Hi everyone,
Thank you very much for all your comments and feedback on the campaign. It’s really helpful for us to hear your thoughts and consider how we can make our campaign messages clearer and more effective. We are aware that a number of people asked specific questions on this thread, so we wanted to respond directly to those.
For those interested, we do have a longer FAQs page for the campaign, which should cover off any major questions you still have. It is available here: blog.shelter.org.uk/2017/02/longer-rental-contracts-how-would-they-work-faqs/
Below, we’ve answered the main questions you had about the campaign. We’ll try and update you again if there’s anything else you’d like to know.
Many thanks,
Shelter team
--
Questions about our proposal
Overall, there were requests for more clarity about the detail of our proposal. Beyond the FAQs linked above, this blog post provides a good overview of the proposal and links to the in-depth policy report which informs our policy recommendations.
Q: A couple of users asked why the campaign is necessary, given that landlords can legally already offer 5 year tenancies is they want.
A: While this is true, the reality of the situation is that longer tenancies with a rolling break clause are not generally available in the market. This is despite the fact that 1/3 of landlords say they like the idea of longer tenancies and a further 1/3 say they’d be interested if they saw them working in practice. So while it is currently legally possible for tenants to get a longer tenancy, in reality they aren’t available. This campaign aims to change the default position, so that renters get the security they need by default. This is particularly important for families with children – a staggering 1 in 4 of whom now privately rent.
Q: Don’t lots of renters want shorter contracts?
A: Shorter, flexible contracts do benefit some tenants. That is why in our proposal we include a 2 month break clause, where the tenant would be able to leave at any time, so long as they provide 2 months’ notice. However, the number of families in the PRS is higher than ever – 1 in 4 families now privately rent, as opposed to 1 in 10 just ten years ago. Longer minimum tenancies would give all tenants the option of staying longer, even if they ended up not wanting to. 7 in 10 renters say they’d like these longer minimum tenancies.
As one user posted on this thread, ‘the only reason I would want a longer term tenancy is so that I couldn’t be kicked out for requesting repairs’. This is good example of how long tenancies could benefit both tenants who still want flexibility, and landlords. With suitable security, tenants are more likely to report issues earlier and have them resolved before they develop into a bigger problem.
Q: Someone asked if this campaign suggesting that rental price would be fixed for the five years.
A: Our campaign doesn’t advocate for a fixed rent over the five years. Instead, we propose that within a five-year tenancy, rents couldn’t go up by more than inflation each year. This would give renting families more certainty in planning their finances and they would be protected from being evicted through the backdoor by a massive rent hike.
Q: What is the tenants decide to stop paying rent or caused damage to the property?
A: Landlords would still be able to regain possession of their property within a tenancy when they had a good reason. Serious rent arrears would be one of the reasons why the landlord would be able to regain possession before the 5-year period is up, as would causing damage to the property. Someone on the thread suggested making the ‘no-fault’ eviction period longer, but shorten it for ‘bad’ tenants – this is essentially what we are proposing.
Q: Won’t taking away a landlord’s ability to remove bad tenants lead to landlords selling-up and exiting the market, which would reduce available housing?
A: As with rent arrears, there would still be a number of reasons why a landlord would be able to get back possession of their property, such as anti-social behaviour. But longer minimum tenancies provide stability and security to all tenants who abide by the law.
Q: What is someone inherited a house and wanted to sell the house a year or so later (but not immediately)?
A: The landlord would be able to break the contract if they needed the property back i.e. if they wanted to move in themselves or needed to sell. But the landlord would have to provide proof that they were definitely going to sell the property.
Q: What happens if the landlord goes bust?
A: If a landlord defaults on their mortgage payments and their mortgage lender repossesses their property, then they become the tenant’s legal landlord. They would be able to regain possession of the property at the point that they wanted to sell it.
Other questions
Q: Someone raised the situation of tenants having to wait for eviction to get council help.
A: This is something we are all too aware of through our services - our advisers in all areas of the country report this happening. There is statutory guidance which tells councils they shouldn’t do this, and this was reiterated by a letter from the Housing Minister last year. Unfortunately, however, it still happens routinely. We have recently been campaigning on the Homelessness Reduction Bill and had hoped the legislation would address this practice – we highlighted this issue at every opportunity in our briefings for MPs and Lords. We were unable to get a commitment within the legislation, but secured a commitment from government to continue working with charities, local authorities and landlord groups to try and find a solution.
Q: Someone mentioned the ridiculous fees imposed by agents.
A: This is something Shelter has been campaigning on for many years and we were delighted when the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement that the government will be banning these fees to tenants. This was a huge win for Shelter and for all private tenants. You can find more information in this blog post: blog.shelter.org.uk/2016/11/government-to-ban-letting-agency-fees/