To think we should ban private renting?

[honeyrosesandwich]

AIBU to think this is a great idea?

Imagine if private renting was banned. All rented houses were done under social housing / housing association. There are already over 4.5 million houses rented under social housing, so it's on a huge scale already.

It would mean rent would be affordable for everyone and effectively help the cost of living prices. I live in a housing association house and my 2 bed is £520 a month. My brother, who private rents, pays £1100 for a 2 bed in the same area.

Repairs for my house are done by the HA's own company. I just put in a request online for it.

People that want to stay in their privately rented home will be free to do so but they put a ban on any new tenancies. The owners will have the opportuntiy to sell the house to social housing or keep it for themselves, but not rent it out further. If sold, the tenant will be allowed to stay.

I've been thinking about this randomly today and haven't come up with any negatives so far. Is it bad to monopolise housing? Well, there are already certain housing associations which own hundreds of thousands of houses.

There’s a good argument for allowing people control over their property and out of the whim of councils. Quite a few left-wing voices argue for that.

I think the problem is really property accumulation for personal profit rather than private ownership of one’s own home.

Homes Under the Hammer is a good place to find the culprits.

Why is a privately owned housing association better than a private landlord? If they're a profit making company they will still charge market rent.

Probably because they're stuck in an expensive rental with a bad Ll.
It must be tough. Especially in the SE.
However that area has always been expensive. We moved to Buckinghamshire in 1985 and sold a 4 bed detached in Lincolnshire, we doubled our mortgage to buy a tiny 3 bed semi in Bucks.

I think you should investigate the Singapore housing model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board. 80% of the population live in HDB property. And you can use your taxes to pay for one (CPF, equivalent of NI). Only citizens or permanent residents can apply and if I recall correctly you have to be married or over a certain age. You apply for a property based on the size of your family. https://www.hdb.gov.sg/homepage

Agreed! As someone who lived in a flat owned/run by a housing association for over 10 years, I can tell you that they are not the solution! Lack of transparency regarding costs, inefficient (suspected nepotism) selection of suppliers, cladding remediation work that has gone on for over 5 years, shoddy building in the first place, not fit for purpose, extortionate service charges, the lift breaks at least once a week, four hour waits to get through to their phone line…..give me a private landlord anyday!

This exactly. I've had the same discussion recently with friends about this. Reduced rents would bring the housing benefit bill right down too.

Housing Associations are not for profit. About 1% of affordable housing is under FPRPs.

So the rental I have was a derelict. I brought it at auction. But I'd only get what I paid for it? I don't make any money on it as the service charge is high to cover major roof works (it's a flat).

what about those who have moved in with a partner and are rental their house at, but keeping it for security incase things don't work out?

there are plenty of renters who don't need cheaper rents. People who relocate short term for work, who keep their house as they know they'll be back in it after 2 yrs on contract elsewhere etc.

what about those who have moved in with a partner and are rental their house at, but keeping it for security incase things don't work out?

They only own one property.

Housing associations are predominantly not for profit organisations- not all private companies are for-profit. The reason the rents are so affordable is that the houses they have were mainly bought or built decades ago at much lower prices than today. The reason they haven’t expanded their stock as much as needed is because they can’t afford to buy or build at current construction or purchase prices. Even if compulsory purchase at purchase price was allowed ( which it wouldn’t be as would set disastrous precedent for uk investment) the purchase prices would still be a lot higher than 30 years ago as average house will have changed hands much more recently than that. Essentially your plan doesn’t work because based on house valuations the HA can’t buy the houses and rent them out at current social housing rents without losing tonnes of money. If they could they’d be doing it already.

There is not enough social housing as it is. The HA don't have the money to buy more houses or land to build upon. If they did, their housing stock would have increased already to meet the demand. If you do away with private let's, there will be an exacerbated homelessness crisis, again, because there's not enough social housing to go around. Don't blame the private landlords (and no I'm not one) - blame the state for their right to buy campaigns in the 1980s where housing stock was sold off cheaply so everyone could have the opportunity to own their own home without any thought being put in to the sustainability of the rental market thereafter.

Also consider students - no private let's, no students at university as the majority of halls of residence are now provided by private landlords.

What a fantastic way of kicking even more ambition out of Britain.

Especially as private rented is only 20% of the housing stock.

