MNHQ here: Shelter's campaign for longer rental contracts

[FinnMumsnet]

Hello,

Shelter, whom we’re currently featuring as a Guest Campaign, are calling on the Housing Minister, Gavin Barwell, to give renters the option of secure five-year contracts. You can find out more and add your voice to their campaign here.

Shelter explain: “Renters would have the opportunity to stay in their home for a minimum of five years, but they wouldn’t be locked in. Renters with five year contracts would be able to leave their home at any time by giving two months’ notice. If their family grows or a new job opportunity comes up, they may well want to move. But if they don’t, they can be certain about where they’ll be living for the foreseeable future.

“Five-year tenancies would also give landlords more security, reducing periods of vacancy and lost rent. They would still be able to sell their home if they needed to.”

Last year, Shelter received this email from 'Rachel,' a Mumsnet user who had heard about the campaign; Rachel explains the impact that unstable and insecure renting is having on her and her young son’s life.

We know from discussions on-site that insecure private rents are an issue affecting many Mumsnet users -- and with 87% of respondents to our rent survey last year saying they would prefer to buy in an ideal world, we also know that, for an increasing number, private renting is the only option. It also seems to be an issue majorities of Mumsnet users would like to see action on:: our 2015 General Election survey found 80% support for tougher regulation of private landlords, alongside funds for tougher enforcement by Local Authorities, and 75% support for incentivising landlords through the tax system to offer secure, fixed-rate, long-term rentals. Both proposals had net backing from supporters of all political parties.

Feel free to find out more about Shelter’s campaign here.

Thanks,
MNHQ

meanwhile.... I await a response from Shelter or MNHQ as to the many suggestions on this thread that they are barking up the wrong tree by campaigning for something that already exists, rather than to stop some real wrongs.

Well exactly Special. And I would love a response to what is in fact in it for LLs, when the tenant will still be able to leave when they want to, it's just the LL that's stuck. They are within their rights to campaign for something like that, but they can't campaign for it by claiming it will somehow benefit LLs.

Shame that this thread has been taken over by the very vocal landlords as usual.
I was a landlord for ten years while renting in another part of the country.

I had to move every single year bar one as each landlord decided to sell, getting two months notice each time (no longer based on rental payment dates either).

I would have welcomed longer, more secure contracts. I would also never rent with an escape clause as it makes a fixed term redundant.

It was utterly miserable and expensive to move with young children, to be expected to pay full rent with (often) daily intrusion for viewings.

Longer tenancies should be on offer, but not mandated.
As ever, the problem imo is letting agents. Many landlords do not investigate their chosen letting agent's practice with the tenants and tacitly approve very shady practice. Letting agents prefer tenants to leave after short periods and getting new tenants in, as they charge hefty fees to both parties and often encourage a rent raise. Landlords should be more aware of how they operate and imo should be more proactive in holding them accountable for bad practice.
There should be a mandatory code of practice for letting agents and strict consequences for breaking them.
Councils should properly assess situations where tenants are facing homelessness and allocate resources accordingly. If they suspect shady dealings (notice given for mutual gain for example) there should be penalties for landlords and some kind of regulatory body who could fine them.
Buy to let should be heavily taxed as the business it is, meaning it is only attractive to people with large sums to invest rather than chancers who flip mortgages and buy with tiny equity, creaming profit off the tenants.

Landlords would be more than welcome to sell stock, this would allow prices to fall and many more renters to buy properties, meaning the pressure on private rents would drop. Nobody wants to follow any of this through because no government wants to preside over a significant drop in the housing market.

I agree about letting agents, as part of a court case, I proved beyond any doubt that the agent submitted false documents, a fictitious cleaning bill and a fake invoice.

Although the judge agreed and we won the case, nothing further was done about the agent, ARLA not interested.
He still drives his branded car around Tunbridge Wells and I want to do something horrible to his smug little face.

Every time we moved, it cost over £1k in letting agent fees, £4-500 cleaning fees and )£1800 removal costs.

Here in Germany fixed-term tenancies are the exception. Most are open-ended. Tenants can leave at any point giving three months' notice. The notice period for landlords starts at three months, but gets longer the longer a tenant has been in a property (6 months after 5 years, 9 months after 8 years). A landlord must have a specific reason to give notice - serious breach of contract, such as antisocial behaviour, non-payment of rent, or needing the property for themselves (that is subject to quite high hurdles, needs to be proved and the LL will usually have to pay the tenant's moving costs). Not everyone works through agencies and they certainly don't get to charge tenants fees. There is a strong national tenants' association looking out for renters' interests. All this means renting is a properly viable option and the property ladder is unheard of. If people buy a house it tends to be for life and it's not always easy to sell. We could afford to buy but have chosen to rent, partly for this reason.

Should add that where non-payment or serious breach of contract is involved, eviction without notice is possible (in practical terms it's notice of a month or two).

We rent privately, fortunately very luckily we are renting a house which belongs to a friends parent. The income from the rent goes towards her care costs.

We are fortunate that they have pretty much left us alone for the 18 months we have lived here, don't mind us having cats, don't mind us digging a pond in the garden etc. We have treated the house well and keep it clean and in good order.

We have been lucky not to have to pay agents fees but we fear that the time is coming that they will need to sell the house and then I have no idea where we will go. We can't afford to buy anywhere, our savings are dwindling paying the rent here, dp cannot get a job which covers the rent and we are going to end up relying on benefits which will be a nightmare when trying to rent privately.

