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.

lol, ok, I'm with you :o

when a country in NOT building anywhere enough homes annually to provide for organic population growth, never mind knowingly adopt a policy opening up the front door for exchanges with 500 million Europeans - coming up with ways to provide those homes is not a "big change" - it is responsible governance that hopefully needs to be ahead of the curve, not 20-years behind.

as you say yourself, coming up with those homes would be a big change, because they aren't doing that.

But my point about big change wasn't about building a lot more homes, I have said that's totally necessary, it's about bringing in big institutional landlords. that's a big change.

As for your other points, you are simply railing against labour and labour policies. That's fine. but just because all of their other ideas are bad (which I in some instances agree) it doesn't mean this one is. it's workable. I have seen it. Yes, that does mean you have to tell banks that they can't make it illegal to have long leases (or, you have tenure with the caveat that repossession by the bank means the tenant has to move). there's lots to do that can be done.

And the argument that this throws a spanner into the plans of LLs simply isn't a good one. A change to the system will create uncertainty, but LLs and tenants will adapt. if yields are lower prices will come down.

if large companies acted as landlords they would presumably be able to take advantage of economies of scale which individual private landlords just don't have access to.

As it is a large proportion of the buy-to-let housing stock is in reality (by virtue of the fact that it is mortgaged) owned by the banks

keepitsimple0 .... re the supply of homes, dramatically increasing the building is no longer an option, whether looking at those waiting to buy, waiting to rent, or trying to put a lid on home price rises - we NEED solutions and over 200,000 new spades in ground, annually, whatever that takes - even (gasp), encouraging the private sector.

As for "simply railing against Labour" re housing, I can hardly deny it but why?

Re housing supply versus bloody Germany again, I'm sure I read somewhere that they have built of around 15% of their land, we on say 13%, and that difference would be enough UK homes.

So under Labour, not only did they have hundreds of billions of new tax receipts (from the financial bubble) to spend, they identified the problem back then, and had a 160 seat majority to push through whatever initiatives they had - so screw 'Boris Island', Labour could have built Brown-lantis under the sea, concreted over green belt, whatever - they had everything, bar the initiative.

The Coalition had none of those things, especially money, also inheriting a property transaction/building log jam and many skilled brickies etc having left the industry - yet still managed in 4-years to build more Council Homes than Labour in 13-years, albeit from a very low base.

So I am frustrated we missed a huge opportunity.

Next 'you have to tell banks' (rather than work with them?), and the directors representing the shareholders if don't like it, will say feck off.

May I suggest FORGET State Controls, every private company exists for the shareholders, so if the new plans are viable, WORK with them, as they can just withdraw from the market - and what can the government do, nationalise a few more banks, as that worked soooo well in the past.

There are a LOT of us who became landlords by default, as we struggled to sell. My DS is in the same boat.
We have never revised the rent, and always respond to queries/issues within 48 hours.
To be honest, it's a PITA, but the tenants really want to buy when they have saved enough, so we mutually agreed to extend. We haven't thought about increasing the rent. It covers the mortgage and insurance, so we're OK.
We're not all tossers!!

I know MrsJuice. The only landlord I ever had who fixed/replaced things when asked, proactively maintained the place and was reasonable about rent was someone in that position.

They did up their first home after getting married, then bought a huge wreck round the corner to do up. It was so bad they couldn't live in it til they had done a good bit of work, so they continued to live in the first house. Then the market tanked and not only could they not sell the first house when they moved into the second, but he got made redundant, so they couldn't afford two mortgages any more.

He did get another job about 9 months after we moved in, and he out the place on the market once we said we were leaving. I ran into him at his new job and he was so relieved not to be a landlord anymore, he hated it!

Re housing supply versus bloody Germany again, I'm sure I read somewhere that they have built of around 15% of their land, we on say 13%, and that difference would be enough UK homes.

It's not just "bloody germany". parts of the US and Canada also do this.

we have plenty of land in this country. leave london and it's nothing but. we can do this if we encourage the private sector to build and relax planning permission to allow it.

Next 'you have to tell banks' (rather than work with them?), and the directors representing the shareholders if don't like it, will say feck off.

May I suggest FORGET State Controls, every private company exists for the shareholders, so if the new plans are viable, WORK with them, as they can just withdraw from the market - and what can the government do, nationalise a few more banks, as that worked soooo well in the past.

I am totally on board with this. get the private sector involved. great. get them to build homes. but the private sector isn't going to cure everything, and in particular won't address AT ALL unstable living in the private rental market. the only way renters will have any edge is if the market is flooded with homes, and that will never be. renters need protection and getting in line with what at least three other reasonable countries (probably a lot more) do isn't a bad idea.

Above everything else I would rather see proper legislation governing landlords rather than have blanket demands that tenants can stay in a house for X years. I do find it depressing that so many people have such bad experiences.

DH and I are accidental landlords - we both had small houses pre-marriage. The crash helped us buy our family home but left us stuck with houses we couldn't afford to sell. We let both houses and both have cost us more money than we have made. We are good to our tenants and they are happy to live in the houses longterm. We never planned to keep the houses but after putting so much work in we see the houses as a way of retiring earlier than we might otherwise have. Because of that we are not looking to make a fast buck.

The worst landlords seem to be those with multiple properties who are using them as a way to make fast money - leveraging them to the hilt to expand their portfolio. Perhaps there is a way of limiting the number of houses which can be owned and let by any small landlords and companies and then there could be an upper tier of landlords who work in partnership with the state and face very strict regulation.

