Limited council tenancies

[Biscuitscoco]

Council housing only for two years Guardian report

Surely this is wrong?

Thanks guys. I am pretty aware of my rights after the last debacle but phoned Shelter this morning after the LL came round being very confrontational telling me he didnt have to answer the phone, that we were bottom of his list of priorities, and he wasnt going to phone anyone other than his guy so that he didnt have to pay a callout fee.

They gave the same advice as Custy but have warned me that I will probably be evictedat the end of our contract if I envoke them.

Such a shame, I really like it here, have lovely neighbours and within walking distance of the school. Also I dont have the funds for another deposit and I just know he's going to be an arse about giving it back.

I suppose there are pros and cons to both private and social renting, but sitting in my shoes I know I would rather be in social when I cant be put out just because I want some heating in my house.

We got that in our last place sb6699, seems asking for repairs is totally unreasonable of us

How is your DH now Kaloki?

Better, though has to keep busy to stop himself getting worse. Jumps every time the door goes :(

Such a shame

On the other had my DH has told my LL in no uncertain times that he will never speak to his wife like that again

sb6699

In that case you are probably as well off just having the heating/hot water repaired and deducting the cost from your rent.

If he tries to evict you, and you have nowhere else to go, you will have to stay put. It would take a very long time for him to be able to get you out.

Full Consultation document with all the proposals. Not read through it all yet, but they're taking responses by email to: [email protected] until 17 Jan.

Just to update you all.

I went into my LA yesterday just to inform them I was in the process of obtaining 3 quotes for the heating - surprise, surprise, have had a phonecall this morning to say engineer will be here before 12

Thanks again for the advice.

Now I need to find out where my deposit is held as I havent received anything from TDS or anyone with my referece details.

Am I missing something here? If the tenancies are shortened, then won't those who NEED social housing the most be able to access it more quickly?

I thought that boiledegg1, I see no issue with reviewing whether someone requires social housing or not every 2 years

I mean, if it takes 7 years to get to the top of the social housing list, what's the point? The current system sounds broken to me.

I think, that given how little social housing still exists, and how many people who need housing benefits, are living in private rentals, the most urgent thing is to sort out the lack of security of tenure there.

This seems to be the opposite approach - removing any possibility of security of tenure for the less well off. Maybe making landlords' treatment of their tenants more acceptable.

"living in private rentals, the most urgent thing is to sort out the lack of security of tenure there."

As I've said above trying to tinker with the housing market is complicated.

If you force landlords to offer longer tenancies to people the immediate effects of that would be that a lot of landlords would give up and sell up. That would reduce the number of properties available to rent which would drive up rents across the board.

Most landlords are not evil bloated cigar smoking figures in top hats. Most are "normal" people who, particularly at the moment, have trouble selling a property and decide to let it out. Most don't make ridiculous amounts of money and most don't exploit their tenants.

It's those ones who, when faced with the possibility of their property being locked into a tenancy agreement for several years rather than just one at a time, who will back out.

Leaving the bad landlords to enjoy the chance to charge even more rent than they do now.

BadgersPaw, there are a lot of people renting privately who would far rather be in their own homes. There is a great shortage of properties for sale in many areas precisely because property owners are finding it more profitable to rent their houses out than to sell them. Releasing these onto the market would be no bad thing.

Badger's paw, and as I responded to you above, it is a good thing if landlords who are not willing to allow tenants have security of tenure are forced out of the market.

Amateur landlords should not be protected at the expense of their tenants and potential first-time-buyers. As a tenant, I would always choose a professional landlord over some muppet who is letting out a property that they imagine is worth more than the market will allow it to sell for. They tend to make the worst landlords, since they have no concept of normal wear and tear, or their tenants' right to quiet enjoyment of their home. And they never have the decency to admit that they intend to make their prospective tenants homeless as soon as they have an opportunity to sell.

Personally I feel that it's not the new tenant that are causing the housing crisis it's the ones that are rattling around in three bed council houses just the two of them and I include my grandparents and my in laws in that. In laws live in a large three bed two reception room semi in York but yet in the flats across the road are several families in two bed flats. How is that fair. This country has never been on a position to offer lifetime tenancies and needs to look at reforming the housing act to enable them to reasses all social housing tenants.
We need to end the entitled to culture that Britain has bred. I rent privatley and would love a more secure tenancy rather than the 6 months at a time that most landlords seem to insist on with tue the ever increasing rental prices in this area. A two year tenancy would be lovely!

Actually, I am bothered by your patronising tone above - do you assume the housing market is too "complicated" for mere tenants to grasp?

Bad landlords don't tend to be the cigar smoking pros, but the over leveraged amateurs who bitterly resent every repair needed, and fail to understand their own obligations as landords - both in the legal and moral sense. The pros don't usually take anything personally and they always budget for maintenance. Not that they are always good, as the Rachman case shows.

(meant for Badger's paw)