Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Guest post: 'I know I'll never own my home - but does renting have to be so tough on families?'

118 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 08/04/2014 16:39

Recently I had a go at The Great British Class Calculator. I conscientiously answered questions about salary, accommodation, social relationships and activities, and my responses placed me in the ‘Emergent Service Class’ – the second lowest ranking.

However, the researcher in me decided to try a second time - I repeated all my responses except the one about property. Rather than ticking the ‘rent’ box, I ticked ‘own’. In my mind, I chose a reasonably-sized mortgage – one that I could afford to pay - and was instantly catapulted into the second highest ranking, ‘Established Middle Class’.

It’s not that I'm clamouring to join the ranks of the middle classes, but this illustration of my perceived social ranking is just one striking way in which being a private renter limits, compromises and defines my life. The rest of this post is devoted to a few more of them.

When people learn that I rent privately rather than owning a home, there are a few typical responses. Some make me feel as though I am 'second-class' - transient and probably a bit undesirable. They inexplicably equate renting with a lack of responsibility. Others assume my status is temporary and I just haven’t got around to buying anything yet. Friends and acquaintances remind me that I really must get on the property ladder at some point, assuming buying is something I can even consider and talking to me as though I'm insisting on playing the field like some confirmed bachelorette.

I understand their concerns. They - like me- know that in many ways the life of the mortgage-holder allows for much more independence and security than that of the renter. As long as the home-owner can pay each month, the property is theirs. Not so for the private renter. Obviously I need to pay, but other issues beyond my control can affect my tenure: the landlord’s whim; their finances; their age; what the letting agent thinks, to name a few. Plus, the home-owner has a property which is truly theirs and allows the addition of simple homely touches - things like painting the walls, hanging pictures, letting their children share their lives with a pet or allowing them to record their height and age on the bedroom door frame.

And once we hit the subject of children, the limitations and compromises I mentioned earlier become much more challenging. Renting works well for students or those who want a temporary solution to their accommodation needs, but the kind of stability required for a young family is difficult to find. Some tenancies do not allow children; other properties are clearly not suitable for them. Problems with properties tolerable as a single grown-up are unacceptable as a parent.

Issues with my property that depress and embarrass me, I put up with because to move my children based on superficialities or inconvenience would be selfish. However, when things go wrong and a new property is required, the practical and emotional impact can be enormous and repeated. Research suggests that in 2012-13, families who rented privately were 9 times more likely to have moved than home-owners. Whilst moving is stressful for everyone, those in private rented accommodation seem to suffer it rather more frequently.

In addition, families are increasingly being forced into moves with their young children because some landlords and agents are putting up rents to an unmanageable level after an initial 6 month contract or other fixed-term period. As the housing charity Shelter has highlighted, large numbers are being evicted as a result of asking their landlords to make necessary repairs to their properties.

Moving home with children of school age is problematic on a number of levels. For my children it was awful. They were uprooted from the safety and security of the school and friends they had known for 5 years. There were tears and anxieties and a lot of genuine sadness. On a practical level, placing three children at the same primary school was impossible. We are currently managing drop offs and pick ups at two different schools without a car and it's not easy.

Local Education Authority procedures for helping place children in a new area are frustrating. I couldn't have access to a list of schools with available places and I couldn't apply for school places without a firm new address in the area. It was the property finding equivalent of Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Added to this mix was the fact that my eldest is moving on to secondary school in September and places had already been allocated, so we had to leave that decision to fate.

It was a stressful time, but it could have been much worse. I might have had each child in a different school. I might have been managing this without a partner to share the load. I might be one if the many who are finding themselves needing to go through this sorry process time and time again, aware of the terrible toll it takes on the confidence, security and education of their children and finding themselves powerless to avoid it.

There are lots of issues that need to be addressed in the UK private renting sector: lack of security for families; insufficiently regulated rents; a demand which far outstrips supply; inadequate procedures for dealing with ‘bad’ landlords, and last but not least, an overarching social belief that having a mortgage is inherently ‘better’ than renting a property.

