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

Sorry SheilaWheeler I did not mean you I think you have raised a valid point.
It was in reply to charlestrenet who seems to think swearing is acceptable on a forum

Agree five year tenancies a good idea but they have to be backed by much, much easier ways to get tenants out if they break the rules.

Tenants who don't pay, who damage property or are anti-social need to be removed quickly and cheaply so that decent tenants who want to treat a property as a home can do so. Many LLs would be only too happy to garantee a five year contract if that safeguard existed.

Good post Badknee

Yes if it addressed these issues then maybe lenders would be more willing to consider longer tenancies too.
Currently the court system for evictions is very slow and when councils advise tenants to stay until the bailiff you are probably looking at 5 plus months . This is stressful for both parties and landlords lose thousands

I admit I see both sides of it in the work I do. I was also a landlord for several years and a tenant for many more. My DD is currently renting.

The obsession with owning also makes me angry. It really is not to be entered into lightly - as we saw when all the Right to Buy people suddenly realised they were responsible for huge maintenance bills or when it dawns on people that you can't just move if you can't afford it any more. The big crash in the1990s was due to people being unable to pay increased inetrest charges - and effectively going bankrupt.

The costs of renting v buying are frequently portrayed as simply mortgage payments v monthly rent. There is no thought about the stamp duty if you have to move, the buildings insurance, the cost of a new roof/boiler/bathroom etc

There were some very good arguments made about the negative effect on mobility of labour of house ownership. (Can' t link as anacdotal).

We NEED both sectors and we have to treat rentals with respect for both sides. This ridiculous demonisation of landlords as somehow selfish and evil is not help at all.

Trouble is you will never get a balanced argument on MN with regard to landlords. They are HATED on here, no idea why, I have never come across it in RL. There are some very good points being made but as usual some people just cant see past their hatred of landlords.

What if there were tax breaks for landlords offering five year secure tenancies? Gov could make it appealing to mortgage companies too somehow. So you don't have to offer a five year tenancy if you're just putting your house up to let while you're abroad or something but it's worth your while to do so if you are a professional landlord.

I don't think it is the tax break thing as much as the fear that if you do get really awful tenants you are stuck with them.

If you do find yourself with bad tenants the neighbours tend to blame the landlord
They do not understand that you can't just kick them out
I think that if there is rent arrears and damage then landlords should b able to recover like the government can do for council tax
I don't think mum's net hate landlords surely there probably are many on this forum that have a btl
They might not want to admit it because the government has painted landlords as greedy for their own political gain

Yes, I find that rather ironic, given how many Conservative MP's own & rent out additional properties.

You think that landlords should be given statutory powers - ie more powers than mortgage companies have - to recover debts? Really??!

Plus please stop all of this nonsense about "most landlords are great and lovely and my friend has a lovely hmo". Statistically, if you rent a house from a private landlord you have a one in three chance of living in a substandard home. For hmos the figure is far higher. This transfer of the provision of rented housing from the public sector to the private sector has been a disaster in both social and fiscal terms.

Seems to me like the proposal from shelter is as always with all their ideals- Totally one sided and biased towards to the tenant. What people need to realize- If it went back to the so called 'Good old days' when a tenancy was forever (Prior to the assured shot hold tenancy acts of 1988) and back in the times when everyone rented there was a severe shortage of accommodation for people who were in the position where they did not qualify for the gravy train of social housing council homes. Young singles,widows etc were the worst hit. Could not get a council house and not one you could rent privately either. No one wanted to be a landlord those days

There are more than enough laws to protect tenants these days- What people never seem to look at is the conduct of many people who are tenants. Damage, non payment of rent and all you seem to hear is the sob stories. Yes I agree there is some cases that maybe people are living in conditions which may not be an acceptable standard, but this country is not yet at the the third world level that many portray- more often than not something can be done about it if you put your mind to it.

Indeed something can be done about the fact that one third of private sector rentals are substandard. I wish the government would put its mind to it because it is an entirely unacceptable state of affairs. And I am also sick of hearing sob stories from landlords including a fair few on this thread bitching about their spare house having a burn on one of the carpets while in the meantime tenants living in appalling conditions are vulnerable to eviction despite paying through the nose for their accommodation.

Plus if we are talking about gravy trains, shall we talk about the £12 billion a year that private landlords coin in in the form of housing benefit, which is a benefit primarily claimed by those in employment? I wonder how many council houses that would build in a ten year period.

Property conditions review
Introduction
The private rented sector is an important and growing part of our housing market, housing
3.8 million households in England. The quality of privately rented housing has improved
rapidly over the past decade.
The overwhelming majority of landlords are reputable and provide decent well maintained
homes. This is demonstrated by high levels of satisfaction with 83% of tenants happy
with the service they receive from their landlord1
. We want to support these landlords to
continue to provide a good service and a safe home for their tenants. The Government is
keen not to impose further regulation on these good landlords. Unnecessary regulation
increases costs and red tape for landlords, and can stifle investment. It also pushes up
rents and reduces the amount of choice and supply for tenants. We believe that non-
regulatory alternatives, e.g. incentives or peer pressure, can be as effective as regulation.
Good landlords, who are approachable and offer help and support, can have an incredibly
positive impact on their tenants, including on some of the more vulnerable members of our
society who have turned to the private rented sector to meet their housing needs.
However, there is a small proportion of landlords who neglect their properties and exploit
their tenants.

