Labour's new indefinite tenancy proposal

[littlemonkeyface]

How do you feel about the proposal?

Does anybody know what would happen to existing tenancies if labour came into power?

Would a 6/12 month tenancy automatically be turned into an indefinite one or only after renewal under the new law?

Sounds like a nightmare for us. We have enough difficulty as it is getting places to rent. We tend to move every 6-12 months for work, longest ever in one house in the last twelve years was two years but looking back we should have moved earlier.

Long tenancies stop people being mobile for work and stifle career progression.

I think the tenancy length is only a change for the landlord - I think tenants will be able to give notice to leave. It’s just giving more security to the tenant so should be better for them.

If it'll be the case that tenants can demand it as of right, I think it'll result in a lot of LLs selling up, which may well reduce supply for a while, but could also result in prices coming down.
There was something of a sell-off when tax breaks for LLs were recently reduced, or done away with altogether, e.g. the automatic 10% wear and tear allowance.

As far as I understand it, it'd be a one way thing - the tenant would have a right to it, but not the LL - that would obviously never work.

Of course tenants will still be able to move. The proposal is to give tenants more rights and stability, not prevent them moving if they want to. I find it weird that anyone but a Tory bot would assume otherwise.

Have you tried getting out of a 12 month ast early?

As pps have said, tenants would still be able to give notice.

I think it sounds great but labour are never going to get in while Corbyn s in charge so it's kind of academic.

The proposal is for 3 year tenancies if tenants want them, but Labour is also talking of 'German style' indefinite tenancies. However they are conveniently ignoring (or ignorant of) the fact that in Germany a good many rental properties are owned by corporations, pension funds, etc., so very different from the UK where so many are owned by private landlords, whether good or bad.

They haven't thought it through. IIRC ASTs were introduced in the first place, because of a severe shortage of rental properties, and that shortage was caused by the fact that it was very difficult ever to regain possession of a property, if the tenant didn't want to move.

Having said that, IMO governments of both colours have been unbelievably lax in regulating the private rental sector. There are too many bad LLs, very little come back for good LLs if they're unlucky enough to get tenants who don't pay/trash the place, and not nearly enough is done to ensure that all LLs declare their rental income and pay due tax.

I believe in Italy the situation is that "indefinite" tenancies are only available after someone has been renting (I can't remember) six months or a year, so this goes a little way to helping the landlord avoid getting lumbered with bad tenants.

In Belgium, there is a 3/6/9 choice of tenancy. We had a 9 year, thought we would stay in the one house til we moved back to the UK, but the l/l wanted the house back to live in, so we had to move. Have another 9 year lease, but will be moving in out third year, so have to pay an extra month of rent for not completing the full three years. Had we taken a three year contract, I think we would have been liable for the full rent for three years, so would have had to pay another 8 months rent, despite being back in the UK.

I think people need to look at the flexibility the UK rental market offers. The grass isn't always as green, and the Belgian market is very unregulated as well.

I can't really see why a private landlord would want an indefinite tenancy, the tenant might live longer than they do so the investment will fail.

The net result is likely to be a lack of private rented properties as landlords sell up OR even more expensive rent as the landlord realises there may be no long term value to his asset and needs to recoup the outlay now.
I don't think this has been thought through properly.

Even if property prices fall, where do the dispossessed tenants live until that happens?

I can't really see why a private landlord would want an indefinite tenancy
We'd like a longer than 12 months tenancy as landlords, at least, especially if it means the estate agents can't get yet another fee!
We'd also prefer to let to stable tenants who aren't going to move on/have a row and not renew the tenancy (we usually rent my old flat to sharers).
3 years would be great.

Agree as a landlord that longer tenancies would be great. We've had a tenant for ten years in one property and very year have to give a fee to the letting agency. The tenant is happy and so are we, so this is a pain for us.

Three years maybe but they are talking of indefinite! Like an old council lifetime tenancy.