Families in privately rented accommodation need security of tenure to encourage them to become full members of the community and to allow their children continuity in terms of education and relationships. At the very least this should be reflected in longer tenancy periods, the regulation of private rents and and maintenance of registers of 'rogue' landlords as Shelter’s campaign recommends. Ultimately, we can’t get away from the fact that our country really needs more houses, and a lifting of the cap on local council building would allow for this.

The private rental sector needs to be fair and less precarious for all, but particularly for young families. Politicians should stand up for the 9 million renters, acknowledge their concerns and fully commit to improving the situation for them.

OP posts:
ChunkyPickle · 09/04/2014 09:14

I'd be open to long term rents for my tenants - but the agents are very against it as they prefer to make 150 quid every 6 months (pointlessly) renewing the contract with the tenants.

For myself, I don't think I'd want a 5 year contract in my current position - in fact I'd wobble over a 2 year. This will almost certainly change once the kids are school age though - but I bet trying to persuade someone to give me one will be all but impossible.

JaneinReading · 09/04/2014 09:36

We have long term rents in English law already. You can agree an assured shorthold for long periods. However many tenants and many landlords simply do not choose to have them - neither side often wants to be tied down. Also you cannot get a tenant out without a court order with takes 2 - 3 months. There is still a lot or protection for tenants in the UK. It is not all one sided in favour of landlords.

Many landlords are like some on this thread or my daughter - who owns one flat which is let out and she rents a room in a friend's place (hers are on a 14 month contract and probably about to renew for another year - another huge fee no doubt due to the agents for that who already had £2k just to find them). When I let two flats out we were always very good to the tenants and fixed problems immediately if there were anything like a leak. There is a lot of landlord bashing about which probably puts people off letting.

Landlords who are just wanting the income sometimes do agree longer terms as avoid periods between tenancies lose you a lot of money. They would want a right to increase rent in line with inflation of course during the term.

One of the saddest things is that tenants seem to think landlords keep all the rents and are greedy moneybags. In fact if you do the sums even on an interest only mortgage (most buy to lets) the interest on your loan will not be too much less than the rent paid. Then add in the agent fee (in my daughter's case £2000, then repairs - the new boiler alone was £2k which I loaned her) then the landlord may make nothing at all out of it UNLESS prices rise which of course landlords hope will be the case. Now some landlords may not have any mortgage so they will be making the difference between say 2% on savings were the money in the bank before tax v say 5% - 6% before tax on the rent but that 2 or 3% difference might well entirely be swallowed up in a bad year by repair costs. It is certainly not a huge easy income stream for most of them.

daphnehoneybutt · 09/04/2014 12:08

My landlord is a greedy moneybags. His mortgage is much less than our rent in fact, he brags he makes money off us, whilst taking months to do repairs e.g. for water leaking onto electrics. He also insists on doing all repairs himself to a very poor standard. It is quite laughable.

We have put up with crappy accommodation for the last 5 years and all because I didn't want to have to line the pockets of letting agents when I might be moving out of the frying pan into the fire. I have had one "nice" landlord in 10 years of renting. They exist but are a rare breed.

Thankfully we have now saved enough to buy our own home. I wouldn't rent again out of choice until renters have proper rights like they do in European countries.

MsIngaFewmarbles · 09/04/2014 13:08

Totally agree. We have lovely landlords now and have been here for nearly 4 years. They do work as soon as it's needed and have only increased our rent by £22 a month since we have been here. They are happy for us to redecorate if we want to. We will be here until we have saved a deposit for our own home. They have owned the house for 20+ years and now use the income for their retirement so have promised they won't be selling.

We have a secure home which is great, as long as they don't find out about our dogs. We couldn't part with them so we hide them with family if they need to come round. I hate lying :(

BreakingDad77 · 09/04/2014 13:50

Re Daphne, I thought if a property is being let then then certain repairs must be done by a qualified person?

SweetCarolinePomPomPom · 09/04/2014 15:53

daphne why have you put up with that for 5 years? Why not just move? The beauty of renting is that you are never committed for more than a year at a time. If you accept and tolerate a shoddy landlord service year in year out and keep paying the rent then he's not going to change, is he?

