Renters getting shafted yet again

[Upthebracket22]

I know this might be just noise but Ed Davey is proposing that mortgage holders get £300 a month grants!

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/06/lib-dem-leader-ed-davey-proposes-300-a-month-mortgage-grants

I mean WTF? What about private renters who get shafted by landlords with huge annual rent rises! Do renters get a £300 a month grant?

Absolutely fucking shocking to be honest! (And clearly not really viable as it will feed even more into inflation)

Except your precept is wrong. Local authorities do not make intentionally homeless decisions in cases where the property has genuinely become unaffordable. That might be because of a rent rise but is more likely down to unemployment, relationship breakdown, and benefit changes. Local authorities try very hard to keep tenants accommodated including paying off rent arrears and awarding discretionary housing payments. The reason for doing so is economics; it's very expensive trying to find accommodation in the current climate, mostly because private landlords have had enough and are selling up. They've been quietly disposing of their properties since 2020 as a result of government policy.

Shot themselves in the foot?

I'm sure some people think it's marvellous and everyone will soon be able to magically buy all the 'empty' properties, but the reality is the rise in mortgage rates has stuffed a lot of buyers. So where will people be accommodated?

And again you're wrong. Rents can only be increased once per year under s13 in England if tenants do not agree to a rent rise. For god sake get your facts right. Google this stuff before you go off on your rhetoric please.

I rent, so I know the facts.

I never said a landlord could raise your rent more than once a year, so don’t know where you even got that from. 🙄

Landlords can raise your rent by more than what the rent increase clause says if they want to. You can legally refuse to pay such an increase, but then they can legally no fault “revenge” evict you with a section 21. And they have been doing so.

@PrincessofWellies
Local authorities do not make intentionally homeless decisions in cases where the property has genuinely become unaffordable.

In 2021 the ONS deemed rent to be ‘affordable’ if a household spends less than 30% of its income on rent. 32% or 2.6 million private renters spend at least 50% of their monthly household income on their monthly rent. Millions of private renters are already genuinely unable to afford their homes, but we are expected to suck it up. And if we get into rent arrears or leave before eviction by the courts, we are intentionally homeless.

That might be because of a rent rise but is more likely down to unemployment, relationship breakdown, and benefit changes.

Not in 2022!
43% of private tenants have had their rent increased in the last year. Of the 3.5 million private tenants who had their rent increased–more than 800,000 saw it put up by more than £100 a month, and nearly 200,000 were hit with an eye-watering rise of more than £300 a month.

Local authorities try very hard to keep tenants accommodated including paying off rent arrears and awarding discretionary housing payments.

Local authorities don’t have the money for this and haven’t for years. You’re so outdated it’s not even funny.

You said it in your post at 19.54 3rd paragraph 'Unless you’re in Scotland, there isn’t a limit on rent raises' so please don't gaslight me you are making yourself look stupid. Just so you are clear, s13 of the Housing Act 1988 states as below.

You also say that renters are powerless but they have the right to apply to a rent tribunal to have the rent assessed to establish whether it's a fair rent. When you post things that are blatantly untrue you are misleading people who do rent who take what you say as truth. You are effectively stopping some people from exercising their rights under the law because you are misleading them. Tenants do have rights, it's all in the Housing Acts and case law, swathes of it. Have a read, you might learn something.

(2)For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy to which this section applies, the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice in the prescribed form proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice, being a period beginning not earlier than—
(a)the minimum period after the date of the service of the notice; and
(b)except in the case of a statutory periodic [F1 tenancy—
(i)in the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the first period of the tenancy began;
(ii)in any other case, on the date that falls 52 weeks after the date on which the first period of the tenancy began; and]
(c)if the rent under the tenancy has previously been increased by virtue of a notice under this subsection or a determination under section 14 [F2 below—
(i)in the case of an assured agricultural occupancy, the first anniversary of the date on which the increased rent took effect;
(ii)in any other case, the appropriate date]

And again you're wrong, oh dear. DHPs have been in existence for at least 20 years. They aren't new and it's quite a nice budget local authorities have. It can be used to make payments over and above the LHA rate to help people pay their rent, it can also be backdated to pay arrears.

Secondly every local authority also has a housing support fund which is fairly recent. So if a household is facing homelessness due to unaffordability they can apply, or their Homelessness officer/caseworker can apply. I've done many successful applications for both DHPs and HSF grants. So please stop bullshitting. You are misleading people as to what help is available.

