Improving the tenant/landlord relationship

Gorgeous_George

One of the biggest complaints from tenants is the lack of security of tenure when renting privately.

Should we have longer ASTs of upto 10 years? Is it time for BTL properties to require a 'change of use' from the town's planners? And another when the property returns to owner occupier?

Should lenders be compelled to honour a tenant's desire to stay for a period of ten years - providing a fair rent is paid on time each month and the terms of the AST are adhered to?

What else could be done to improve security of tenure?

GG

guppy

Interesting questions.

I think the argument for the current Assured Shorthold Tenancies was that without them, there was a very poor supply of rentals in the private sector in most areas.

I'm not sure how the planners would enforce any restrictions on BTL, I suppose if tenant's misbehaved their neighbours might grass them up. What would be the criteria for obtaining permission though? Surely the market determines supply and demand? Surely this would only restrict it, putting up rents in the process.

I think restricting a landlord's right to sell up, either through enforcing long tenancies or by preventing a change to owner-occupation would depress property values too, and would mean a lot of amateur landlords would exit the market.

Why not just encourage more home ownership? Ten years is a long time to rent the same property.

rachnbri

Personally I believe that there is a real need for longer, secure tenancies in the current climate. Speaking from personal experience I had no great desire to own property and couldn't really afford to, however I had no choice but to buy after I was evicted from my third rented property in 4 years as the landlords wanted to sell. On the last eviction (when I was a single parent) I approached the council and was told that upon eviction I would be placed in temporary accommodation (hostel or B&B) with my children and it would cost me £200 per week plus whatever it cost to have all my furniture etc in storage. I would get no help towards this cost as I work full time.

I could not keep moving with my children as the cost was tremendous and the boys needed some stability, but I couldn't really afford to buy either. All I wanted was somewhere we could call home for a reasonable length of time and not be constantly worrying that we'd have to move again.

Council and social housing is now pretty much extinct and many people in the position I was cannot afford to buy so long term, secure tenancies seem to be the way to go.

olly300

guppy wrote: »

Interesting questions.

I think the argument for the current Assured Shorthold Tenancies was that without them, there was a very poor supply of rentals in the private sector in most areas.

The problem is 6 months is too short a period for lots of tenants but then a year is too long for others. However the longer a tenant stays in a property they will be more inclined to get involved in the local neighbourhood and not destroy it.

guppy wrote: »

I'm not sure how the planners would enforce any restrictions on BTL, I suppose if tenant's misbehaved their neighbours might grass them up. What would be the criteria for obtaining permission though? Surely the market determines supply and demand? Surely this would only restrict it, putting up rents in the process.

I think the issue is areas where virtually the entire street or block of flats consists of rented properties i.e. student towns and as a result the place is a mess.

No one I know has a problem living on a street where some of the houses are rented (I don't know what proportion) and the tenants behave themselves, but issues arise with local amenities and shops when large amounts of properties are rented to people who live in HMO.

guppy wrote: »

I think restricting a landlord's right to sell up, either through enforcing long tenancies or by preventing a change to owner-occupation would depress property values too, and would mean a lot of amateur landlords would exit the market.

It depends on the length of the tenancies. If tenancies could legally be extended to about 3 years then tenants may feel more secure and so would the landlord. I know people who relocated and purposely chose families with children because they wanted long term tenants.

Also in the current climate because properties are not selling people are being forced to rent their property out, if they have to relocate.

guppy wrote: »

Why not just encourage more home ownership? Ten years is a long time to rent the same property.

Because not everyone is in a situation where they can buy.

There are people move around the country to work for a few months to a few years. Buying and selling a property when you want to move for a such a short time is a waste of money.

I also know of landlords who have ended up renting out their own home for years (one for over 10) because they managed to secure a job aboard. They have no idea how long they would be there.

guppy

I agree with quite a bit of what you say, olly, I'm just not sure that the majority of private landlords would go for longer tenancies. So the benefits are purely hypothetical.

Gingernutmeg

There really is a need for longer tenancies. We're moving at the moment and have spent the past few days looking at properties - at a guess we've seen about twenty properties with at least ten different agencies and we could only get an initial tenancy for longer than six months in one property, and even on that one we were told that the maximum tenancy would probably be eighteen months as the landlord was only renting as they couldn't sell. Six months is nothing in terms of security, especially when you don't know whether a tenancy will be renewed after that - we've had less than a year in our current house, even though the tenancy was advertised as 'long-term'. Fair enough, landlords have every right to sell but I have no idea how I'm going to get on the property ladder as every few months I have to blow what savings I've managed to accrue on moving again!

