Change of law for long term rentals

pingu2209

Having just read in the Daily Mail that a huge percentage of young families can not buy their own home I was wondering why there is such a pressure on young families to buy rather than rent.

Having rented for a year after selling up and moving area, I can from personal experience understand the downsides of renting. Firstly, most rental properties we looked at did not allow us to put pictures up on the walls let alone to decorate to our taste so it never felt like home.

Secondly, as a tenant there is a pressure of knowing that the landlord could ask you to leave at the end of your AST. Most contracts are for 6 months or possibly 12. If I was a tenant with a young family I would want a lot more certainty than that in order to feel secure. If it were my home I would want to be able to live there for as long as I wanted (on the basis I paid the rent on time and only made general wear and tear on the property).

I may be wrong but I believe in France the law is in the favour of the tenant in that the tenant can give, say, 2 months to leave the property but the landlord can not kick a tenant out unless he is actually selling the property or going to move in himself (and only then when he has lived in the property himself before hand).

I realise that this ties the landlord a lot and would affect the UK housing market as all those speculative buyers would be put off buying as being a landlord would be much more of a long term undertaking. However, I really feel for young couples and families that want the security of a home but can't afford to get a mortgage to buy one.

Would it really be that terrible for landlords? Surely they would be able to guarantee income and at the end of the day they only get 2 months notice now anyway.

Just interested to hear others' views.

Colincbayley

As a LL in it for the long term I can see your point. However, what would be in it for the LL if the tenant had only to give two months notice but the LL could give any or have to wait 2 yrs.

A LL is in it for the investment, who knows what the investment conditions would be that far ahead, what if the LL's personal circumstances change?

Personally I would be happy for a good tenant to stay in one of my properties for the next 50yrs, but on the whole, they just don't

Just my 2P worth.

PasturesNew

The law was changed here in 1996/1997, giving rise to the new AST with the 6-month clause. Suddenly lenders could boot tenants out easily if the landlord didn't keep up the payments .... so they started lending. Prior to this date, rental property gave you more tenure and a lender repossessing a property couldn't get the tenant out - and the house was therefore worth half it's vacant price.

That's why all the BTL stuff happened ... they couldn't have borrowed the money before because a tenant halved the value of a house and you couldn't get them out like now.

Errata

I seem to remember AST only tenancies were in opereation in the late 80's, and secured tenancies for new tenants may not have existed for some time before then.

pingu2209

PasturesNew wrote: »

The law was changed here in 1996/1997, giving rise to the new AST with the 6-month clause. Suddenly lenders could boot tenants out easily if the landlord didn't keep up the payments .... so they started lending. Prior to this date, rental property gave you more tenure and a lender repossessing a property couldn't get the tenant out - and the house was therefore worth half it's vacant price.

That's why all the BTL stuff happened ... they couldn't have borrowed the money before because a tenant halved the value of a house and you couldn't get them out like now.

Interesting. I guess Landlords need money otherwise only those with cash would buy and then the rental market would be a lot smaller and I guess more expensive as there would be less choice.

I wonder if the law could be changed again so that the lender could kick out with "reasonable" notice, say 2 months again, but not the landlord if they are able to pay.

There must be something that can be done to make tenants feel secure. I still feel it is harsh when it is your home (albeit as a tenant) not to be able to decorate/put pictures up. As long as the contract states you have to put the house back in the same decorative order when you leave, what does it matter?

pingu2209

Colincbayley wrote: »

As a LL in it for the long term I can see your point. However, what would be in it for the LL if the tenant had only to give two months notice but the LL could give any or have to wait 2 yrs.

A LL is in it for the investment, who knows what the investment conditions would be that far ahead, what if the LL's personal circumstances change?

Personally I would be happy for a good tenant to stay in one of my properties for the next 50yrs, but on the whole, they just don't

Just my 2P worth.

But surely if an individual decided to go into the landlord business, he would know in advance that those were the rules and they would 'invest' accordingly.

squinty

pingu2209 wrote: »

Having just read in the Daily Mail that a huge percentage of young families can not buy their own home I was wondering why there is such a pressure on young families to buy rather than rent.

Having rented for a year after selling up and moving area, I can from personal experience understand the downsides of renting. Firstly, most rental properties we looked at did not allow us to put pictures up on the walls let alone to decorate to our taste so it never felt like home.

Secondly, as a tenant there is a pressure of knowing that the landlord could ask you to leave at the end of your AST. Most contracts are for 6 months or possibly 12. If I was a tenant with a young family I would want a lot more certainty than that in order to feel secure. If it were my home I would want to be able to live there for as long as I wanted (on the basis I paid the rent on time and only made general wear and tear on the property).

I may be wrong but I believe in France the law is in the favour of the tenant in that the tenant can give, say, 2 months to leave the property but the landlord can not kick a tenant out unless he is actually selling the property or going to move in himself (and only then when he has lived in the property himself before hand).

I realise that this ties the landlord a lot and would affect the UK housing market as all those speculative buyers would be put off buying as being a landlord would be much more of a long term undertaking. However, I really feel for young couples and families that want the security of a home but can't afford to get a mortgage to buy one.

Would it really be that terrible for landlords? Surely they would be able to guarantee income and at the end of the day they only get 2 months notice now anyway.

Just interested to hear others' views.

Why not just build more Council Housing?

Colincbayley

pingu2209 wrote: »

But surely if an individual decided to go into the landlord business, he would know in advance that those were the rules and they would 'invest' accordingly.

You would hope a professional LL would. However in the present market there are a heck of a lot of accidential LL's who really do not know the region of thier body that sits on the loo from the joint in the middle of their arm.

As for putting up pictures and the like and then returning the property in the same condition! Why not go for it. I always leave a large jam jar of paint for the tenants from the same tin that the walls are painted in, for that reason.

Jowo_2

You've made a sensible proposal to make a change to housing law to enable longer and more secure rental periods for tenants but the model you use borrowed from France is stacked too highly in the tenants favour, plus it will take a significant effort to change the culture of homeownership into one where renting has equal status.

what about landlords who end up with anti-social tenants? or tenants in arrears?

One of the benefits of an assured tenancy for social housing tenants is that they have a tenancy for life, tenants have that security. Unfortunately, it is extremely to hard to evict nuisance tenants and even tenants with significant arrears which is hard for the community and the landlord that gets afflicted with them.

For example, I had a friend who bitterly regrets leasing their residential property to Brighton and Hove council under their private sector leasing scheme. Their tenant (off the council waiting list) was a complete nuisance, the property got half trashed (most of the windows, appliances and internal fittings were smashed in), the neighbours were petrified. The council's own tenant refused to move out at the end of the lease and the housing officers merrily admitted that there was little chance of the judge in the local court awarding them possession - apparently, due to the Human Rights Act, they are extremely reluctant to evict tenants that have children.

So your proposal suits good tenants but has the capacity to cause long term misery when there are rogue tenants in place.

pingu2209

But if the law makes it clear that damage and/or non payment of rent mean that they have to leave (children or not) then a change of law so that all tenancies are for as long as the tenant wants subject to a 2 month notice period. The only way a LL can move a tenant on will be if they are selling or they are moving in themselves (having already lived there before the tenant moved in - i.e. their ex family home).

Colincbayley

pingu2209 wrote: »

But if the law makes it clear that damage and/or non payment of rent mean that they have to leave (children or not) then a change of law so that all tenancies are for as long as the tenant wants subject to a 2 month notice period. The only way a LL can move a tenant on will be if they are selling or they are moving in themselves (having already lived there before the tenant moved in - i.e. their ex family home).

So what would happen when the LL want's to cash in their investment and retire?