Hopefully anyone in trouble reading this now knows there IS help available. As I said previously, it's cheaper for LAs to pay off arrears than it is to find and secure them homeless accommodation.

@PrincessofWellies
You said it in your post at 19.54 3rd paragraph 'Unless you’re in Scotland, there isn’t a limit on rent raises' so please don't gaslight me you are making yourself look stupid. Just so you are clear, s13 of the Housing Act 1988 states as below.

Nowhere in my sentence did I say there isn’t a limit on the frequency of rent raises. It’s obvious from context I’m talking about the Scottish rent freeze and rent raises in terms of how much rent can be raised in £/mo. Not how often it is done.

You also say that renters are powerless but they have the right to apply to a rent tribunal to have the rent assessed to establish whether it's a fair rent.

Do you think I fell off the back of a turnip cart? Fair rent applies to social housing tenants. If you’re a private tenant, it’s called market rent. And given that the current issue with the cost of living crisis is skyrocketing market rents….er no…we are pretty powerless.

You are effectively stopping some people from exercising their rights under the law because you are misleading them

Oh yes, and you aren’t misleading anyone by incorrectly saying a private tenant can go to a rent tribunal for a fair rent assessment….

Who is gaslighting whom I wonder?

Actually the HSF grants ended September 30th but the Homelessness Prevention Fund is pretty much the same and is running at least until April and probably 23/24.

Well I give up. You really are ignorant.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-tier-tribunal-residential-property-rent-cases-t540

As you can see, the title of the application form 2 - "Form Rents 2: Application to the tribunal for determination of a rent under an assured shorthold tenancy."

Please note it says assured shorthold tenancy.

I know this stuff, because I practise it 😂

Renters are only eligible for housing benefit if they are BOTH
a) on a low income
b) have savings of less than £16,000

If you've been scrimping and saving towards a house deposit for years - you're on your own.

Support For Mortgage Interest is the closest equivalent scheme for homeowners, but you also have to be on a qualifying benefit such as UC, which effectively imposes near enough the same earning and income limits as for renters claiming housing benefit
www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest

The lib dem idea is far in excess of what a minority of renters are eligible for in housing benefit.

I didn’t say DHPs were “new”, I said LAs don’t have the cash for it anymore and they don’t.

You forgot to mention private tenants are not even eligible to apply for a DHP if they don’t qualify for housing benefit or the housing element of UC.

You forgot to mention that the DHP budget has been cut (again) by 28% for England and Wales and is now only a paltry £100m. Despite an increase of 94% of private tenants at risk of homelessness solely due to losing a private tenancy. So it’s less money to cover twice as many people in need.

Housing charity, Shelter, says data from its cost of living tracker showed nearly 350,000 private renting adults in England were served with an eviction notice, evicted or removed from their home between July and August 2022. This included nearly 70,000 families.

How far do you think £100m/yr will stretch with figures like that?

Usually not enough and given the insanely high rents and increases not anywhere near enough going forward.

Just like this wouldn't be anywhere near enough to cover the costs of the mortgage rate increases, in most cases.

I am getting a sense of "blowing out other people's candles to try to make yourself feel better" from these posts, i.e. spite.

Tories have really done a number on a lot of people, turning them on people even marginally better off than them and demanding everyone be dragged down to drown.

How will this help?

If mortgages become hugely more expensive so will rents in the next 12-24 months. Renters will therefore have even less chance of saving for a house they own, or even just living comfortably. It's in everyone's interests to subsidise mortgage costs somehow now, maybe similar to the MIRAS scheme of the 80s.

But this policy is suggested by a leader of a minority party who are unlikely to ever be in Government so why the outrage? It's not like it's going to happen, is it?

Whereas renters who need help DO actually get HUGE Government subsidies. Mortgage holders have just been royally screwed over and get nothing at all towards housing no matter what their circumstances.

So basically, you're being ridiculous and should wobble your head. A lot.

Nope. Because renters get housing benefit effectively on top if the other parts of UC so get more overall. 🙄

But this is exactly what he's proposing? Help with paying the extra interest on the mortgage caused by the Trussterfuck. Not to pay any capital towards the house itself.

Not lazy. Just a bit thick if they can't see the relationship between the two.

