if you want to sell it you tightwad.

I don't just mean the compulsory purchase aspect though, I mean any of it.

A political party campaigning on a policy that would intentionally bring about a massive crash in house prices and cause a recession would be unelectable. 62.9% of UK households are owner occupiers, just 20% are private renters. The votes for your proposals just aren't there.

So the ll should wait till the tenant dies of old age?! Utterly ridiculous comment.

How about a mandatory notice period by a landlord of a year? (Much less for tenants’ notices.)

I don't just mean the compulsory purchase aspect though, I mean any of it.

The way things are looking now who knows what government we may end up with?

But I agree that reforms should be done over time. I’m a pragmatist. There’s no reason why BTL shouldn’t be driven out over a decade or more.

It can be done. The electorate isn’t substantially made up of landlords.

The government in the early ‘90s took quite vigorous action to protect owner occupiers from lenders throwing them out. I can’t see why a government couldn’t do the same with landlords.

How do you propose housing associations gain the stock to fill the void left by private landlords?

By compulsory purchase. Probably at below market rates. But then as the owner is likely to have made above-market profits that’s not unreasonable

In other words theft by the state - dear god

One bit of good news however - it's great to hear from so many who've appealed and been able to get their deposits back from the poorer type of landlord

Strange, though, that despite the ranting, OP didn't jump on all the suggestions about this and say "yes, I'm going to report the b**tard and get it back - I'll show him!!"

A cynic might even wonder if this suggests the place wasn't left as clean as claimed ...

In other words theft by the state - dear god

The state already forces purchase for development. Don’t you approve of roads and railways?

A programme of purchase of landlords’ properties would be a much needed and - I think - generally welcome act of housing development.

People on this thread seem to lack a basic understanding of economics and law. Op is not and never was (as far as she has told us) homeless.

It’s fair enough for a landlord to give a tenant notice to move if they want to sell. They own it, they can sell it. The idea that somehow private rented property should be sold to housing associations at below market value is basically theft. Why should the tenants have the right to live in the property forever at someone else’s expense?

Also the bonkers comment about how someone else can’t just buy all the land around a house you own and prevent access??.. eh? If there’s if no right of access yes they can! But a property will already have rights of access from the nearest public road so this is not really relevant. But people do buy bits of land to frustrate access to a new development. That’s market economics.

You can’t expect to live forever in a rented property. That’s life.

It's always possible to rationalise things if you want them enough, Kissing. The issues around causing a market crash have already been addressed, but as a principle, assuming state ownership of private assets can never be right

Even with the example of "roads and railways", we see again the difference between what might be considered a common good and those who just suggest "they've got it and I want it and it's not fair - ^waaahhh!!"

eh? If there’s if no right of access yes they can!

No they can’t. If somebody buys land stopping an owner getting access the law will impose a right of way.

‘Land banking’ is different. That’s not about access; it’s about not selling so as to stop the aggregation of land (if you’re a competitor) or maximising value (if you’re not a competitor).

Those suggesting compulsory purchases, should we extend this even more? How about the state claims everyone’s savings/pensions/cars and reallocates them accordingly. If I were subject to compulsory purchases at below market rent you’d render me homeless! I’d be in negative equity, so in huge debt on my mortgages and that would be my pension gone. So I’d be up shit creek. My kids nest egg gone. Seriously it’s such a narrow view with absolutely no understanding of the actu mechanics of a private ll and their finances!

Maybe give all tenants a unicorn as well, Kissinginherain.

Your ideas are mostly impractical and sometimes just plain daft.

We've only had to evict one pair of tenants who seemed to think paying rent was negotiable. They left the house in such a mess (cat and rabbit shit and piss in every room, wallpaper hanging off, broken doors in the kitchen, broken shower) that it cost us more than double the deposit they paid to get it habitable for the next tenants.

Our other tenants have all been lovely as are our current ones but they all understand that the house is our pension and, if one of us needs care, it will be sold. They know that when they move in. Having said that there is no mortgage on the house and we charge below the market rate. Also we make an improvement to the house every year. This year it will be an upgrade of the central heating and a new boiler.

