Change of law for long term rentals

Jowo_2

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).

Agreed but it looks like it would take decades, or possibly never happen, for legislation to change that makes it easy for bad tenants to enjoy security of tenure.

It looks like the Human Rights Act overarches and supercedes other housing legislation which is why Brighton and Hove council admitted they stood little chance securing possession of a private property leased to them that was occupied by their nuisance tenant who refused to leave.

I would speculate that perhaps the council only got this anti-social tenant out by bribing them with an offer of good accommodation elsewhere (realising that the local court would give them short thrift and because they are obliged to house women with children), meaning that potentially the law is so far in the favour of tenants, that bad tenants can actually be rewarded....

franklee

Colincbayley wrote: »

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

He could sell to another landlord leaving the tenant in-situ.

I don't buy the argument that all tenants should suffer lack of security of tenure because of the rogue tenants. Surely the right fix is to make it easier to evict rogue tenants and harder to evict good ones. That won't happen because in reality many recent landlords over the last few years have been investing for capital gains, riding the house price bubble. When that stalled we have the accidental landlords. Neither types are investing for rental yields as these have been far too low for landlords who purchased in the last few years. For this type of landlord the tenant is an irritation who keeps the property ticking over and mostly paid for while the landlord waits to sell with vacant possession making his profit from house price rises.

Jowo_2

Good point, Franklee.

But the other factor is that the loss of social housing whose stock has been decimated has meant that tenants (some of whom are vulnerable and have untenant like behaviour) who would have ordinarily been housed by the local council with all its specialist housing management services have been unleashed on buy to let landlords (some of whom are accidental or novice types).

Whatever the reason for the surge in buy to let landlords, the fact is that they are least in the position to operate as substitute social housing landlords and can't fill this vacuum in basic social services that have been lost now there's little social housing.

Colincbayley

franklee wrote: »

He could sell to another landlord leaving the tenant in-situ.

All that would do is reduce the number of LL's willing to invest in property and push up rents.

I fully agree that LL's should be in it for the longterm. I for one never plan to sell, instead pass the properties onto my kids. However, without accidential or small time LL's, there would be a serve lack of rental property. Great for the LL's that are left, not so great for the tenants.

N79

We have got to where we are by continually tampering with the edges of LL and T law. The change you propose is not viable in isolation for the reasons outlined above. If people want change then issues such as repairing obligations, eviction proceedings and damages need to go on the table along with security of tenure. Just focussing on this one issue will be recipe for disaster.

Our current laws are the latest attempt to balance these and are based around the fact that it is and has been for 30 years government policy that housing is a private function. Any changes either need to take into account this framework or there needs to be a change in government policy. The high housing need that this places on the private section in England and Wales (Scotland is a little different) means that by necessity English LL and T law needs to be biased in the LL's favour.

Further, any attempt to impose a continental style solution will have to deal with a very large obsticle - English Common Law. Continental systems, based on Napoleonic code property law, will always be a tough, if not impossible, fit.

franklee

Colincbayley wrote: »

All that would do is reduce the number of LL's willing to invest in property and push up rents.

I fully agree that LL's should be in it for the longterm. I for one never plan to sell, instead pass the properties onto my kids. However, without accidential or small time LL's, there would be a serve lack of rental property. Great for the LL's that are left, not so great for the tenants.

Rents are set by what the market can bear. Although supply and demand plays a part rents are finally governed by what tenants can pay and tenants are already stretched. If anything people's incomes are falling ATM, job losses, pay freezes with inflation over 3% etc. It's like the argument that lack of land makes house prices rise indefinitely when in reality ability to pay (or borrow) sets the ceiling prices.

Cutting the number of investors would be a good thing IMO. It's these recent landlords who have contributed to the house price bubble, it seems every tom !!!!!! and harry was getting a BTL or two using the equity from their homes for a deposit. These people make the market unstable IMO both for tenants being moved on or facing incompetent landlords and for house prices rising artificially high.

As for the accidental landlord as soon as there is an uptick in house prices a lot of tenants get evicted, frankly I'd rather avoid that type of landlord in the first place. Not to confuse the accidental landlord with the small time LL, it's not the number of properties let that bothers me it's the length of time the landlord offers the property for. You even get those who say they intend to let for ages then even try to take away the right to two months notice, regardless on if they act upon that the tenant has to live with the uncertainty. This is all fine for the young single tenants, but for those that have work commitments, family, children's schools to be near it's no way to live other than as a temporary measure. That is why so many people want to buy even if renting would be better for them, renting isn't really a viable way to live long term.

Colincbayley

Franklee, I must agree ( other that for the market rent bit ) But what is the answer then? You can not ( Although I think you should ) stop accidential LL's who haven't a clue and a tenant should not have to live with the risk of being evicted for no real reason. But with the lack of social housing ( thanks Maggie! ) where would all these people live?
I woud have to think hard about investing in property if I could not evict a tenant if I needed to. You can not have one set of rules for good tenants and another for the dodgy ones.

Jowo_2

To me, the proposal to change legislation to facilitate longer and more secure private tenancies is a very narrow focus.

What we've got in the UK are infrastructure problems that aren't really resolvable in the short to mid-term - i.e. house building hasn't kept pace with population and household growth, leading to a huge imbalance between supply and demand. The loss of social housing has led to enormous strain for tenants seeking long-term quality rentals which the private market isn't in the position to offer.

franklee

Colincbayley wrote: »

Franklee, I must agree ( other that for the market rent bit ) But what is the answer then? You can not ( Although I think you should ) stop accidential LL's who haven't a clue and a tenant should not have to live with the risk of being evicted for no real reason. But with the lack of social housing ( thanks Maggie! ) where would all these people live?
I woud have to think hard about investing in property if I could not evict a tenant if I needed to. You can not have one set of rules for good tenants and another for the dodgy ones.

Sorry but why would it be two sets of rules? Surely one set of rules that specify what behaviour would lead to eviction? I'm thinking a beefed up and faster Section 8 type thing in return for no Section 21. (Section 8 does allow the LL to evict based on moving back into his old home, for redevelopment etc. as well as for the tenant breaching the agreement like non-payment etc.).

ET1976

I don't understand why such proposals as in the OP would necessarily put people off becoming private landlords.

Why would you need/want to evict a tenant?

1. You need/want to sell - you can evict as per OP
2. You need/want to move back in - you can evict as per OP
3. The tenant is bad (non-paying, disruptive etc) - legislation is needed to allow eviction in such cases

Whilst I accept that 3 would be complex, with the system we have at the moment, bad tenants are still hard to get rid of and this is a major factor in disuading people from letting property.

A complication I can imagine is how rent rises would be handled for long term tenants. The wife of a colleague of mine inherited a house with a tenant on some sort of 'tenant for life' scheme, where they had moved in years ago and were guaranteed the place til they died in return for a fixed rent for the entire time (I don't know the details of this at all, don't think he does, and I don't know his wife). The rent is now an absolute pittance in today's terms and would not allow the owner to save for major repairs etc.

There would have to be some system in place which allowed LLs to raise rents to allow for genuine cost-of-living price rises, without being able to rip tenants off.