🤣🤣

Im ignorant? Only tenancies established before January 1989, are regulated tenancies protected by the Rent Act 1977 and “fair rent”. It’s been 33yrs since then! 99.999% of private tenants will fall under market rent. I know of only 1 tenant where fair rent applies and he is 70-odd and inherited it from his long dead parents. But, I’m the one being “misleading”

From your link:

“There are two types of rents cases, depending on the tenancy involved.”

1. Fair rent cases

When a rent officer fixes a fair rent for a property under the Rent Act 1977, either landlord or tenant can lodge an objection to the rent with the rent officer who then refers the matter to this tribunal.

1. Market rent cases

Market rent cases are referred to this tribunal in one of four ways. (a) Where the landlord under an assured, or assured shorthold, periodic tenancy has served a notice on the tenant, under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988, proposing a rent increase to take effect at the beginning of a new period of the tenancy specified in the notice. At any time before the proposed date of increase, the tenant may refer that notice to this tribunal for an assessment by the tribunal of the rent to be payable. The tribunal must receive that application before the date specified in the landlord’s notice of increase. (b) Where a tenant, under an assured shorthold tenancy, is dissatisfied with the rent payable under the tenancy, an application can be made to this tribunal under section 22 of the Housing Act 1988, provided it is received within the first six months of the initial tenancy. If the tribunal considers the rent to be significantly higher than could reasonably be expected, the tribunal will determine a market rent for that tenancy. (c) Where a fixed term assured, or assured shorthold, tenancy has come to an end and the landlord or tenant has, by notice under section 6 of the Housing Act 1988, proposed new terms for the statutory periodic tenancy which has automatically started. The recipient can refer the notice to this tribunal for it to determine the new terms, including rent. (d) Where there has been an application to the tribunal under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 where a long lease at a low rent has expired.”

”In market rent cases (assured or assured shorthold tenancies), the tribunal, when determining a rent, will look at the market or ’comparable‘ rents payable for similar properties in the locality. Parties are encouraged to provide evidence of comparable rents. The tribunal will ignore any improvements by the tenant to ensure that such improvements will not have the effect of inflating the rent.”

Whhhoooa. Some green eyes shining bright here.

It's a Lib Dem policy suggestion. It's not something that will actually happen so you can rein in your spite and jealousy.

You don’t live it though do you? You only see the people you help, not the hundreds of thousands that fall through the cracks.

Have you any idea if the economic catastrophe that would be?!? What the knock on effects if that would be?

These comments demonstrate economic illiteracy beyond belief.

Exactly. MIRAS. Worked well before. Much more sensible solution.

@TroopOfFlyingMonkeys

Rents will still go up, the £300/mo proposed isn’t for BTL landlords to collect on each property in their portfolio. Their interest rates will go up, and then rents will go up. This narrative that giving homeowners £300/mo will benefit renters too is complete poppycock.

I also think it’s hypocritical to suggest that homeowners who obviously have wealth of far far more than £16k “need” government help, while only renters with savings below £16k “need” government help.

Because there is no money to pay for it. And I don't think taxpayers should help homeowners, it's up to people to ensure they have enough savings put away for a disaster, 6 months salary is what is suggested. I think if money is that tight when you buy a house, you probably shouldn't.

@TroopOfFlyingMonkeys
Just like this wouldn't be anywhere near enough to cover the costs of the mortgage rate increases, in most cases.

According to the article it would be twice what is needed to cover the “typical household’s” costs

The party pointed to figures suggesting that the average two-year fixed rate has risen from 4.24% at the beginning of September to 6.55% now, adding an estimated £1,800 to a typical household’s annual mortgage bill by the end of 2023.

£1,800/yr is £150/mo. £150 x 2= £300/mo

Lol. Homeowners ARE taxpayers. If you want buy-in to state support, the state needs to help everyone when it is needed. In this case, it would simply be the state making up a small proportion of the damage that it has caused directly.

But it's a moot point anyway, as it will not happen. We still have a Government operating on its 3rd PM since holding an election saying that its mandate is still valid while simultaneously saying it doesn't have to do anything in its manifesto that gave it said mandate.

So no chance of an election soon and even if there was, no chance of a Lib Dem Government. So struggling to see what the point of your vitriol about this is? It is of no more consequence than it would be if you or any other random poster decided that all renters should receive £1m per month.