Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 10th Oct 16, 11:01 AM
    • 27,822Posts
    • 51,037Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    Rented Housing
    • #1
    • 10th Oct 16, 11:01 AM
    Rented Housing 10th Oct 16 at 11:01 AM
    People on these boards are not on the whole happy with Assured Shorthold Tenancies, mainly due due to the lack of security of tenure.

    What do you think would be a good compromise, to be fair to the tenant AND the landlord?


    Do you think there should be more social housing, and if so, on what grounds should it be allocated? And should it be a permanent tenancy?

    Your thoughts welcomed.
    To love someone is to learn the song in their heart and to sing it to them when they have forgotten it
    'I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because I see everything by it': C.S. Lewis
    St. Augustine — 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.'
Page 2
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 11th Oct 16, 8:40 AM
    • 27,822 Posts
    • 51,037 Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    Then you would have to take down all the houses and rebuilt them all to look all the same.

    Then you are left with no doctors, no magistrate, no entrepreneurs, no head teachers even because after all, why would you bother taking on the stress and demands of these jobs when you'll end up with the same house and your kids going to the same school than if you take on a job with no responsibility.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    In P1's ideal world with no home ownership, presumable we would be 'allocated' somewhere to live. So this is another reason why thre would be no incentive to work hard, or 'better yourself', there is nothing to work towards, no aspiration. Why work harder than your neighbour when you will have exactly the same as then anyway?

    This is only one reason why Socialism never works.
    To love someone is to learn the song in their heart and to sing it to them when they have forgotten it
    'I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because I see everything by it': C.S. Lewis
    St. Augustine — 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.'
    • Person_one
    • By Person_one 11th Oct 16, 8:44 AM
    • 26,007 Posts
    • 89,294 Thanks
    Person_one
    Do you only work hard so you have better things than other people?

    My friends do tell me that the flaw in my plans are that I have too much faith in people, I just hope that in the right circumstances they can surprise us.

    There was a study once that found that if you pose the idea of being 'dropped' into a country randomly, with no idea what your status or position might be, nearly everybody favours a more equal society.
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 11th Oct 16, 9:05 AM
    • 27,822 Posts
    • 51,037 Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    Do you only work hard so you have better things than other people?

    My friends do tell me that the flaw in my plans are that I have too much faith in people, I just hope that in the right circumstances they can surprise us.

    There was a study once that found that if you pose the idea of being 'dropped' into a country randomly, with no idea what your status or position might be, nearly everybody favours a more equal society.
    Originally posted by Person_one
    If I work hard and my neighbour chooses not to, then I expect to have 'more' than them, yes. Not necessarily material things, but more opportunity and choice too.

    I'm afraid you are living in La La Land if you think human nature will be as magnanimous as you think, like that awfully mawkish dirge 'Imagine'.

    There is a guy I know, never worked although able to, he is now in his fifties and thinks the world owes him a living. My husband and I always worked, apart from time I took off when my son was small. The guy lives in a grotty (as in small and shabby) bedsit, I live in a nice bungalow. I personally think that is fair.

    Even in Imagineland there will still be people like him around. Do you think the rest of the community would feel happy about doing his share of work as well as their own, for no extra reward, because I certainly don't.
    Last edited by seven-day-weekend; 11-10-2016 at 9:21 AM.
    To love someone is to learn the song in their heart and to sing it to them when they have forgotten it
    'I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because I see everything by it': C.S. Lewis
    St. Augustine — 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.'
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 11th Oct 16, 9:08 AM
    • 27,822 Posts
    • 51,037 Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    Do you only work hard so you have better things than other people?

    My friends do tell me that the flaw in my plans are that I have too much faith in people, I just hope that in the right circumstances they can surprise us.

    There was a study once that found that if you pose the idea of being 'dropped' into a country randomly, with no idea what your status or position might be, nearly everybody favours a more equal society.
    Originally posted by Person_one

    Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

    'A Government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on on the undying support of Paul' George Bernard Shaw
    To love someone is to learn the song in their heart and to sing it to them when they have forgotten it
    'I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because I see everything by it': C.S. Lewis
    St. Augustine — 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.'
    • Jackieboy
    • By Jackieboy 11th Oct 16, 9:39 AM
    • 251 Posts
    • 396 Thanks
    Jackieboy
    Can I suggest that you research what happened in the past when rent controls were introduced?