Hetero - are there any shared houses in Germany? If so, does that apply to rooms in shared houses too?

I actually think that while this proposal doesn't specifically address the many many ways in which tenants are screwed, it is still helpful in regard to them because if a tenant has a guaranteed long tenure it will back up rights that already exist (eg duty to repair etc) but which are made a mockery of due to landlords being able to evict. It might also discourage the many hopelessly amateur clueless individuals who get into the game. So, not perfect but a start.

catneuterer - yes, it's quite a common model (and I think generally happens for longer periods than in the UK). What generally happens is that either there is a main tenant who effectively sublets the other rooms (in which case laws are a bit different, I believe, though there are still basic protections in place) or everyone goes on the contract, in which case everyone shares the rights and responsibilities. So if one person moves out of a house share the rest are often keen to 'recruit' a replacement.

Personally the biggest problem for me, as a single mother, has been being accepted in the first place. For two whole years I have been applying for 2-3 houses per week! Round here, sooooo many people are looking to rent, that for each house they get 10-15 applications. So then the Landlord gets to 'pick' the person in the best situation - the professional couple. Now, I do understand this from a business perspective. However, what happens to people like me? Disabled single mother who is physically unable to work? The ONLY way I can pay rent is through housing benefit but of course, I get thrust into the category of 'Benefits Claimant' and laughed off by each & every single Landlord! Council have said I'm looking at a 5 year wait for Council or LA property. So we're stuck in an unsuitable, damp house....because we're 'Benefit claimants' - Despute the fact that I have SEVENTEEN YEARS worth of PERFECT references with all previous Landlords. Nope. Professional couple please!!

LL here.

I wouldn't be at all happy with that. I think we'd just sell rather than be forced into a 5 year contract, especially a one-sided one.

Contributing is not taking over, it doesn't work like that outside student politics. No one is saying that there are no problems, just not the problem that is the subject of this campaign.

What *hetero" mentions would be good. UK law makes no distinction between normal people and filthy crooks, so landlords have to organise and budget for the latter even though most are the former.

So the property houses skanks for free for months. I spend two weeks cleaning up shit (literally) on far less than min wage because the house is not in London and so the 4% return is not a fortune. I don't see why that disqualifies me from commenting on the real problems.

Go blub to HQ if you dont like a post.

Probably the end of this thread. Pity shelter don't spend their cash doing something useful.

UK law does allow for a landlord to check up on who they are renting to though in the form of credit checks and references from previous landlords, confirmation of employment and earnings etc. I think that gives landlords a good idea as to whether a tenant is ok or not.

Tenants do not get to do the same in regard to landlords. And anyone can become a landlord - there are plenty out there who have IVAs, even bankruptcies, or criminal records etc. who really should not be in the position of being responsible for providing shelter as they are not fit to do so. And that is a problem that can and should be addressed at policy level but isn't being.

As for revenge evictions, they most certainly do happen. They are reported to be at the rate of close to a quarter of a million a year, and many more go unreported.

Also, special, please stop blaming tenants for landlords providing unfit properties. If a property is substandard, that is the landlord's fault, not the tenant's and to pretend otherwise shows a doublethink of Kafka-esque mental gymnastics.

Ah, lovely as ever Special . You need to let go of the bitterness and not jump on anyone not dodging their cap to landlords.

It is my opinion that some landlords do think that they are the holy grail of law on it when in fact they are hobby landlords who really should not be doing it at all.

Oh and I had a trashed house too, you commented on my thread that it was my fault for not doing inspections often enough, so no sympathy from me for your 'skanks' I am afraid.

• doffing

Actually, applying special's own logic that the tenant is responsible for a landlord providing a substandard property, surely the landlord is responsible for a tenant behaving in a substandard way? After all, there are plenty of decent tenants out there. If you choose to rent to someone who is an arsehole when you can quite easily, legally and at minimal cost find out if the tenant has convictions/ccjs etc and also if they can afford the rent or have ever defaulted on rental agreements before then surely if you get burnt it's your own fault for choosing to rent to someone who doesn't fit the bill?

What's that you say; it doesn't work like that? Funny, eh?

(Although thank you for providing us with the image of you cleaning up shit. That makes me happy.)

The 'you' is special btw, not you, foxes.

The main thing is to stop unfit properties being rented out in the first place, given that in some areas people will take anything.

The tories blocked a bill that would have stopped it from happening

Got to say this seems ill thought out and probably unworkable.

How so? Before 1988 tenants had security of tenure ie could stay as long as they liked barring sale, death of landlord, landlord needing home for themselves/family. It worked fine, just as it does in most other Western countries now. Why wouldn't it work here, now?

Shelter is addressing the wrong issues. Fees need to be abolished so agents have no incentive to push tenants out. Revenge evictions need to be truly illegal - current law is so poor it is not preventing revenge evictions. Landlords need to be able to get out more rapidly tenants who cant pay/ raise drugs indoors and so on - that in itself would encourage them to offer longer tenancies. Currently it can take 44 weeks to evict, although that includes amateurs who get the paperwork wrong.

Perhaps the incentive for this should be a fast track eviction process.

Plenty of tenants dont WANT long tenancies, would be useless for student children. And can Shelter please address joint and several liability while they are at it - that should also be illegal where liability can be shown to lie with one person.

Long notice period don't actually help many tenants either as landlords want someone who can move in within a few weeks.

another thought - Shelter were wrong to make it so difficult for housing benefit to go direct to landlords. Benefit claimants would be more acceptable if it did.