Priced out generation fights back

IveSeenTheLight

Harry_Powell wrote: »

It's annoying that so many other countries have decent tenancy laws, but all we have here are 6 months guaranteed lets and and you're out with only a month's or so's notice. I would happily have stayed in rented if we could get decent secured tenancy, modern heating/plumbing and were allowed to decorate as we pleased.

As a landlord, I'd happily allow any of my tenants to have a long term secured tenancy and decorate as the wish. the only caveat I'd introduce is that the property is returned in the condition it was initially let out at.

By that I mean that the next tenants may not appreciate the Deep Crimson Red living room walls you may prefer or the black gothic bedrooms.
In my properties I keep the decor very simple shade of magnolia and vary the colour in the rooms with accessories. You could decorate as you like as long as any colours or holes introduced are properly returned to original condition at the end of the tenancy.

The question however arises what length of security as a tenant would you be willing to sign up for? 2, 3, 5, 10 years etc
Would you want a clause to provide notice to leave the tenancy?
If so where is the security for the landlord?
If there is to be a release clause for the tenant, isn't an equally applicable notice fair for the landlord?
What would be the point in having say a 5 year lease if either party could give 6 months notice?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

I would be all in favour of secure tenancy, so long as there are equal protections in place for the landlord.

5 year lease, no problem.

Adjusts for RPI every year as commercial leases do, decorate how you like but return property in same condition you got it, and you are liable for the rent until the end of the 5 years no matter what, unless you find another tenant that is suitable.

Sounds fair enough to me, but I'm sure the "tenants rights brigade" will object...

carolt

On the contrary, sounds ideal.

As long as the landlord keeps their side of the bargain:

All repairs to be promptly undertaken (in the case of gas by appropriately qualified tradesmen); annual gas safety checks to be done without nagging; tenants' privacy respected. Oh, and mortgage paid. :eek:

Then tenants happy, landlord happy.

The former gets security; the latter gets no voids, mortgage paid for a nice long period.

ISTL's 6 month get-out clause sounds about right - sometimes people have to move, but usually have some idea 6 months before. And it can easily take that long to find a suitable place to move to.

So not as different an outlook as you imagined, Hamish?

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

ISTL's 6 month get-out clause sounds about right - sometimes people have to move, but usually have some idea 6 months before. And it can easily take that long to find a suitable place to move to.

How secure is the tenancy with 6 month notice?
It's only really secure for a rolling 6 month period

carolt

True, but 6 months is better than the standard 2 months. Or you could have a system where tenants had to give 6 months, but landlords had to abide by the full 5 year term, or whatever, but I suspect you'd object to that, wouldn't you?

seven-day-weekend

If I had an investment property (I have had one in the past), I would be happy to grant a five-year-lease providing there is scope for a 'break clause' with a six-month notice period for both tenant and landlord.

Last time we rented out, we gave our tenants a year's notice.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

True, but 6 months is better than the standard 2 months. Or you could have a system where tenants had to give 6 months, but landlords had to abide by the full 5 year term, or whatever, but I suspect you'd object to that, wouldn't you?

I'm all for fairness and equality.
If it should be believed that a 6 months clause is a valid timeframe for the tenant, then why is this not acceptable to be reciprocated for the landlord?

Getting into a negotiation for a 5 year contract requires much more involvement thought and planning from both the landlord and the tenant.

Essentially if a 6 month break out clause is put in place, then there is in essence no extra security gained for either the tenant or the landlord with the exception of increasing the notice period by 4 months.

Youd actually have more security signing up for a 1 year AST.

What would be the likely result of tenants signing up for 5 year agreements and being priced accordingly only for legally that to be possible to be ripped up in only 6 months?

there would need to be an equally weighted understanding of the impact of signing longer term leases

carolt

Have you ever been a tenant, ISTL?

There's a huge difference between being a landlord and a tenant, in that every time a tenant has to move, they not only have to find a new place, pay for and fill in checks, etc, they also have to physically move all of their possessions (and family, if applicable) into a house. They have to go through all the palaver of moving - packing up all their stuff, arranging removals firms, unpacking again, possibly buying new furniture to fit the space, incl new white goods, changing utility suppliers, postal redirection, informing everyone of the move, possibly changing schools etc etc - moving home is generally agreed to be up there with bereavement in terms of life's most stressful experiences.

By contrast, whilst obviously there is some upheaval for a landlord when a tenant moves (finding a new tenant, cleaning, rdecorating) it's not nearly as great.

Which is why I think it's reasonable for a landlord to have to lock themselves into a tenancy agreement for longer, to avoid putting the tenant through the stress of moving without good cause.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Have you ever been a tenant, ISTL?

Yes, for 3 1/2 years when I first left my parental home.
I can tell you as a home owner and previous tenant, home ownership is far advantageous than being a tenant.
That said, being a tenant was an important time in my independance learning and something I would recommend anyone for a short period before going on to the responsability of being a home owner

carolt wrote: »

There's a huge difference between being a landlord and a tenant, in that every time a tenant has to move, they not only have to find a new place, pay for and fill in checks, etc, they also have to physically move all of their possessions (and family, if applicable) into a house. They have to go through all the palaver of moving - packing up all their stuff, arranging removals firms, unpacking again, possibly buying new furniture to fit the space, incl new white goods, changing utility suppliers, postal redirection, informing everyone of the move, possibly changing schools etc etc - moving home is generally agreed to be up there with bereavement in terms of life's most stressful experiences.

Exactly the same as home owners when they move property.
Your painting a very good picture for the benefits of home ownership to renting.

carolt wrote: »

By contrast, whilst obviously there is some upheaval for a landlord when a tenant moves (finding a new tenant, cleaning, rdecorating) it's not nearly as great.

Which is why I think it's reasonable for a landlord to have to lock themselves into a tenancy agreement for longer, to avoid putting the tenant through the stress of moving without good cause.

A landlord will not wish to evict a good tenant without good cause.
A landlord will want to have a good tenant for as long as possible while they wish to utilise the property as a rental business.

What you are conveniently overlooking is when a landlord needs to evict a tenant. someone who may not be a good tenant i.e. not paying rent, damaging property etc

Explain again why a landlord should have less flexability than a tenant?

I'm all for equality. Yes I'll lease my property out for 5 years, but then I would expect the tenant to also be liable for those 5 years.

If there is to be flexibility for a tenant to move whenever only giving 6 months notice, why shouldn't this be similar for landlord?

nickmason

There is no reason - "fairness" included - why the contract should have the same notice period on either side. The rest of the contract is, after all, not a mirror image. Carolt has it right - if you want to break the addiction to ownership, you need to give individuals security in their rental arrangements. They will also then treat the property properly.

A 5yr obligation on a tenant is absurd. On a landlord it shouldn't be a burden at all.

The only problem I can see with this is the difficulty for landlords to sell, thus making it more difficult for the BTL brigade, and possibly a risk that only those with capital should be landlords. Which while clearly sensible - hmm - sounds like a familiar debate....