SweetCarolinePomPomPom · 09/04/2014 15:54

And of course his mortgage is less than your rent - he'd be a pretty crap businessman if it were more! Grin

expatinscotland · 09/04/2014 16:55

'Why not just move?'

If you are in receipt of even partial LHA (or full), have kids in a school that is over-subscribed, live in an area with few rental properties coming up, a rural area, or even as a family who have a lowish income, it is not as simple as 'just move'.

That's the problem.

'No children, no DSS' is a real barrier.

danwilsoncraw · 09/04/2014 16:58

This is a brilliant post and it illustrates a problem shared by rising numbers of families. Generation Rent (www.generationrent.org) are campaigning to make renting better for everyone who can't afford to buy - please sign up on the website if you'd like to get involved.

expatinscotland · 09/04/2014 17:01

80% of all those claiming LHA are in work, btw.

JaneinReading · 09/04/2014 17:05

Lots of landlords have had t move for work and have one home they let out and they rent elsewhere. They are do not necessarily make any profit at all on the rent. They are paying rent elsewhere. My daughter pays rent and lets out her place. There are lots of reasons people rent their place. Lots of mumsnetters have to move for work, rent where they move to and let out their property or move abroad for work and let out their UK property. They only have one property they own and are both landlord and a tenant.

SweetCarolinePomPomPom · 09/04/2014 17:48

You make a good point expat. I am a landlord and I take my responsibility seriously. Of course I want to make as much money as possible but I could not sleep at night if I thought someone was experiencing horrendous value for money in one of my houses. Even if it's not their money paying the rent. A happy tenant is a long term tenant, which saves me money and hassle in the long run.

I welcome families who need HB to pay the rent and I reject the idea that they are automatically high-risk high-maintenance tenants although it's true that many are. I would happily rent to more families who want to stay put due to schooling, ties to local community etc, but unfortunately I am severely limited by the small print in my mortgage contracts.

Unless I can buy a house cash I cannot let to HB tenants. It's that simple. And the landlord who buys everything cash tends to buy only in crappy areas and does the bare minimum to keep the place ticking over. They have no choice really, otherwise they could put their money to better use elsewhere and would have to get out of the business. I realise that is a whole other thread, and perhaps the state should take back the responsibility of providing housing for all low income families, but they don't, even after 13 years of a socialist government in recent years, so in the meantime....

I would like to see the restrictions lifted on HB claimants as tenants. You should be innocent until proven guilty. I don't understand it - all the risk is with the LL not the finance provider, if the tenant defaults on rent, or turns it into a crack den or rips up and burns the floorboards.

But unfortunately with greater (tenants) rights comes greater responsibility. Except that the responsibility would appear to fall squarely on the landlord - rarely the tenant and never the mortgage provider. Honestly, we are not all callous opportunists, but we have to work within the rules that we are given. We are not charities and contrary to popular opinion we do not all rip poor people off for thousands while we drink champagne our of our Jimmy Choos.

TheWomanTheyCallJayne · 09/04/2014 19:13

My biggest thing is living in fear. Not extra locks fear but of the unknown.
We live in a house riddled with damp which is making us (particularly dh) ill but that fear of having to move on again. To change the children's schools again,of not knowing where we will be living until a few days before the move again stops us complaining too much because though there are lovely landlords (we've had them, and I hope have been them) there are also the awful ones and we can't take too much of a risk.
As for decorating... No chance. We have a picture rail at least so have put children's posters in frames for them. We know that the trashed carpet in the children's room will be replaced by us when we move, we're not going to do it now for obvious reasons, but we can't prove that.
I want a home, not just a house to live in and this will never feel like that with the insecurity and other people's whims thrust upon us.

MiscellaneousAssortment · 09/04/2014 19:37

I completely agree with TheWoman

I'm having to move now due to rubbish landlord and I am trapped into a small area by schools, postcodes, job and the worst one - disability and utter dependence on council to find carers. because of this I may well become homeless.

I actually find it reassuring that others are trapped in the same situation, as sometimes it feels like I'm the only poor sucker stuck with no control, freedom or happiness.

