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

This is a really poorly thought out campaign by SHELTER. Far too many unanswered questions. There are arguments for and against the UK short term letting model. Just as there are arguments for and against the longer term model prevalent in Europe. All the implications of changes need looking at.
SHELTER need to address these and come up with a coherent, properly developed policy proposal. This looks like something dreamed up on the back of an envelope during the coffee break.

Spew that bile, haters, zero stuffs given.

Sorry to be an evil bastard landlord renting out a clean (after much low paid shit shovelling ) smart not london property, purchased from work. Go blub to HQ if you want me banned, plus all those others on here who also think the same as I do.

Lonelytears I really feel for you. There is a massive amount of prejudice against single mothers, and especially against single mothers on any kind of benefits, whether disability related or not. Landlords and agencies will say all kinds of things like oh we would just be happier if there were two incomes but really we all know what they mean.

It must be so horrible to be living in a house that is in a state of disrepair - no one should have to put up with that.

Is there any way - any way at all - that you could borrow six months' rent up front from someone and then pay them back over time? Only I know that very often this can help sway an agency or landlord - even their own prejudices speak with a quieter tone than the clang of cold hard cash.

Alargegarden - I think you've got it spot on. Benefit-claiming tenants find it very difficult to find housing as a combination of the rent no longer going to the LL and the Council insisting on waiting until bailiffs are sent before they can be classed as homeless. Get rid of that, which doubtless clogs up the court system and speed up the court system so it easier to get rid of problem tenants, and many, many more LLs would accept benefit claimants.

The Shelter proposal is indeed incoherent and woolly and I can't believe an organisation like that was prepared to put something so shoddily drawn up into the public domain.

And, alreadytaken, were Shelter really instrumental in the change in housing benefit going to tenants rather than LLs? They need their heads examining if that's the case. That one thing has probably been the biggest cause of homelessness since it's introduction.

The reason that HB no longer involves landlords is because so many of them were discriminating against HB claimants and also they were bitching about being liable for fraudulent claims - eg "oh I had no idea my tenant wasn't entitled so fuck you with your attempt to recover public funds" etc.

This has been successful, in general, particularly now that HB is now primarily a top up benefit ie one that is mostly claimed by working people, so many landlords don't know that it's being claimed and therefore can't discriminate unless the tenant is getting for eg JSA or ESA so more properties are available to more people.

I suppose main issue with this shift is whether or not we as a society are happy that six million private landlords, the majority of whom are renting to working people, are collectively netting around £11 billion a year every year from the tax payer.

Many BTL mortgages do not allow LL to rent to those in receipt of benefits, so that can be another factor in the difficulty of securing a tenancy for many.

I'm in Scotland & there is a scheme recently started in Glasgow where substandard private rentals are inspected by the council & the LL given a legal notice to improve it, or else forced to sell it to the housing association, who then do it up & rent it out. Lots of shitty rentals are being removed from the market and slum landlords.

There needs to be a campaign to stop HAS using gas safety checksto bully control and harass tenants. Ive talked about it many times on here.

e.g. If Liberty Gas dont turn up to do a safety check an automatic text is sent to a tenant saying that they (LG) were unable to gain access.

Ive seen many many instances of this including a council that wrongfully forced entry after believing LGS lies. Not only did the tenant not get any compensation but the council STILL insists on using LG.

There was a recent post on Swale Heatings page saying that in a previous year a tenant was made to wait in over a week for a gas safety check due to no shows. Now before anyone says they could have arranged for someone else to be there.
a. LG insist on the tenant being there.
b. Would you really want someone this dishonest in your home when you are not there when they have already proved themselves to be incompetent bare faced liars?!

Where is Shelters campaign to stop shit like this?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2595702-To-wonder-how-this-company-is-still-in-business

speye.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/social-landlords-to-more-than-double-rent-in-the-housing-white-paper/

Spew that bile, haters, zero stuffs given

Sorry to be an evil bastard landlord renting out a clean (after much low paid shit shovelling ) smart not london property, purchased from work. Go blub to HQ if you want me banned, plus all those others on here who also think the same as I do

This is exactly the sort of person who clearly has anger issues towards tenants and should not be a landlord.
When she first started posting, a long time ago she was 'advising' that landlords could enter properties regardless as long as 24hours notice given.
I (as a fellow landlord) very patiently explained the law to her.

It works abroad, it used to work here years ago, there is no reason why it could not here.
It could push out the hobby landlords which would be a good thing.

I can find no evidence at all that Shelter campaigned to have LHA paid direct to tenants. The opposite in fact

Shelter’s research has found overwhelmingly that claimants would prefer to have their LHA paid directly to their landlord. This would help people with managing their nances and reduce their temptation to spend the LHA on paying off bills or other debts. It would also provide claimants with security so that they can ensure that rent is being paid and there is no chance of losing their home

Maybe shelter could come on to refute some of the allegations on here?
I have worked with them professionally in the past and they have been very well regarded.

