To wonder how Labour’s Right to Buy on privately rented houses would work?

[Bearbehind]

Just read something this morning about Labour proposing Right to Buy on privately rented properties - how would that actually work?

How can they force a private landlord to sell at a discounted rate?

Also, if one of the requirements is you have to have been renting the property for several years, that’s just going to lead to less secure tenancies because landlords will make sure tenants cannot qualify for this.

It seems like a bonkers idea to me

I think though that the government is already planning to remove no fault evictions.

So maybe if a tenant is paying rent on time etc it just won't be possible to evict them. Probably unscrupulous landlords will figure out how to game the system and the honest ones will get stung.

I would just like to see more social housing built to be rented rather than sold.

They (HAs) will have no problem buying from landlords who want to exit the BTL market

But you fail to explain how that works for those landlords who do not wish to exit it?

And it also totally misses the point that the intention is to sell to the tenants, not HAs

As for the LLs on here talking of their "poor tenants having to move" I'm sure if it suited you, they'd be moved on as fast as you could manage.

You don’t need to agree with me- it’s not for discussion. I am telling you how it works. Which is what you asked, because you just couldn’t understand it. Even though it’s neither revolutionary, new or complex.

Applying RTB to all private landlords has been mooted many times by parties on both sides. As you’ve found out yourself with a quick google, albeit 6 pages in.

In modern societies, where state appropriation of property occurred, it led to mass misery, displacement of populations and ruination of indigenous cultures - the Soviet Union is a prime example

It's usually around now that someone says "ah, but Labour would do it differently so the results would be better", and for all I know some might even believe that

If Corbyn et al are genuinely concerned about housing availability for the lower paid, you'd think they'd make far more noise over Right to Buy for LA/HA properties … but of course "taking off the rich" is a vastly better dogwhistle for the hard left

I expect all the banks/building societies will start offering 100% mortgages then ?

Because the majority of folk who are long term renters won't be able to magic up a deposit. If they could, they already would have done

Back to the days of subprime losses ? Sounds great.

They could bring in some sort of system whereby the housing association buys the property and the tenant "owns" it on a part rent/part buy basis. That way the tenant is "technically" buying it but the money comes from the housing association. That would be one way round it.

I think though that the government is already planning to remove no fault evictions.

That won’t ever work though as all that will happen is the landlord will give a reason, selling etc, leave it empty, then say their circumstances have changed.

You can’t have a situation where a landlord has to retain a property indefinitely because the tenant has done nothing wrong.

The person who gets on the property ladder by buying your property would probably think so

But that person wouldn’t be my tenant, as I’ve already explained, so, again, where would they go?

The fact is that for some people private rental will always be a need or a preference, if they wanted to buy, and were able to, they would

Our properties are well maintained, the rents are low, our tenants are happy. Without idiotic laws such as we’re discussing, we plan to keep the properties long term, and want tenants to stay as long as they wish

@bearbehind I think they mean that btl landlords will be driven out of the market by these measures and so will sell up to housing associations

@GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit, I said the same thing earlier. Legislation to make eviction much harder will be introduced at the same time. Loopholes will be blocked. Despite being one of those sneered at baby boomer “haves”, I strongly approve. I’ve always had a moral objection to buy to let.

But you fail to explain how that works for those landlords who do not wish to exit it?

They put up with it. Either go ahead with RTb (which is attractive to many landlords for the reasons I’ve given) or change their business model so they’re not involved in that part of the market.

It’s a cost and risk of doing business. You can’t expect to have a business and not be vulnerable to changing legislation.

And it also totally misses the point that the intention is to sell to the tenants, not HAs

Again you misunderstand- I am talking about landlords like costacoffeeplease who will want to sell up as soon as this policy comes in because they no longer wish to be a landlord. She has repeatedly asked where her tenants will go when she does.

I am telling you how it works. Which is what you asked, because you just couldn’t understand it. Even though it’s neither revolutionary, new or complex.

No, you’re lecturing me on how you think one aspect of RTB works and failing to explain the specifics of this situation.

@AnyFucker the discount is used as a deposit if they don’t have one.

@bearbehind that is exactly what is being suggested and not by Corbyn but by the Conservatives. Effectively no more fixed term tenancies.

You would have to offset the expense and risk of getting new tenants against the expense and risk of potential RTB

Getting new tenants is seldom a risk if you use a reputable agency . Nor is it costly. It's not remotely comparable to being forced to sell it against your wishes and at a discount, Any landlord is simply going to give notice to any long standing tenants if this looked remotely likely to be passed into law.

All that will happen is people who have lived in their rental properties for years will be given notice in line with their contracts and forced to find new homes, it's awful, long term rentals will be a thing of the past. Tenants will be fucked.

Again you misunderstand- I am talking about landlords like costacoffeeplease who will want to sell up as soon as this policy comes in because they no longer wish to be a landlord. She has repeatedly asked where her tenants will go when she does.

Again it is you who is missing the point.

If this policy were to come in, costa would just ensure her tenants never qualified to buy.

@Bluntness100, you’re not listening. They’ll introduce legislation so landlords can’t just evict long-standing tenants.

There are no specifics. Mr Jones has 1 property. His tenants are entitled to RTb and decide to exercise their right.
Mr Jones’ property is valued, independently, using an established market value model for rental properties.

The tenant gets a mortgage either with a cash deposit or using their discount. They buy the property.

Mr Jones, on completion day, gets the cash from the tenant and the value of the discount in cash from central
Government.

Therefore he received the market value.

There isn’t anything more to it than that. I don’t know what more you want.

grapefruits you can’t force a landlord to keep a property forever - what if they can no longer afford it?

Even if they introduced measures to avoid loopholes you could never prevent a landlord selling up.

So they’d sell at full market price and buy something else - still better than taking a hit on the discount.

I'm sure if it suited you, they'd be moved on as fast as you could manage.

It doesn’t suit me, I want long term, happy tenants, they want long term, nice rentals. If they weren’t happy they could leave, or if they wanted to and were in a position to buy they could have bought the property instead of us. Also a HA could have bought it, if they had wanted it, but they didn’t

We took the risk on a property crash, paid the legal fees etc we weren’t beating people off with a stick to get any of our properties

“If this policy were to come in, costa would just ensure her tenants never qualified to buy.”

In the absence of legislation preventing this, it would simply be the way it goes. It’s impossible to create a system that doesn’t have a loophole.

Although costacoffee has said repeatedly she would sell up, so maybe you misunderstood her posts.

Mr Jones, on completion day, gets the cash from the tenant and the value of the discount in cash from central Government.

Therefore he received the market value.

There isn’t anything more to it than that. I don’t know what more you want.

I want to know where that money comes from because the pay back in moving private tenants to home owners simply isn’t there

Quoting from the Labour article posted by bearbehind

"The discounts they would have to offer to their tenants would merely share out some of the windfall gains they have been making over the last decade or two.”

So unbelievably simplistic. We bought in 2007 and lost value in the financial crash. Our house was in negative equity for a long time and has just recently recovered it's 2007 value (cornwall). It has been rented out because we couldn't afford to sell it as we would have owed money and would have no deposit to start again.

We were far from the only ones renting out because of negative equity after the crash. If property prices fall with Brexit many people might experience the same issue. Having to sell a house in negative equity under value would be an extra kick in the teeth - a spiteful act of hate against someone for daring to buy a house and not a redistribution of wealth.

@Bearbehind I am going to engage with you once more

Can you tell me where you think the money CURRENTLY comes from for these transactions?