Labour tackling the private rent market

[Pantone363]

guardian link

They seem to be the only party tackling what is a huge issue for a lot of voters.

oops; in a fixed length tenancy the landlord cannot terminate it to put the rent up NOW. So no difference.

specialsubject... re your;

"so NOTHING WILL CHANGE except it may be easier for landlords to offer longer tenancies. If you think this is massive reform, you are fools. All these things are already in place!"

If anyone believed that for one minute, or that more 'reform' sticks wouldn't follow after the General Election, the only logical conclusion would be Labour/Miliband are disingenuously obtaining votes on this issue while irresponsibly discouraging investment/encouraging home sale profit taking.

Looking at the manifesto there seems to be a similar theme of most of the Labour 'key issues' - threaten and hit the private sector with populist but commercially badly thought out policies - as the way to a progressive/fair society, when the opposite will happen and lose homes and jobs.

The other thing that may change is that the inflation linked increases may be put in the 3 year agreement as standard, so actually increase rents faster.

I would not support fixed length tenancies. In other countries (E.g. Spain) tenants are notorious for paying their rent until they went into longer tenancy, then simply stop paying, knowing it can take 9-10 months to evict them. Friends of my parents were stung like this. I have heard of the same thing happening in France - one of my former friends was quite open about having exploited the system in this way

Landlords assume all the risk on the property including maintenance. I would be happy to see greater regulation of landlords and some degree of rent regulation but not an entitlement to stay in a property for a long time.

If the government cap rents, and your yield is only potentially 2%, the risk is too great and you won't bother. The derelict property remains uninhabited and a blight on the neighbourhood.

they are not proposing a rent cap from what I can tell; they are proposing a cap on rent rises for tenants already in place. if that tenant moves out, the rent can freely float to market levels.

This is in fact how it's done in some other places. elsewhere the private rental markets are similar to our social housing market (effectively, private renters have indefinite tenure and can only be removed under certain circumstances e.g. the owner wishes to occupy the property, sale, etc. LL wants more money is not a reason).

What I don't get is what's stopping tenants and a landlord from a 3 year agreement now?

tenants are notorious for paying their rent until they went into longer tenancy, then simply stop paying, knowing it can take 9-10 months to evict them.

There's no reason to assume it is either/or. You can have strong tenant protections, but make it easy to evict non-paying tenants.

Fine - if market conditions allow it will go on the rent, just as it did in Scotland. So no difference to anyone. What WOULD be sensible is to regulate letting agents - but Labour are as blind to this as all the other parties.

What happened in Scotland isn't necessarily due to the fees being pushed onto rents. That's the way it's sold to everyone by letting agents.

This reform makes complete sense. currently, agents charge tenants unreasonable amounts because tenants can't shop around. The problem is that the landlord picks the service provider (the letting agent), but someone else foots the bill (tenant). That's a recipe for unreasonable charges.

Make landlords pay. Then they will make damn sure they know of all charges and keep them low because THEY can shop around. The market will then regulate letting agents.

Better tenancy protections will help. but the root problem is still there. not enough housing (SE problem).

The deposit scheme was all I had to see to not trust these people with rental regulations.

Poor tenant paid deposit and I put it in the scheme. At the end of the tenancy they took their sweet merry time paying it back to the tenant. She needed the money so I repaid her deposit and she sent a letter to the deposit people asking them to pay me as I had given her the funds. I had also communicated to them numerous times via letter and telephone that all funds were to be released to the tenant but they kept telling the tenant I was holding money back. It took over 6 months to sort out and after the headache I don't ask for a deposit anymore. One months rent doesn't cover much and I'm not going through that circus performance again.

I think we need to look at why we have short tenancies and change things so the government are the ones owning social housing. The whole housing issue needs to be looked at starting with fixed rates for the term of the mortgage and stopping the right to buy program. I would also open up planning to allow new homes to be built and existing homes modified to become multi family homes.

I am also a landlord of one property and a friend has about 20 properties. We both have been a unhappy with agents putting up rent without confirming with us. The rents have become crazily high and I would rather have good tenants on reasonable rents and a quiet life with minimum stress. The thing that horrifies us is the 3 year tenancy. OMG. The thing is that the Section 8 legislation does not work. Who would want a non-paying tenant for 3 years. I have this week been looking into selling quickly but latest CGT says no. So I will move into the rental property myself and flog my flat. Property really too big for one person and I don't like the area but needs must. I have to say that in 13 years I have never given a tenant notice in order to get a higher rent. Never. You can always use what I think is a Section 13 if you think an increase is called for but give me a reliable/paying tenant that keeps the place nice any day. High rents have come about because a lot are being paid for by the councils in housing benefit and that is not fair on those paying their council taxes.

It's a daft idea. Ed Miliband has a Msc from the LSE! Makes you wonder...

Is he being cynical?
Is he so ideological that it's all a nefarious plan to purposely cause trouble?
Is the LSE not all it's cracked up to be?

Just really, really odd.

isitmebut so you don't think all these things are already in place?