I think it's a good thing. So many families being turfed out of their home after just a year, having to go through the whole process of finding a new property and the massive deposit and rent up front, let alone being forced to move out of catchment for schools. There are too many amateur landlords out there letting their house just to suit their personal timings and then selling at the first opportunity! I moved hundreds of miles across the country once for a job that was going to last 2 years. After 4 months in our rental property our landlords announced they were selling it as they'd found a house they wanted to buy ...

I was once in a flat three weeks and the owner told me she'd sold it!

I agree in principle, but I do think there need to be safeguards for the landlord in case of someone trashing the property/subletting/over-occupying etc etc.

I do not agree with rent controls. Ime this leads to owners failing to maintain properties and renters tempted to sublet. Some relatives in Italy were renting a big city centre flat for equivalent of £100 a month inclusive . First of all the concierge had to go, then any kind of maintenance, and finally the landlord declared bankruptcy. Yet still my relatives were whining and could not see that they had had a bargainous few years.

what I want to know is how will this affect social housing because there is a change in policy from lifetime tenancy to shorter term tenancy surely you cant have it both ways? Labour has held up the German model but reading this in detail it doesn't compare as well as stated. Apparently they can charge 3 months deposit ll & tenants have joint both must sign type account but the ll get interest on it (I wish) as opposed to current UK method of 5 weeks deposit. The other rules & regulations are equally "interesting"

I think 3 years would be OK. But I think the same commitment should be needed from the tenant as from the landlord - I don't think its reasonable that a LL is tied in for 3 years, but a tenant can give 1/2 months notice. And there needs to be far better legislation about removing non-paying/damage causing/ASB tenants.

Lifetime tenancies just aren't sensible at all. Why would anyone buy a property, and then give a stranger the right to live in it for life? It would completely destroy the BTL market, meaning fewer rental properties on the market, which would force rental prices sky-high. It might temporarily dip the sales prices for starter/typical rental homes (but big property owning companies will probably snap them up), but not everyone will ever be able to afford to buy, and those who won't will have much more difficulty finding and affording somewhere to rent.

We rent our house out while on placement overseas and so do several of our friends. Three years would be fine but indefinitely wouldn't work, we would have to leave our house vacant instead.

We'll ask or tenants to leave and sell the house if this looks like coming in. We bought it to pay for our care, should we need it, so we'll cash in and invest in something else.

A shame because our tenants are lovely but we cant take the risk.

We've had this in Scotland since 2017 and the world has yet to end.

It protects tenants from the cost and hassle of having to move house potentially every six months when the landlord feels like selling up/moving his mates in. I don't think a bit of stability for people who can't afford to buy is a bad thing.

If you choose to be in a business that provides an essential service you have to accept a bit more regulation than if you open a gift shop. Water suppliers, for example, aren't allowed to cut people off at random. Why shouldn't it be the same if you invest in housing?

In Scotland there must be some provision for Landlords wanting to sell their houses? What are the legal arrangements around it?

In Scotland a Landlord can get the house back fairly quickly for a set number of reasons. Including for selling the property or to move back into themselves

Okay, that wouldn't be a problem for me then if England brought in similar rules. We are happy to have the same tenant for as long as possible when renting the house out.

Yeah in all of the models - including the one that we had here until 1988 - the landlord can evict for, variously: breach of contract (eg damage/not paying rent), needing to sell, intending to occupy the property. In the UK you used to even be able to get the property back if you wanted a family member to live in it. I think that's sufficient. It doesn't mean that the tenant stays regardless, just that the landlord has to have a good reason to evict them. Which is fair enough really: if you're going to deprive someone of their home, you should have to have a legitimate reason for doing so.

I also don't see how you can require tenants to stay for the full term regardless. I get that finding tenants is a pain, but if you couldn't move for three years at a time, even if you got a new job or got divorced or whatever, that would mean you were more tied than someone with a mortgage, which is crazy.