    Who is going to decide what the rents for any particular area are going to be? It is a nice idea but past experiences show that it doesn't work in the way that people think it will. What generally happens is that it reduces the number of properties available for rent. The ones that are lost are usually the nice ones.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    Rent control in the past was quite draconian which is why I only suggested a degree of it but there's no point giving secure leases if LLs can put the rent up by 10% or more every year, effectively forcing tenants out.

    We already have some degree of decision making based on local rents or else how could LHA rates be calculated? Fair rents could be based on the same principals, administered by the LA. In the past that was based on rateable values so possibly council tax bands would be relevant as well.

    Although I agree that it might reduce the number of properties to rent, these properties are likely to be put on the market which would help to stabilise or even lower prices and so take some renters into a situation where they'd be able to buy, so another benefit.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 11th Oct 16, 11:41 AM
    • 897 Posts
    • 1,121 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    Rent control in the past was quite draconian which is why I only suggested a degree of it but there's no point giving secure leases if LLs can put the rent up by 10% or more every year, effectively forcing tenants out.

    We already have some degree of decision making based on local rents or else how could LHA rates be calculated? Fair rents could be based on the same principals, administered by the LA. In the past that was based on rateable values so possibly council tax bands would be relevant as well.

    Although I agree that it might reduce the number of properties to rent, these properties are likely to be put on the market which would help to stabilise or even lower prices and so take some renters into a situation where they'd be able to buy, so another benefit.
    Originally posted by Jackieboy
    A question for you. Why should someone who is running a business be told what they can charge for what they are selling? What you are suggesting is the same as someone telling a supermarket what they are allowed to charge for their products or telling house sellers that they can't charge over a certain amount for a house in a particular area. The problem is that there is not enough social housing. Private rentals should not be housing people who cannot afford market rents. This is the job of social landlords. So you should be tackling social housing landlords about this problem not private landlords.

    The houses that would get put back onto the market would be the nice ones not the ones that the renters you are talking about needing rent controls can afford. Or would you want to introduce selling price controls as well? There are a lot of private tenants renting at the moment who could afford to buy a house in the area that they live in but they don't want to because it is more convenient to rent if you might be moving around the country chasing better jobs and promotions.

    Many people seem to assume that people rent because they cannot afford to buy. This is not the case there are many people renting because they want to rent and don't want the responsibility of owning a property.

    Recent research has shown that there are now private renters who are retired. Where did they used to live?

    You are basing your ideas on the small number of people who post about renting on here but what about the other renters who are completely happy with their rented property and their landlords?

    The South East is not the whole of the country. In some areas of the country rents are affordable and there isn't a shortage of social housing so would your rent controls apply there as well or would they just apply in areas of shortage of social housing?
    • Jackieboy
    • By Jackieboy 11th Oct 16, 12:47 PM
    • 251 Posts
    • 396 Thanks
    Jackieboy
    A question for you. Why should someone who is running a business be told what they can charge for what they are selling? What you are suggesting is the same as someone telling a supermarket what they are allowed to charge for their products or telling house sellers that they can't charge over a certain amount for a house in a particular area. The problem is that there is not enough social housing. Private rentals should not be housing people who cannot afford market rents. This is the job of social landlords. So you should be tackling social housing landlords about this problem not private landlords.

    The houses that would get put back onto the market would be the nice ones not the ones that the renters you are talking about needing rent controls can afford. Or would you want to introduce selling price controls as well? There are a lot of private tenants renting at the moment who could afford to buy a house in the area that they live in but they don't want to because it is more convenient to rent if you might be moving around the country chasing better jobs and promotions.

    Many people seem to assume that people rent because they cannot afford to buy. This is not the case there are many people renting because they want to rent and don't want the responsibility of owning a property.

    Recent research has shown that there are now private renters who are retired. Where did they used to live?


    You are basing your ideas on the small number of people who post about renting on here but what about the other renters who are completely happy with their rented property and their landlords?

    The South East is not the whole of the country. In some areas of the country rents are affordable and there isn't a shortage of social housing so would your rent controls apply there as well or would they just apply in areas of shortage of social housing?
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    I have no problem whatsoever with regulating prices for any essential services and I certainly don't think businesses are sacrosanct and above legislation. I also don't see why rent controls should just be for low end properties nor do I see why, as a concept, they should include only the south east. I don't see why anybody should be able to just choose to stick a large percentage on what they charge, wherever they are.

    If long term leases and (as I said) a degree of rent control were to be introduced, far fewer people would even want to live in social housing and that would take some of the pressure off those who need it most. If top end property were dumped by unreasonable landlords, the effect on property prices would be likely to trickle down and benefit potential buyers at all levels.

