It's official - BTL destroys communities

JonnyBravo

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The key thing about BTL is the transience of people owing to insecurity of tenure. In the old council housing, people had security of tenure and often stayed where they were. For example, my Grandma has lived in the same (now-ex) council house since the mid-1950s (she RTB'ed in about 1980-ish), and has had the same next-door neighbour for the same period of time. There is a very strong sense of community on the the estate, with people helping each other out etc.

This "insecurity of tenure" is a red herring too often cited.

Why do people fear being chucked out? What landlord with half a brain wants to get rid of a happy and conscientious tenant who is paying when they should?

People who fear the lack of security are those who are abusing the property or not paying on time and therefore annoying the landlord.

boyse7en

The key thing about BTL is the transience of people owing to insecurity of tenure. In the old council housing, people had security of tenure and often stayed where they were

I don't think tenants move because they don't have security of tenure. What tenants sit in their home thinking "Hmm, the landlord might give me a month's notice, I must move to another rental just in case."
I think many of them rent because their lifestyle dictates that they may have a requirement to relocate - either to a different geographical area or a different type of property - which means that they are less likely to become involved in the community.

I've only got the one LTB property and the tenants have been there since I moved out nearly 7 years ago. They pay the rent, I don't want them to go as it would cost me money in void/redecoration/etc. Simple.

Like Mr Bravo says, why would a landlord want to get rid of a tenant who is fulfilling their side of the bargain?

nickmason

This thread brought me to make a totally shameless plug of a very good friend of mine's book - "Utopian Dreams", by Tobias Jones. Born out of the anger and frustration of the erosion of local communities, he lives in a variety of communities - everything from new age to Hartrigg Oaks, a community with a Quaker/Rowntree background (with some fascinating house prcing models) to see if they have the cure.

It's a great book - part polemic, part travel-journal - don't just take my word for it, it was a Radio 4 book of the week.

Back cover:
"The promise of happiness has created an epidemic of depression. It's us who are being consumed, not the objects. Postmodernism is the hidden fuel of the consumer culture. It allows everything to be erased, replicated, replaced. Nothing even aims for permanency or perfection and thus the throw-away-buy-again society finds its cultural justification; we're constantly buying because we're cool. chameleons. We're ceaselessly changing, dressing up to assume new roles. We mustn't ever hint at commitment, because that would be the death knell of rights and choices. That way no door is ever closed to us, no purchase or partner ever precluded. Sounds good, huh? But it's not. I simply can't continue living like this".

tyllwyd

boyse7en wrote: »

Like Mr Bravo says, why would a landlord want to get rid of a tenant who is fulfilling their side of the bargain?

It can happen though - back in the mid 90s, in the middle of the last big house price crash, we were perfect tenants and we were given notice to leave at the end of our six-month tenancy because the landlord wanted to sell. It worked for us, because it pushed us into buying at what turned out to be pretty much the bottom of the market, but it still wasn't our choice at the time. In 2004, my bil had sold & was renting - waiting for the crash which didn't really happen - and again he was given notice because his landlord wanted to sell.

JonnyBravo

tyllwyd wrote: »

It can happen though - back in the mid 90s, in the middle of the last big house price crash, we were perfect tenants and we were given notice to leave at the end of our six-month tenancy because the landlord wanted to sell. It worked for us, because it pushed us into buying at what turned out to be pretty much the bottom of the market, but it still wasn't our choice at the time. In 2004, my bil had sold & was renting - waiting for the crash which didn't really happen - and again he was given notice because his landlord wanted to sell.

Oh yes of course it can happen.

But is it the driving force to the "destruction of communities" as the title suggests.

I suggest not.

carolt

JonnyBravo wrote: »

This "insecurity of tenure" is a red herring too often cited.

Why do people fear being chucked out? What landlord with half a brain wants to get rid of a happy and conscientious tenant who is paying when they should?

People who fear the lack of security are those who are abusing the property or not paying on time and therefore annoying the landlord.

We also had to move on one occasion with v little notice, as the landlord wanted to move his aged and suddenly ill parents in to our house, which was round the corner from where he was living, to what had been their family home when younger. My MIl had to move out because her landlord was selling up.

Can happen at any time, even if you're a perfect tenant.

The title reflected my slant on the article, clearly, and with the fact I was posting it on a housing board - I do agree with its conclusions that the rise in numbers of single people, for example, through rises in divorce and marrying later etc, are also a factor in the destruction of our communities. BTL is the aspect I chose to stress here; I wouldn't argue it's the only factor though.

carolt

Thrugelmir wrote: »

This article has no direct relevance to BLT.

I think you're on the wrong Board. Try Old Style for BLT.

Sir_Humphrey

JonnyBravo wrote: »

This insecurity of tenure is a red herring too often cited

I am thinking in terms of flatshares, where there can be a multitude of reasons that make living in one suddenly undesirable. Also, young families often say they buy for stability. Security of tenure also makes it worthwhile for tenants to personalise property, if they know they will stay there for as long as they wish. It is more subtle than Mr Landlord selling up/deciding to get in the builders. Young people in flatshares usually move frequently, as any fule no.

Dithering_Dad

carolt wrote: »

I think you're on the wrong Board. Try Old Style for BLT.

lol, you're finally getting the idea carolt, this comment was actually slightly amusing. Keep working at it though.

Explanation: You can see what carolt has done here; someone meant to spell "BTL" (Buy To Let) but had a typing malfunction and typed "BLT" (Bacon Lettuce Tomato). She has taken a typo and made a joke about it. It's a visual gag.

Carol has now become the self-appointed spelling, typo, punctuation and grammar moderator on the Housing boards. She does this quite without pay and so should be thanked by all those she 'helps'/'mocks'.

carolt, for your service to spelling, we applaud you. :T

carolt

You're more than welcome.