I would love more security of tenure and I do think that the government needs to address this - the fact is that the rental market is changing. Whereas even ten years ago young professionals rented in the short term prior to buying, I don't know anyone my age who can afford the deposits etc to own their own home at the moment (apart from a couple of people who've been heavily subsidised by their parents) and more and more people are having to rent long term. Of course there are people who want the flexibility to move every few months, but there are definitely more people who want and need a long term home. If you're too 'rich' to get council housing, there's virtually no chance of getting any kind of long term tenancy and that's just wrong, as well as being damaging to community cohesion - if you don't think you're going to stay somewhere long term, you don't invest in the area either emotionally or financially. I also think that anyone who goes into being a landlord should see it as a long-term business, not something short-term. I'd much rather rent from a professional landlord with enough property to absord any financial blow than someone who's just renting their house in the short term in the hope that the markets will go up - I've seen enough of those kind of houses this week to know that they're rarely good quality rental properties. Seems to me that the only people winning from these short term contracts are the letting agents who charge extortionate fees for renewals every six months.

griffosteve

Speaking as a landlord personally I would like some long term tennants who want somewhere tidy to live and wish to settle there, for obvious reasons, but if you give someone a longterm contract and they turn out to be unsuitable I would imagine that it would be even more difficult to move them on. All the landlords I know whant long term tennants.

lostinrates

Renting in Italy recently was an eyeopening business. Longer term lets are standard (4 plus 4 years) and tenants have dramatically increased security of tenure. The benefit for landords is not just the reliable income and ease of dealing with 'customers' who they grow to know/understand, with the longer tenancy comes an increased responsibility of maintainance. Anything non structoral is the tenants concern.

Unfurnished really, really means unfurnished. Tenants put in their own kitchens and bathrooms, sometimes even boilers. This means that the maintainance of things other than the real structure of the building is their concern and the landlord doesn't have the same fears of putting 'good quality' appliances in to be abused.

Its also easier for a tenant to get out of the contract than it is the landlord. Though neither is easy. The problems this throws up for tenants is that relovating is hard/stressful because of the commitment to the long tenancy.

A professional landlord needs tenants, and so commiting to a longterm let should not be so hard for them, it would seem to be that tenants situations are more changable than most (good) professional landlords and that a get out for tenants (presuming both parties are 'good' law abiding responsible peole) more important in a long term let than for landlords.

Improving the security of tenure and flexibilty (with in reason) for tenants is very important. I'm a little nervous of renting ATM in case the landlord should sell out from under us at the end of a short AST, but do not want to commit to a long AST because buying is in our future. A longer notice period (say 4 months) on a tenancy assured for longer (say 2 years) by a professional lanlord would change my feelings entirely. Moving is expensive!

clutton_2

GG aks - Should we have longer ASTs of upto 10 years?

Lenders want to know that they can get vacant possession .....

Is it time for BTL properties to require a 'change of use' from the town's planners?

Are you trying to bankrupt LLs GG ?? we have enough costs without adding more

And another when the property returns to owner occupier?


ditto

Should lenders be compelled to honour a tenant's desire to stay for a period of ten years - providing a fair rent is paid on time each month and the terms of the AST are adhered to?

Lenders are money-lenders not managing/letting agents

Every decent long term LL wants long term tenants, it costs a lot of time and money to get new tenants in - but - life changes happen for LLs as well as tenants - and there has to be room for LLs to get their own property back to live in, and there has to be room for LLs to get rid of tenants who are just a pain in the whatsit.

so i dont know what the answers are

lostinrates - you have some good ideas - longer notice periods, and tenants doing maintainance would probably make for a longer more stable relationship between LL and tenant

Gorgeous_George

clutton wrote: »

Lenders want to know that they can get vacant possession .....

But if rent covers the mortgage and other costs, why can they not become temporary LLs - or get out of the BTL market?

clutton wrote: »

Are you trying to bankrupt LLs GG ?? we have enough costs without adding more

And another when the property returns to owner occupier?

ditto

Of course not. I'm trying to give tenants a better product. The change of use could only be required after 3 years of letting or when the LL has more than one BTL.

clutton wrote: »

Lenders are money-lenders not managing/letting agents

Maybe they should stick to the owner occupier market.



GG

guppy

griffosteve wrote: »

All the landlords I know whant long term tennants.

But do they want long term tenancies? I doubt it.

I doubt most tenants really do either. It will be a minority that can commit to a ten year term with no break clause. Some people seem to have trouble seeing out six months due to changing circumstances.