    (I have no idea what you mean by the sentence I've bolded.)
    • theartfullodger
    • By theartfullodger 11th Oct 16, 1:15 PM
    • 8,346 Posts
    • 10,900 Thanks
    theartfullodger
    England should follow Scotland's lead & bring in law changing the private tenancy to one with, amongst other changes, no (equivalent of..) s21, tenant able to give notice from 28 days of start of tenancy & fines for landlords giving notice claiming they are moving back in or selling but turn out to be lying neds .

    Slainte!
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 11th Oct 16, 1:15 PM
    • 14,320 Posts
    • 36,443 Thanks
    FBaby
    Do you only work hard so you have better things than other people?
    Work hard to gain benefits of doing so. Working hard comes with compromises, so they need to be balance out with something else.

    Another example, do you think that someone working 20 hours should get the same house, healthcare, transportation, schooling for kids and holidays than their next door neighbour who works 50 hour? A bit obvious that the former will have a much better life than the latter despite all the rest being equal.
    • Person_one
    • By Person_one 11th Oct 16, 1:34 PM
    • 26,007 Posts
    • 89,294 Thanks
    Person_one
    Work hard to gain benefits of doing so. Working hard comes with compromises, so they need to be balance out with something else.

    Another example, do you think that someone working 20 hours should get the same house, healthcare, transportation, schooling for kids and holidays than their next door neighbour who works 50 hour? A bit obvious that the former will have a much better life than the latter despite all the rest being equal.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    Healthcare, transportation and schooling, yes. Everybody has the same rights to those basic public services.

    Holidays are a luxury, I think wages should be high enough that every family with one member who works full time should be able to afford one a year though.

    Nobody should have to work 50 hours.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 11th Oct 16, 2:03 PM
    • 897 Posts
    • 1,121 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    I have no problem whatsoever with regulating prices for any essential services and I certainly don't think businesses are sacrosanct and above legislation. I also don't see why rent controls should just be for low end properties nor do I see why, as a concept, they should include only the south east. I don't see why anybody should be able to just choose to stick a large percentage on what they charge, wherever they are.

    If long term leases and (as I said) a degree of rent control were to be introduced, far fewer people would even want to live in social housing and that would take some of the pressure off those who need it most. If top end property were dumped by unreasonable landlords, the effect on property prices would be likely to trickle down and benefit potential buyers at all levels.

    (I have no idea what you mean by the sentence I've bolded.)
    Originally posted by Jackieboy
    When I was young there was no really decent private rented housing because landlords with anything decent had got caught by the rent acts and so as soon as the houses became vacant they sold them. This meant that if you wanted somewhere nice to live you basically had to buy it. The choices were live at home with your parents, hope to get a council house or buy something. So people who are retired now and renting would have had those same choices which makes it even more interesting that they are choosing to rent in retirement.

    I am not in favour of rent controls because I remember what happened last time. I would prefer to see an increase in supply of rented property rather than something that could lead to a decrease.

    At the moment there is a problem in the construction industry. There are not enough young people going into construction work or engineering. There is a big skills shortage. This skills shortage means that only a small number of the new houses needed can be built. So you see what actually needs to be done is to encourage young people to get trade skills rather than degrees in Film Studies.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 11th Oct 16, 2:28 PM
    • 4,127 Posts
    • 4,154 Thanks
    AnotherJoe

    Let's face it, the current state of affairs is far worse than what I'm suggesting
    Originally posted by Person_one
    No, its not. Since what you are suggesting isn't possible without concentration camps and a dictatorship.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 11th Oct 16, 2:32 PM
    • 4,127 Posts
    • 4,154 Thanks
    AnotherJoe

    At the moment there is a problem in the construction industry. There are not enough young people going into construction work or engineering. There is a big skills shortage. This skills shortage means that only a small number of the new houses needed can be built. So you see what actually needs to be done is to encourage young people to get trade skills rather than degrees in Film Studies.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    True, but we also need to get seriously into pre-fabs,which I understand is coming, to reduce the need to have so many of some basic types of skills.

    Piling baked clay bricks on top of each other in a muddy field should be no way to build a house these days.
    • Proxima Centauri
    • By Proxima Centauri 11th Oct 16, 3:46 PM
    • 326 Posts
    • 421 Thanks
    Proxima Centauri
    People on these boards are not on the whole happy with Assured Shorthold Tenancies, mainly due due to the lack of security of tenure.