Charlestrenet - but nearly every house I look at says 'no housing benefit'

Shelter campaigned for tenants to have choice - overlooking that the most vulnerable make bad choices and get evicted. Now they have backtracked a bit because it does cause homelessness.

Since any sensible landlord insists on seeing bank statements I imagine its still pretty easy to detect housing benefit claimants and discriminate against them.

I'd like to see a lot more social housing built and much larger taxes on second homes and empty homes, that would drive rents down. However with this government it isnt going to happen so you have to try and make rentals work.

Sorry to thread-crash but does anyone have any advice for someone illegally evicted? (LL broke in and changed the locks after I complained to council residential environmental health about lack of essential repairs.)

Tabasco sadly you will probably need to get legal advice. Although it was illegal I think that it's civil rather than criminal so has to be enforced by an order.

Useful info here Tabasco.

Thanks - unfortunately none of that applies to me so probably going to have to forget it.

It just burns me that a major lettings agency (chain) is allowed to get away with breaking the law!

I am a landlord of several rural properties in England. I would not continue to rent any of them out on the open market if the AST model was to be redesigned.

The combined value of our let property is £1.4million at the end of year 2016 valuation - all bar two of our tenants have been in the properties 5+ years on 12month AST, renewed annually. The initial term is always 6months.

I would not invest in property and not have the flexibility to evict tenants who are not looking after the property. At the end of the day, as the owner of the property, I want to be able to have a control on how it is being cared for.

Tabasco - I tried to help a tenant who had been illegally evicted and the LL even killed one of her cats. Despite it being a criminal matter the Police wouldn't budge from the 'civil matter - nothing we can do' line. We approached a solicitor recommended to us by a housing charity - she wanted £2000 deposit before even starting work on the case. The tenant may well have got her money back plus compensation had she gone through with the case, but she certainly didn't have a spare £2000 so that was that.

There was an interesting phone in on Radio 4 a few weeks ago about how to improve the housing situation in the U.K. One caller was a landlord in the U.K., but was originally from the Netherlands. He described how landlords tended to be "professionals" there, owning many properties, and how the law protected tenants from "no fault" evictions. So as long as a tenant paid their rent on time and didn't damage the property, they could stay put as long as they liked. If the landlord wanted to sell the property, they had to give the tenant a very substantial notice period (I can't remember how long, but certainly more than 2 months).

As someone who has been a tenant for nearly 20 years, this sounded eminently sensible to me. We've been very lucky over the years, and only once had to move against our will when an owner decided they wanted their property back after less than a year, but now that we have children I would value some more stability in return for being good tenants.

I also liked the sound of more "professional" landlords (although I know this is unlikely to happen in the U.K.) Not only would they be able to offer more stability for tenants, but they would be more likely to actually understand tenancy laws. Judging by the a number of threads here on MN over the past few weeks, amateur landlords who seem unable to grasp that they cannot let themselves into their tenants home whenever they please are a far too common problem.

Finally, regular inspections of rental properties to make sure that they are fit for habitation would be good. Much like surveys for homebuyers. We're about to have our (only) bathroom gutted because of damp and mould problems caused by damage to the exterior wall and plumbing problems in the flat upstairs. No one is sure yet about the extent of the work needed and how long it will take, which is a bit inconvenient for us trying to live here with small children (and a pain for the contractors trying to work around us). Imagine if the problem had been detected and fixed between tenancies while the flat was empty!

I'm a landlord in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has used its law-making powers to enforce landlords to become licensed.

It has been a shambles, mainly because the appointed agent, Rentsmart, underestimated the demand for its services approaching the registration deadline and couldn't cope.

With the changes in taxation, tighter regulation and now longer length tenancies proposed, many small landlords will bow out of the market altogether.

Not sure how this helps anyone.

Shelter's proposal is not the answer.

mrsfrumble becoming registered in Wales requires landlords to undertake training. I believe this to be a positive step. However, my gripe with the system is that the landlords who DO register are the ones who are fairly conscientious anyway. There is no way of tracking down the less reputable ones.

The Welsh Govt is strangely quiet on this.

Wouldn't it be so much better if compulsory useless Legionella assessments & EPC's were scrapped & instead some kind of Safe for occupancy certification scheme was introduced? This would cover gas & electricity safety, plus minimum standards of quality for rented properties.

This would mean that substandard homes could not be let out in the first place. I think this would be so much better for tenants. I'm horrified by some of the threads where homes without boilers, hot water, etc - really basic standards - are not met. It should be illegal, and prosecutions taking place, as like for failure to lodge deposits in schemes etc.

MoreProsecco. I agree about the ridiculous legionnella thing. Although an independent assessment is not compulsory. The LL only needs to show that he/she is aware of risk factors and considers the property to be low risk. All bonkers though.

And EPCs. At the moment - totally pointless. But the aim is, within the next three years I think, to compel LLs with properties with bad EPC ratings to bring them up to some sort of acceptable level. Which is another thing that will drive private LLs out of the market although I think the idea is reasonable.