Most landlords provide decent accommodation but I accept some criminals let out hovels..
What I don't understand is why a tenant stays there..
There was a program showing extreme examples of hovels n Leeds. The reporter was being shown these by a council official.
They said the tenant had lived there for 6 years so why didn't the council condemn it?

It didn't look like the tenant was looking after it either. Another one had bits of wood all over the front door I presume it had been kicked in another one showed stoned windows. The council should have condemned them and moved the tenants out.
The trouble is that as with most things in life it's only the bad that gets reported to the likes of shelter not the samples of excellent rented out homes
I think shelter done a report on conditions and the prs was better by 1% than the social sector

You may well think so but you are wrong - Shelter identifies the private rented sector as having the largest proportion of substandard homes compared to all other sectors.

And the 33% figure comes from the government's own survey, again regardless of what you "believe" or "think" or "get a message in your left toe about".

Some tenant completely trash the place plus cut electric wiring and cut plumbing pipes
An extreme example petrol poured all over the cellar as he was evicted with 5 months none payment of rent
If you steal form a shop you are punished so if a tenant steals rent from a landlord ie spends the housing benefit why should that be acceptable
If someone trashed your car you would expect that person to be held responsible
Until a deterrent is in place these tenants will not stop

Believe me when you talk about appalling conditions you are not really cutting the mustard with me, as I said this country is not third world yet and their is enough out there to help you sort it out. You should try going into a housing association property which was brand new six months ago and now still has to be near on totally re-furnished before it can be re-let.

I am not taken in at all by half of what I hear. From what I see tenants can be as bad as landlords in their conduct.

As for the 12 million in housing benefit paid out to private landlords do you think people live in social housing for free? All it is is another landlord who is paid from the same pot as a private one who behind the scenes is actually paid more in the small print than a private landlord. How do you think these housing associations fund the land acquisition and building of new homes? They don't do it by making money magically appear and then use the housing benefit to pay their staff and have change to build new homes do they?

The bit I posted was a government report can u supply the link to shelters stats pls

Last figure I saw was 9.6billion in housing benefit
Housing benefit in many areas is below market rent
If the prs did not supply the houses then BB and hotels would have to be used at 3 times the cost
Landlords pay back via the tax system and employ many trades
They also lose thousands in trashed properties and rent arrears
It's not a free handout and landlords are not a charity
Tax credits paid to top up wages so large employers can pay lower wages is probably more
I think social landlords get around 15billion

I posted earlier in this thread about the repairs that need doing to our (rented) flat because of penetrating damp, and the inconvenience it is causing us.

If we'd known about the problem beforehand, we obviously wouldn't have moved in. We might have requested the work be done before we moved in (as we weren't in any particular rush), or we might have chosen a different flat. But now - after living here for 6 months, getting our children into the local school, paying £100s for reference checks and to movers (including specialist piano movers to carry a piano up 3 flights of narrow stairs) and putting up shelves and pictures and generally making the place feel like home - we don't have the money and the inclination to move again, so we're putting up with it.

I don't think our landlords are evil. They live abroad and haven't even seen the property for years. I don't even really blame the letting agents who manage the property; in their haste to get new tenants (us) in as quickly as possible the fabric of the flat was probably given the most superficial of checks and a coat of cheap emulsion. I mentioned before that periodic, mandatory and more thorough checks to ensure that rental properties are structurally sound and habitable would help weed out the unscrupulous landlords, and draw attention to overlooked issues in cases like ours.

There are more than enough laws to protect tenants these days

But they do no good if landlords are ignorant of them!

Have you asked the letting agent to get a housing surveyor to take a look
If I was the landlord I would want it sorted as soon as

Landlords are not ignorant of them in most cases, what I don't understand is that when you view a property and it is clearly substandard why rent it?

I can't believe people are that daft. Let's look at it another way.

Tenant views a crap property but rent is cheap.
Tenant moves in and then complains about it.
End result; landlord evil scum

Landlords rents a nice property for market rent.
End result; Happy tenant but then tenant bitches all day long on social media about greedy landlords

Final result; Landlord can't do right from wrong.

Let the country try a society without that option of private accommodation; Change of government then the safety net goes on a whim with a change in policy, build sprawling housing estates and create the social ghettos of the 80's

I just don't get it. Let's face it a lot of people can't stand up in this country unless they are helped.

Let's work on helping everyone be independent like most want to be. I grew up renting and never was a landlord looked upon as being nothing more than a loveable rogue.

I've spent 20 years working across the property sector in all areas and attitudes change but I do think people expect a little too much from society nowadays

Yes, like a habitable home. The greedy deluded bastards. Don't they know they're better off than people living in the slums of Calcutta and therefore have nothing to complain about?

Incidentally, I would hope we could aim rather higher than "better than the developing world" in terms of housing standards in the UK.