Either way successive governments have made a choice not to prioritise housing. Until that changes there will ALWAYS be a need for private landlords. There's no point vilifying all of us.

Either way successive governments have made a choice not to prioritise housing. Until that changes there will ALWAYS be a need for private landlords. There's no point vilifying all of us.

Even without a housing shortage, you will need private LLs. there isn't anything wrong with private LLs per se.

People here are always screaming for more social housing, when a much better answer is to give private tenants better protections.

the profit from social housing can be used to build more social housing, the profits made by individual private landlords do not improve the existing housing stock.
Instead individual private landlords serve to push up house prices.

Also you have the situation of tax payer funded housing benefit being siphoned off to line the pockets of private landlords

the overarching attraction for private landlords is not the profit from the rent it's the rise in property prices which mean they can ultimately sell off their assets and make a fat profit.
Landlords have a vested interest in the housing bubble, they are profiting at the expanse of everyone else

Wouldn't it have been nice if Labour had spent those tax receipt proceeds/windfall from the financial bubble on new homes, social and otherwise - as the population increased by 2-3 million, unable to afford buying a home of their own?

More homes, prices of homes wouldn't have multiplied, there wouldn't have been 5 million (1.7 million families) needing social housing.

'if,if,if,if........'

We are where we are, as I've shown you, we are where we are DUE to government policies (or lack of) on population and housing supply - and until no one invests for profit (as they have a nice government Final Salary Pension, rare in the private sector thanks to Labour) and any politician promising 200,000 new homes a year comes up with a plan - a Labour government is in no position to micro manage profits, as they try to do with taxes.

If they get it wrong and less properties are available, they will have a crisis on their hands.

I can see ideology trumps practicality on high tax rates and Non Doms, where they'd rather lose billions of taxes than allow the wealthy to pay lower taxes - but the poorest in society only lose on paper there.

When it is a threat again a home they can afford, but lose when a landlord sells up into less supply, the loss can be both tangible and life changing.

Actually I am less interested in the long term value of the houses than I am in the rent as a monthly income once the houses are paid off. We will happily pay off the mortgage and treat the rent as taxable salary then.

There will always be people for whom a mortgage is not an option either due to choice or income. One of the real issues is low pay for many jobs. Our tenants would not qualify for a mortgage for various reasons. They like renting because we look after the houses and they don't have to worry about the cost of repairs and upgrading. Because we are looking long term we really do look after the houses and our tenants live in houses they would never be able to buy.

The real issue is that property is MASSIVELY overpriced, were there to be a house price correction far more of those who would like to buy would be able to.
How likely is a house prices correction?
Who can say ?
bubble's gotta burst at some point

When I was 18 years old I worked in an estate agents in Victoria. They managed a lot of rental flats and rooms. It was 1960 and rent control was removed by Macmillan and his Tory government. As a young girl I was so upset as tenants cried over the situation. I used to go home and cry about it all. Then my grandparents were removed from their rent controlled home that they had lived in for many years. All around us in Chelsea friends and relatives were moved out and the wealthy moved in. It was a horrible time and I have never forgotten it. To this day I have never voted Tory and I cannot bring myself to do so now. Buy to rent has pushed up prices beyond the purchase power of most young people and the landlords are also paying over the odds so that they need to pass on these terrible rents to their tenants who have no choice but to pay and struggle. If rents were affordable there would be more money circulating in the economy and business would be generated.

Buy to let landlords have been keen to portray themselves as having stepped into the breach to provide a roof over the nation's head?.
Rather they have been enabled to force up property prices and take part in a process whereby large swathes of the population struggle to meet their housing costs.

I suspect that in the long run they are just pawns in the games of the very powerful, unwittingly facilitating the transfer of wealth from the many to the few?

no, buy to let is an investment with a chance of making money, not a social service. No landlord says 'we are stepping into the gap'.

people work to make money. An empty rental loses money. No landlord wants that. There is the 'buy to leave' loophole in London (surprise...) which needs closing, but that's a few very very rich people who are just parking their money outside their own horrible countries.

still awaiting a reasoned argument rather than silly student politics.

Wow, I thought you might have changed the record by now Special, you're really desp?erate for me to engage with you specifically aren't you

I'm very flattered that you find me so important and interesting!

suzanne in the adult world we discuss things. Your opinions seem utterly ridiculous, but maybe there was something I didn't know, so I have been asking you to explain. That is what happens outside the playground.

you have not done so - not a surprise as you are talking nonsense and there is no explanation for your sheep-like bleats. So I file you under 'entitled fool' and leave you to it. I wish you what you deserve. In my experience that is what you will get.

hiding thread.

Rather they have been enabled to force up property prices and take part in a process whereby large swathes of the population struggle to meet their housing costs.

BTL aren't the problem about housing costs. they aren't forcing housing costs up. it's too much demand and too little housing.

yes specialsubject

in the adult world we discuss things

I always thought hiding thread was the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalalala" at the top of your voice, that well known feature of adult discussions...

I worry that this will mean landlords will decide to stop renting out and just sell the property. As a long term renter, who does not want to be evicted any time soon, I dread this.

Specialsubject, the way you are referring to suzanne is not polite or pleasant. Surely we can have a discussion without resorting to insults. It is off putting to contributors and entirely unnecessary.

Keep getting sucked back in but I should say that property is not universally overpriced. In the SE yes it is expensive because of demand. Where we live property is very affordable although the banks have tightened up on deposits. Our tenants would never be able to buy because of their circumstances. For them the issue is more to do with lack of education and employment and low wages rather than house prices.