    What do you think would be a good compromise, to be fair to the tenant AND the landlord?


    Do you think there should be more social housing, and if so, on what grounds should it be allocated? And should it be a permanent tenancy?

    Your thoughts welcomed.
    Originally posted by seven-day-weekend
    I would look to European countries like Germany as an example, where renting is the norm until you get to your forties and can afford to buy a house. I believe tenants have far better rights there than they do here, but I don't know all the ins and outs.
    • JuneBow
    • By JuneBow 18th Oct 16, 5:04 PM
    • 220 Posts
    • 167 Thanks
    JuneBow
    I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but this one really interests me.
    I own some BTLs and have done so for a number of years. I have a tenant with a young daughter in one of them who has had some personal issues. Some of her own making, and some not.
    She is so rude to me when a repair is needed and on one occasion she tried to claim I had caused an injury to her daughter. I hadn't BTW, but it looked like a PI claim waiting to happen.
    As well as this, I just don't like the girl. She has said some nasty things to neighbours. Not about me. But she is also a trouble maker.
    None of this impacts on her suitability as a tenant, as the place is like a palace and she pays her rent on time.
    I told her at the beginning on the year that I would not be renewing the lease, and she went ballistic. Calling me this. Calling me that. etc. How I was exploiting her. How I was leaving her homeless. The list goes on.
    Anyway, I was persuaded to let her stay.
    Probably because I felt guilty, and still do about being a landlord.
    I am about as left wing as you can get. My late parents were avid trade unionists so it rubbed off on me.
    I have done ok for myself. Probably because I have worked very hard and have taken risks and made sacrifices. I have an expensive house in an expensive area. My kids went to private school. I have paid for private medical treatment when an operation could not be done quickly. So I feel like a hypocrite. However, I don't feel as if I have exploited anyone. I give large amounts to charity every year, and give money to some of my extended family who need it.
    I don't mind paying tax at 45%. So why do I feel as though I am betraying my parents?
    My own view is that I should be as free to choose my tenants as much as my tenants are free to choose me.
    So why do I feel guilty over this girl?
    I do also disagree with the selling off of social housing and I think because of TV programmes demonising and exploiting people who claim state benefit some people think there are more lazy !!!!less people than there actually is. So I have no problems with benefit claimants and recent benefit changes worry me as vulnerable people are suffering.
    So am I wrong to want this girl to leave my property because I just don't like her? I know the girl will be rehoused, but I know that she doesn't want social housing. There is a big shortage of private rental properties in the area and she loves the house and the location, so she may have to rent about 5 miles away.
    Last edited by JuneBow; 18-10-2016 at 5:08 PM.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 18th Oct 16, 5:18 PM
    • 11,958 Posts
    • 11,408 Thanks
    Guest101
    I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but this one really interests me.
    I own some BTLs and have done so for a number of years. I have a tenant with a young daughter in one of them who has had some personal issues. Some of her own making, and some not.
    She is so rude to me when a repair is needed and on one occasion she tried to claim I had caused an injury to her daughter. I hadn't BTW, but it looked like a PI claim waiting to happen.
    As well as this, I just don't like the girl. She has said some nasty things to neighbours. Not about me. But she is also a trouble maker.
    None of this impacts on her suitability as a tenant, as the place is like a palace and she pays her rent on time.
    I told her at the beginning on the year that I would not be renewing the lease, and she went ballistic. Calling me this. Calling me that. etc. How I was exploiting her. How I was leaving her homeless. The list goes on.
    Anyway, I was persuaded to let her stay.
    Probably because I felt guilty, and still do about being a landlord.
    I am about as left wing as you can get. My late parents were avid trade unionists so it rubbed off on me.
    I have done ok for myself. Probably because I have worked very hard and have taken risks and made sacrifices. I have an expensive house in an expensive area. My kids went to private school. I have paid for private medical treatment when an operation could not be done quickly. So I feel like a hypocrite. However, I don't feel as if I have exploited anyone. I give large amounts to charity every year, and give money to some of my extended family who need it.
    I don't mind paying tax at 45%. So why do I feel as though I am betraying my parents?
    My own view is that I should be as free to choose my tenants as much as my tenants are free to choose me.
    So why do I feel guilty over this girl?
    I do also disagree with the selling off of social housing and I think because of TV programmes demonising and exploiting people who claim state benefit some people think there are more lazy !!!!less people than there actually is. So I have no problems with benefit claimants and recent benefit changes worry me as vulnerable people are suffering.
    So am I wrong to want this girl to leave my property because I just don't like her? I know the girl will be rehoused, but I know that she doesn't want social housing. There is a big shortage of private rental properties in the area and she loves the house and the location, so she may have to rent about 5 miles away.
    Originally posted by JuneBow


    Your mixing business with personal.