This is such a daft opinion. Whilst they are not owned by the government they are HEAVILY subsidised by the Government. Housing Associations are Public Sector organisations, not private. So you would have a new landlord but your rent absolutely would go up as the Government couldn't subsidise to the same level for the extra millions of homes they are now responsible for, nor for the thousands of extra employees they would need to deal with all the new homes and tenants. Your repairs would have to become harder to obtain, they would be done to a lower (cheaper) standard and major/capital repairs would be carried out less frequently. The banks who finance the HA properties (they don't own them, they finance and re-finance them all constantly) would put interest rates up so your bills would increase across the board.

Private landlords subsidise the government through the tax on their earnings. Like it or loathe it.

HAs and lower rents should be for people who need it not for the masses, it's a support not a solution.

I absolutely support more stringent rules for private landlords, and more protections for renters but this is so ridiculously naive as a proposed solution.

Ideally, we wouldn’t need social housing apart from a tiny percentage of severely disabled people and those that are terminally ill. Whom would be fully supported by the state and given excellent care. Everyone else would be earning a good salary, working in gainful employment and able to afford their very own home. That’s my vision.

Not millions more languishing in grotty social housing with no prospects. That depresses me beyond belief.

All of those things do also come under scrutiny for the extortionate profits they make, though.

It's the sheer amount of wealth that people can accumulate from things that are basic life necessities for humans.

It's not wrong to profit at all if people choose to make a living providing these things - but it shouldn't have become as lucrative as it is.

New build estates should be at least 50% council houses and be social rent (not ‘affordable’ rent as this is double social rent).

So many new housing estates are being built due to ‘local demand’ yet in many cases the houses aren’t actually affordable for the people in the area if it doesn’t have good networks and high paid jobs.

There should also be housing affordable for single people.

What about diplomatic and military families who deploy overseas and then return? They often rent their homes out - if they weren’t able to do that they’d be coming back to no where to live.

The solution to the housing crisis shouldn’t be, as it is with everything else, to penalise the ambitious or hard working. All you do is stagnate the economy.

And it’s a downward spiral. Anyone ambitious or productive will either stop (what’s the point) or leave.

Our country has already lost so many of our best professionals. We are haemorrhaging talent and wealth creators. Without them the lights really will be turned off, and we become a failing communist state, no thanks!

Can you really not imagine the multiple ways people who are shelling out up to 44% of their income on extortionate rent might spend that money that dont involve things you disapprove of?
I'm not sure why you're using language to imply its a free choice to rent when 76% of renters would like to own a property, and 60% of them believe they will never afford to. A roof over your head isn't a lifestyle choice.

State control of the rental market

do you really believe that when their is central control their isn’t corruption?

it’s a nice idea but it’s just that a nice idea of how things could be not how things become under central control over what would still be a business

tax landlords higher, tighten rules I am all for but central control over the market not at all look at how appalling some of the housing associations are run

If I rent a car there are conditions attached. The owners have to protect their investment. How is property any different, should owners be able to protect their investment? I can rent a £100k Mercedes, and if I dont return it on time it gets reported as stolen and the police become involved. If I refuse to pay rent or move out of a £100k property there's nothing anyone can do. To me that's completely unfair on the owner. Nobody is forcing tenants to live there. And landlords weren't evicting hoards of people for no reason. Good tenants, who paid their rent on time and kept the property in good order weren't being evicted.

If you want to live in a communist state op, there are still some available. Cuba, or North Korea perhaps? Most countries have realised that communism just doesn’t work and if you’ve been to any communist countries, it’s not hard to see why. So no, I do not agree with you.

Being a landlord isn't productive. Buying more houses than you need to make a profit from those who do need them produces, creates or adds nothing of worth to our society whatsoever.
If your worried about a haemorrhage of talent, you'd do better to look to the young people with a whole life of productivity to offer, who are leaving the UK because buying homes and progressing their lives seems out of reach here.

I'm not in favour but think rent should be controlled/capped.

I think rent-capping would be a more workable solution in the short-term, plus a specific (high) tax on air b & bs - or even a ban on charging more than the equivalent of the (capped) daily rent in that area per night. Yes, this would drive some landlords to sell, yes it would reduce the availability of rental properties but it would also increase supply of properties to buy, driving down prices, reducing demand for rentals. Yes, some people (myself included) would see the value of their homes go down, and possibly have to adjust plans for releasing capital at a later date but tough. Having a secure home is a privilege - an increasingly rare one!