It's also in a much nicer area than available social housing and close to sought after schools.

we see again the difference between what might be considered a common good and those who just suggest "they've got it and I want it and it's not fair - ^waaahhh!!"

Good housing policy promotes the common good more than just about anything else.

As for ‘It’s not fair!’ - why is it fair for a landlord to hold all the cards? We have plenty of consumer law that stops the more powerful half of a contract taking advantage. All I’m saying is that private landlords should have much more onerous obligations than at present and if they don’t want to take them on they should sell, preferentially to the government, so that a scarce resource can be used with a sense of responsibility to society.

Kissing - no it doesn’t. Either a right of way exists or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t you don’t have access. People buy small plots of land (ransom strips) for that reason. Most people, if they need access over someone else’s land, already have a right (an easement). A property with no access is not worth very much.

Kissing - I think you have been reading too much of the Guardian and lack understanding of the underlying issues. The landlord doesn’t “hold all of the cards” there is a balance in the relationship. Having the tenant live there forever isn’t reflective of a balance though!

We've only had to evict one pair of tenants who seemed to think paying rent was negotiable.

Why do landlords always trot these stories out? If you weren’t making money from tenants you’d avoid problems altogether!

Some tenants will always be bad. That’s why they’re better dealt with by full time, properly resourced professionals.

Reform of the housing market is only ‘unicorns’ to landlords. To everyone else it’s common sense and decency.

And land banking is nothing to do with access, btw.

Oh dear kissing- not paying rent doesn’t mean a landlord just isn’t “making money”. They’re not able to pay the mortgage and for the maintenance they are obliged to pay for.

Why should tenants get something for nothing? The deal is tenants pay for the use of the property and landlords buy it and maintain it. If tenants don’t keep to their side it’s right they get put out. Try not paying council rent or mortgage in a purchased property and see how long you can stay.

Your arguments make no sense at all.

zsazsa

I think we agree that most property already has inextinguishable rights of access, because it’s already there (which is why housing is scarce: there’s only so much to go round). But there are cases where land is sold that cuts off an unrecognised right of way; in which case the law will impose one. You’re looking at it backwards: I can’t demand a right of way for property I don’t own; I can demand one for when my existing property would be otherwise marooned.

And of course landlords hold all the cards. Don’t be so silly.

No-one has said that tenants should have rights in perpetuity. They should just have much better rights.

Why do landlords always trot these stories out?

Because they are true. Why do people think tenants can behave badly with impunity? You really are in unicorn land.

And you call zsazsa silly? Oh dear. Pot - kettle.

Good housing policy promotes the common good more than just about anything else

Again as a principle, I agree - but no sensible policy involves just taking from one person to give to another; it's a lot more nuanced than that, which is something the SJWs fail to understand

And IME too many of the "not fair"-ers don't actually give a toss about "the common good", though it sounds fine as an argument. Hand them what they want on a plate and, as I've seen too often, they instantly lose interest in everyone else they profess to support

That would piss me off too. Its very salt in the wound and mean spirited. Yes I know theres nothing in the law about being mean spirited. But why should the op pay twice under any circumstances and especially these?

Because they are true. Why do people think tenants can behave badly with impunity?

No of course I don’t think tenants should be able to behave with impunity, whoever the landlord is. But these stories have nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of housing policy.

They’re an occupational hazard (pun not intended) of being a landlord. They don’t justify a general right to rent property without much better protection for tenants.

I certainly wouldn’t be against swifter action being available to private landlords to evict real problem tenants...once the landlords have taken on the proper burdens of being a housing provider.

Foxmuffin

I’m just addressing housing. I can’t see a case for confiscation of all assets. As I said previously, I’m generally a free market capitalist! But housing is different. It doesn’t work to free market rules.

I’m not sure whether you’re saying you’re a private landlord, but if you are and you’re in negative equity on the rental property that seems like a bad business decision. I feel for you, but that’s not a reason to deny tenants proper rights.

I’m afraid I think ‘nest eggs’ for children by way of multiple properties is itself a problem.

Handsoff

I did suggest compulsory purchase, but it would be an inevitable consequence of making private renting much less attractive for landlords. If private landlords wanted to stay in that business under new terms they could.