    Which I think is always going to cause problems to be honest.


    You don't like her as a person, not as a tenant.


    (obviously you are free to do as you wish)
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 18th Oct 16, 5:22 PM
    • 11,958 Posts
    • 11,408 Thanks
    Guest101
    My opinion is fairly simple.


    Remove s.21, make notice 2 months for tenants and if the property is repossessed, make the lender a landlord for minimum 6 month term (ie a new tenancy is created)
    • Jackieboy
    • By Jackieboy 18th Oct 16, 5:26 PM
    • 251 Posts
    • 396 Thanks
    Jackieboy
    When I was young there was no really decent private rented housing because landlords with anything decent had got caught by the rent acts and so as soon as the houses became vacant they sold them. This meant that if you wanted somewhere nice to live you basically had to buy it. The choices were live at home with your parents, hope to get a council house or buy something. So people who are retired now and renting would have had those same choices which makes it even more interesting that they are choosing to rent in retirement.

    I am not in favour of rent controls because I remember what happened last time. I would prefer to see an increase in supply of rented property rather than something that could lead to a decrease.

    At the moment there is a problem in the construction industry. There are not enough young people going into construction work or engineering. There is a big skills shortage. This skills shortage means that only a small number of the new houses needed can be built. So you see what actually needs to be done is to encourage young people to get trade skills rather than degrees in Film Studies.
    Originally posted by Cakeguts
    There are vast numbers of youngsters wanting to go into construction, unfortunately they're unable to do so (or to complete their courses) because employers won't offer them the site experience they need to achieve their NVQs. The solution is wholly within the hands of construction companies and small building firms.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 18th Oct 16, 7:28 PM
    • 897 Posts
    • 1,121 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but this one really interests me.
    I own some BTLs and have done so for a number of years. I have a tenant with a young daughter in one of them who has had some personal issues. Some of her own making, and some not.
    She is so rude to me when a repair is needed and on one occasion she tried to claim I had caused an injury to her daughter. I hadn't BTW, but it looked like a PI claim waiting to happen.
    As well as this, I just don't like the girl. She has said some nasty things to neighbours. Not about me. But she is also a trouble maker.
    None of this impacts on her suitability as a tenant, as the place is like a palace and she pays her rent on time.
    I told her at the beginning on the year that I would not be renewing the lease, and she went ballistic. Calling me this. Calling me that. etc. How I was exploiting her. How I was leaving her homeless. The list goes on.
    Anyway, I was persuaded to let her stay.
    Probably because I felt guilty, and still do about being a landlord.
    I am about as left wing as you can get. My late parents were avid trade unionists so it rubbed off on me.
    I have done ok for myself. Probably because I have worked very hard and have taken risks and made sacrifices. I have an expensive house in an expensive area. My kids went to private school. I have paid for private medical treatment when an operation could not be done quickly. So I feel like a hypocrite. However, I don't feel as if I have exploited anyone. I give large amounts to charity every year, and give money to some of my extended family who need it.
    I don't mind paying tax at 45%. So why do I feel as though I am betraying my parents?
    My own view is that I should be as free to choose my tenants as much as my tenants are free to choose me.
    So why do I feel guilty over this girl?
    I do also disagree with the selling off of social housing and I think because of TV programmes demonising and exploiting people who claim state benefit some people think there are more lazy !!!!less people than there actually is. So I have no problems with benefit claimants and recent benefit changes worry me as vulnerable people are suffering.
    So am I wrong to want this girl to leave my property because I just don't like her? I know the girl will be rehoused, but I know that she doesn't want social housing. There is a big shortage of private rental properties in the area and she loves the house and the location, so she may have to rent about 5 miles away.
    Originally posted by JuneBow
    If she doesn't want social housing then she needs to take responsibility for her actions. Being pleasant to neigbours costs nothing yet she can't be bothered to be nice.

    The way I feel about this is that if she can't be bothered to be nice to people then you don't need to be nice to her. As long as you can make sure that she realises that losing this house is a consequence of her actions you will be doing her a favour.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

700Posts Today

4,249Users online

Martin's Twitter