OddBoots · 10/04/2014 13:13

It's interesting to see that in a discussion about school places a number of people suggest that owning a house, even if renting out, should allow applications to the catchment school despite the law being about residence not ownership. There is a sometimes spoken and sometimes unspoken sense of priority for those owning a property above those renting.

Dinosaursareextinct · 10/04/2014 13:18

In that post the discussion is about a mother who will be moving back into her owned property (because forced to leave the rented property she is living in) before the child starts school. The child will be living in that owned property from before they start school.

PeachyTheSanctiMoanyArse · 10/04/2014 13:40

We've rented this place for almost a decade, before that we owned. Is class really so odd that we downshifted at the stage of selling, even though we have since acquired a couple of degrees and a Master's between us? Unlikely.

Our landlady is lovely. As tenants we do everything we can to keep the house nice, carpets / painting etc, and in return she is an excellent landlady, allows us freedom to enjoy our home, and trusts us. the past decade has been a rocky ride band having the stability of a home has been an immense help, especially as that rocky ride has ended up with using four separate school (1 MS primary, 1 SN primary, 1 MS comp, 1 sn comp...), and having to start up self empoyed after redundancy: I suggest we have had our share of battles from elsewhere in the world!

The diea that HB equate to bad is clearly wrong- lots of people claim HB for a while, say after a redundancy or illness- they may have been in the house years, or more. They won't suddenly change opersonality when the payment comes in! Also HB can be a tiny part of a rental payment, £10 or so a week with the rest made up by employment.

We had a nightmare landlord for a year, whilst we moved and sold: that was awful. Equally whilst renting out the old house our tenants ripped the kitchen out (they were hoping to buy but had not at that stage), that was also nightmarish.

But most people are fine, we are lucky that our tenancy runs in one year long contracts so relatively stable but each autumn as it comes up I do panic hugely: who else would rent to us, a large family with irregular income and 3 autistic kids? We've never missed a rent payment and we are reputable but in balance that seems to count for little.

JaneinReading · 10/04/2014 13:49

I am glad it has been made clear on this thread that it is lenders, not landlords who prevent lets to benefits claimants. You are just not allowed to, full stop, under the lender's conditions for most buy to let loans. It is not the landlord imposing the requirement. (Most landlords have a mortgage on the property so it applies to most)

PeachyTheSanctiMoanyArse · 10/04/2014 13:51

Indeed, we are lucky as the home we rent is one left to landlady by her parents, so no mortgage.

I do think that caveat banks make about HB should be barred in law, with decisions being based on rent paying history and not bigoted perception. only a law change would make it stand, sadly.

stubbornstains · 10/04/2014 13:57

Completely agree peachy. It should also be made illegal to discriminate against families with children.

NotCitrus · 10/04/2014 14:23

Until the 1960s, housing was apparently one of the main issues in every general election. It needs to be one again.

expatinscotland · 10/04/2014 14:54

The system of letting has also resulted in many making very unsound financial decisions that are unsustainable in the long-term. A lot of people are scarily over-stretched and any rise in interest rate will hit them hard, so the government keeps rates low to prop things up.

Sicaq · 10/04/2014 14:57

According to my Google-fu thorough research, it appears that only those landlords who have buy-to-let mortgages are restricted re: letting to HB claimants. All the accidental landlords renting out their own home, or an inherited property, should be fine with HB.

PeachyTheSanctiMoanyArse · 10/04/2014 14:58

Apparently, some insurance for landlord companies also refuse HB.

JaneinReading · 10/04/2014 14:59

Yes, that's true, NotC. In the 1901 census my grandfather who left school at 12 was living in a boarding house with 26 other young men! The house my mother moved to in 1938 (rented) sells today at about £58k today. After world war 2 there was a huge slum clearance programme but many people stayed in prefabs which were only meant to be temporary. Then the rents acts kept rent so low (eg £10 a year for life) and did not allow landlords ever to remove a tenant that no one let property at all and council housing was always hard to come by.

Swipe left for the next trending thread