Labour's Proposed Tenancy Law Reforms

[Rommell]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/30/ed-miliband-labour-rental-market-reforms-property

Miliband announces long-overdue reforms concerning security of tenure, agency fees and a mechanism to determine rent rises, but stops short of rent capping. Dangerously Communist or a sensible measure to protect the millions reliant on a largely unregulated private rental market?

It would be interesting to know what proportion of properties are vacant.

I think that low income tenants in London get a worst deal than tenants in other parts of the country because of the sheer demand for housing. In other parts of the country bad landlords would quickly find themselves with void periods. The cost gap between private and social housing is less as you get away from London.

Newham has licences for landlords and as a borough has introduced licences for landlords. Prehaps London needs devolution and to put in more regulation for its rental market.

I agree with most of what Rommell says, except for building on green belt land. We need the space to breathe - we can't keep building forever.

So the problems seem to be down to: not enough council houses; too little affordable, secure, good standard privately-rented accommodation with responsible landlords; and billionaires who speculate with house prices and leave properties empty. I suppose Labour are making a start with the second, but I would be more impressed if they went further.

Caitlin, I rent in Scotland, and so does my daughter. When she and her husband rented their present flat, they said they had a family, were going to put the children in local nurseries, that they needed a long term property - but they could only get the STA of six months. However, they were assured that the landlord had no intention of selling or using it for his own family.

Nine months later, children settled, new job bedded in - landlord wants to sell up and they are given two months' notice. So they look for another flat in the same area, but time after time, when they ask 'Who owns the flat?' it's the same landlord and it emerges - only after careful questioning - that he is in fact wanting to sell all his properties (even though he is happy to let them out for six months, presumably).

So they are going to have to move out of the area, and possibly have to move the children for the second time in a year.

How can it be fair that one landlord can buy up so many properties in one area? Tenants need some security, they really do.

Billybanter, you made an interesting comment about housing associations not being a good thing. What makes you say that? I'm not disputing it, I feel the same, but can't put m finger on why. In fact I'm in a council house which I swapped my housing association house for, purely because I felt i might be safer in council somehow.

Solopower that's awful re your dd and her family :( I agree with you that one landlord should not have the monopoly on so many rental homes.

Thanks, Balenciaga.

I think its horrendous if a private landlord has too many private rental homes in one area. It gives them huge power to raise the rent and treat tenants like shit as they have a monopoly. Actually I even feel uncomfortable if a letting agency has too many homes in one area. Prehaps the monopolies commission should prevent landlords like the Wilsons owning a thousand properties in Ashford. Large private chains of housing should be broken up like the banks.

Councils and housing associations are different as they are non profit making. Prehaps landlords should be subject to a cap on the number of homes they can rent out in one town.

balenciaga I've just heard a lot of bits and pieces here and there about them, and none of it very good. Seems some council properties have been handed over to HAs? I don't understand why, if that is the case, it hasn't been bigger news. It seems like it's yet more privatisation by the back door. And generally HA tenants of my acquaintance not being happy. I've not looked into it to any extent.

Also heard of 2 or 3 cases of HAs picking on TU Reps, IIRC.

Yeah I know what you mean re privatisation by the back door. My old housing association kept putting the rent up every year, by (IMO) an unfair amount

And they were beyond shit at repairs, once left us with no heating for a whole month during the winter a few years ago. I had a baby and a toddler it made us all ill and they did not give a shit . Speaking to my neighbours, it was standard behaviour from them.

They behaved like a private landlord tbh and I'm convinced they were far more profit making than they made out.

Their staff treated tenants like scum and seemed to delight in being obstructive and unhelpful.

Also they messed my exchange up so bad the stress made me physically ill, I was pregnant at the time and had a miscarriage just after the move and I'm convinced the stress they put me under contributed to it.

(It was Leicester housing association, just thought I'd name and shame the cunts. I also still owe them about £200 rent due to a cock up of theirs, well they will never see a penny )

balenciaga

I suppose a lot depends on whether renting is a renters market or a landlord's market. When someone has a monopoly in a housing market they forget that the tenant is the customer. They think they are doing someone a favour fixing a heating system when its a basic right.

Balenciaga - how awful! I hope things are better now?

Caitlin why when there is a thread discussing regulatory problems in English rental law do you find it hard to believe that those problems exist? They shouldn't do in a first world country but they do.

Aww thanks solopower things are better now

We are settled and happy in our council house now, been there about a year, the council are so much better than the HA and when things have needed doing (which tbf has only been once or twice) they've dealt with it quickly and professionally.

I just hope and pray we don't get taken over by a HA as so many council houses round here did a few years ago .

(Oh and my mc had a happy ending too, got pg a few weeks after and as a result I have dc3 snuffling next to me as I type )

Caitlin, I haven't 'attacked' anyone on this thread, but given that you are going to hoik yourself up and say that I'm 'offensive' for merely speaking the truth about how landlords, as a group, are costing the economy billions and not doing anyone any good, then I will tell you that if you can't even countenance granting a long-term tenancy to anyone, then you shouldn't be in the business of providing shelter and the fact that you would opt out of doing so were things to change is no loss to tenants or society in general. And you can be 'offended' by that if you want; I don't give a shit.