There is nothing stopping longer tenancies. I'd be happy for my tenant to have one (at no rent increase, market forces) but he wants six months at a time. I know people with five year tenancies.

Delighted to see that regulation of the private rental market is finally on the national political agenda.

What buy to let has done to the property market in this country is a total scandal and it needs to be addressed.

It needs to go further than rent capping, but it's a start.

As a greater and greater proportion of the electorate are renters it is surely inevitable the the problems with the rental sector are increasingly on the agenda.
Demands for change will only increase as even relatively well paid middle class people can't afford a middle class way of life.
The wealthy people at the top may be hoarding all the money and property but they don't have all the voting power.

?

I believe the Greens want a rent cap.
As far as I remember rent control was done away with under the milk snatcher,and Labour did sweet fa about it during their time in power.
I think the light blue tories are playing their audience ready for the elections tbh.

Most BTL mortgages limit tenancies to 12 months. The govt cannot change this, so will only apply to new mortgages and unmortgaged landlords.

Comparison of parties' policies on housing (and everything else) here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide

I would much rather see tougher legislation on rouge landlords.

The ones who rent out utter shite holes, collect rent on a weekly basis, do nothing to the house, have people sleeping too many to a room causing problems with fighting but also with the poor neighbours who suddenly have huge numbers of people living next to them causing social problems.

The landlords are making money out of the lodgers misery and the neighbours misery. Usually the lodgers are from the EU and speak little English, and whilst its their choice to live cheaply and x to a room whilst they earn I dont believe some rouge LL should be raking it in and taking advantage of them.

Councils do not prosecute rouge LL though, and they can literally get away with the most awful hovels.

Rouge ones are terrible, not like the eau-de-nil

I rented for 30 years in private sector and now own my own home.

Letting agents must be regulated. Agents fees to tenants must be stopped but no party is talking about this. The scam of telling a tenant they have to renew their contract every 6 months to generate more fees should be stopped. As a very experienced tenant I had to explain the law to many letting agents. The fact that I did not need to pay another fee after 6 months but could go to a rolling contract automatically was a common argument. Many agents simply acted without instruction from LL who was oblivious and did not want a new contract just to carry on with what they had agreed already with me.

This is just cynical election promises that will make no actual difference.

Rent caps are a terrible idea. Will cause shortages of rental property and illegal tenancies and Rackmanism.

My concern with this is that it may end up with private renters not being able to stay anywhere very long.

If the landlords can put up rent for a new tenant but not a current one they will just refuse to renew the lease. For families in particular that would be terrible re school and friends. Moving every 6 months would place a massive financial strain on families who are already badly off.

Agree - crazy policy. I rent out my old flat and after the mortgage and constant little repairs, barely make any profit (some years, none). In hindsight, I wish I'd just invested in the stock market and saved myself the hassle. The rent is in proportion to the mortgage and expenses - and as property prices in London are high, it follows that the rents are too...

jimmychoo yes, yes, yes. Trouble is many (including here) think all landlords are like these crooks. No party seems prepared to take proper action.

aermingers remember not everywhere is London. In many (most) parts of the country rent is capped by market forces. Charge too much - no tenant.

If the landlords can put up rent for a new tenant but not a current one they will just refuse to renew the lease.

give tenure tenants and cap rent rises.

Before the buy to let boom, property prices in London weren't that high. One of the main reasons property prices in London are high is the amount of demand for buy to let properties, so it's not just as simple as London property prices are high and rent is proportional to mortgage/expenses.So the people now priced out of buying create demand for rental properties it's a captive and self-perpetuating market.

As a PP put above but seems to have been overlooked

MORTGAGE LENDERS WON'T ALLOW LONGER CONTRACTS!

If the LL cannot pay his mortgage and the property is repossessed, the lender cannot evict the tenant but will need to give them notice. They will not want to wait for 3 years.

The general feeling I'm getting from this thread is that the majority feel that LLs are raking it in, wanting more money than they should have. Most of the people I know with BTLs are making little more than the mortgage repayments, they are just renting out houses which they will probably sell to fund their retirements. I appreciate that their are unscrupulous LLs out their but they are very much the minority.

LLs have a right to earn money from their investments, they do not have any obligation to buy a house and make a loss on it just so someone else can live in it.

They do not have an obligation to buy a house at all.

They are perfectly free to leave it to be bought by someone who actually wants to live in it.

Someone who is currently being forced to make a loss shelling out rent for the same house they would prefer to have bought - but couldn't compete against the LL leveraging an existing property portfolio.

Oh, and FYI, no one has a "right" for their investment to be profitable. You're a very naive investor if you believe more gold will fall into your lap just because you've invested some.

exactly, no one has a right to make a profit, investment always involves an element of risk.

If you invest in property you are taking a risk that the market will change such that your investment choice is no longer profitable.
This could happen for a number of reasons, one being that the govt decides to regulate the market.
You will then have to decide whether to liquidate your assets, possibly at a loss.

Them's the breaks