Rommell

I think that you have offended Catlin because of your sweeping generalisations about landlords. The problem is that lovely landlords are in a minority and rarely have void tenants. If a nice tenant finds a nice landlord then they usually continue the arrangment for years.

I think that there are issues with the renting market in the UK and some changes do have to be made. For example I feel that landlords with more than ten properties should not be allowed to refuse tenants on social housing. A landlord like the Wilsons easily has the resources to take on the risk of DHSS landlords.

I haven't generalised - have merely talked about the effects on society and the economy from landlords as a group. I haven't said that all landlords are evil, or that no landlords are lovely - I have just talked about broad trends backed up with facts and figures. If that is 'offensive' then we might as well close the boards down because no-one should talk about anything other than how lovely everyone else is. Maybe Caitlin could move to China?

And imo 'the problem' isn't anything to do with lovely landlords or lovely tenants or evil landlords or evil tenants but rather that the entire system is so unregulated that it has major scope for abuse built into it. And those abuses lead to, in broad national terms, an ever-spiralling housing benefit bill, homelessness and all the problems this creates plus thousands of people including families living in expensive inadequate squalor in B&Bs. I think, in the face of what more and more people are rightly imo beginning to term a crisis situation that we face wrt housing in this country which as one of the richest countries in the developed world is nothing short of a scandal, to cack on about how great a landlord you are (although this greatness stops short of providing any security for your tenants) and how any criticism of how things are is 'offensive' is missing the point in spectacular fashion. This is a real, pressing issue and discussing it is important.

The fundemental problem is that too many people want to live in the UK and too many people want a place of their own. We have issues with

a) Underoccupancy of property both owned and rented. (Especially owned) Ie. the little old lady who lives on her own in a large four bed house.

b) The breakdown in relationships means that there is a greater demand for flats. It is less socially acceptable for young adults to live with thier parents.

c) Everyone wanting to live in London. Better and affordable rail links and transport to other parts of the country would ease pressure on london.

d) Prehaps the elephant in the room - uncontrolled immigration from Europe. Prehaps the EU needs to look at bringing prosperity to the whole of Europe.

Rommell your posts are a stream of unfocused generalisations and ranting.

I was quite clear my experience related to Scotland, which is heavily regulated. My properties have to meet higher standards than local authority and Housing Association houses. As you are so concerned about lack of regulation one might have assumed it would be of interest to you in comparing the 2 systems.

Its naive to think that regulation prevents landlords being awful to tenants. Gernally only decent landlords follow the law. I don't know how you get round this problem. I am not sure that more regulation is the answer when existing legistation is hard enough to follow.

Caitlin17, yes, I am talking about general broad terms on this thread, not about you. If, however, you wish for there to be a thread to talk about you, you could always start one. Maybe you could call it 'Thread to talk about how great a landlord I am'; I'm sure it would make for interesting, relevant and punchy reading, just as your contributions to this thread about what a great landlord you are have been.

Your rants haven't added much. I have presented you with information about a highly regulated system in one part of the UK. The fact that in one part of the UK such controls exist doesn't fit your agenda of evil landlords taking public money for nothing.

Really Tired there's regulations about a vast number of things in our lives. Should we scrap all of them because good people will do the right thing anyway and bad people ignore them?

It's up to the authorities with the power to enforce and punish to make sure they exercise that power, which in Scotland happens.

Rommell is of course not interested in hearing how a highly regulated system works, but landlords have been prosecuted and fined for breaches of things like HMO, safety, deposits, landlord registration and failure to comply with repairs orders and have had rent suspension orders made where they have failed to take steps to control the tenants'anti-social behaviour.

"
Really Tired there's regulations about a vast number of things in our lives. Should we scrap all of them because good people will do the right thing anyway and bad people ignore them?"

I am not against regulation. There is plenty of existing regulation to control residental letting already. Rather than introducing more regulation, I feel that existing regulation should be enforced.

Most landlords are like my daughter - have one property (she cannot afford to live in it at present so lets it out and shares a friend's house). Her tenants would not want 3 years as young medics they move around. they are on a 14 month at the moment and may renew for another year (in London).

I am not against only being able to increase the rent once a year. That is very common now anyway. I used to let two flats and we always had that one year term and increase once a year (or no increase if you want to keep them and avoid a void period).

Allowing the landlord to take the flat back if they want to move in or sell it means no security for tenants so I think the new 3 year plans are ridiculous - just Labour window dressing.

If rent increases are capped too low and return to 20% a year inflation we had in some of the 1970s then that could be a problem although I hope those 1970s days will not return.

The Labour proposals seem to be smoke and mirrors and not up to much for tenants in my view.

Her tenants would not want 3 years as young medics they move around.

The three years isn't compulsory! They could still give notice. I know it goes against the grain in this country by letting the tenant decide when to quit the property if they want to but that's how it is in many other places and how it used to be here too as well.

Most landlords are like my daughter - have one property

Interesting. Do you have evidence for this?

And actually, if 'most landlords' have one property that they can't afford to live in, that just goes to show how fucked up the situation is - we cannot rely on people who are incapable of servicing their own mortgage requirements to provide shelter for others on a mass scale.