Priced out generation fights back

IveSeenTheLight

nickmason wrote: »

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

Can you highlight in any business where a long term contract is tied for one party while the other party can break the contract on relatively short notice?

Liability for the contract length and notice needs to be relatively similar in my opinion

nickmason

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

In which case can't we look to change the balance? Particularly if home ownership is only available to some.

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

I refer to my previous point...

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.

Not true - they might just want to be returning to "their" home, as happened to me after 4 months. No great problem there of course, but how will you differentiate between a business landlord and a "but it's MY home, really" landlord?

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?

Because they're the service provider (aka the person making money from the arrangement).

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.

I find equality pretty difficult to realise outside of abstract utopias, but that's a pretty wierd definition of equality

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?

IveSeenTheLight

nickmason wrote: »

Because they're the service provider (aka the person making money from the arrangement).

If I sign a contract with sky / a mobile phone company, a utilities company for fixed rates etc, should I not be liable to meet the terms, conditions and length of the contract?

They are all service providers, but I don't recall options of notice to be released from the contract length earlier than the agreed contract length.

nickmason

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Can you highlight in any business where a long term contract is tied for one party while the other party can break the contract on relatively short notice?

Liability for the contract length and notice needs to be relatively similar in my opinion

Housing is a pretty unusual contract. The absence of any good examples - although I'm sure there are some - doesn't mean that housing shouldn't be uniquely organised.

Similarly, of course, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am, but opinions are not reasons. I am curious as to whether there is a technical reason why the contract length should be similar?

If subletting were allowed, then I would think there to be less need for tenants to be on short notice periods, and so maybe we could equalise it on tidiness grounds.

Thinking about that - what happens with car leases? If I were to lease a car, could I cancel at any point? Presumably I can't sell it on, which seems equivalent to subletting. Can the lessor (?) take it back before term?

Incidentally, albeit slightly playfully, an example is public service provision. An individual can just up sticks and go, and stop paying taxes - whereas providers can't just stop. Of course it's not a contract per se, but then I'm not sure we want to be in a country where rights to home ownership are simply a commercial arrangement.

nickmason

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If I sign a contract with sky / a mobile phone company, a utilities company for fixed rates etc, should I not be liable to meet the terms, conditions and length of the contract?

They are all service providers, but I don't recall options of notice to be released from the contract length earlier than the agreed contract length.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.There are two points here.
1) Service providers should provide what customers want. The market is supposed to make them do that (hence the ban on cartels etc). Of course you should be liable to the contract you sign; but you - as customer - should have choice over the nature of the contract. When it's the suppliers who have control, rather than customers who have choice, then we have problems.
Therefore
2) If the incentives are different for provider and recipient - there is a greater need/benefit for tenants to have security of tenure - then it should be the case that the contracts might have different terms.

IveSeenTheLight

nickmason wrote: »

Housing is a pretty unusual contract. The absence of any good examples - although I'm sure there are some - doesn't mean that housing shouldn't be uniquely organised.

I was merely looking for a comparios so it would be easier to understand the implicaitons.
Isn't the fact that the absence of any good examples not an indicator as to why they are not widely utilised?

I'd love to be able to sign up for sky / mobile etc and then move / stop whenever I wanted without being held to a pre-determined contract length.

nickmason wrote: »

Similarly, of course, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am, but opinions are not reasons. I am curious as to whether there is a technical reason why the contract length should be similar?

They are similar because there has to be an agreement between the supplier and the client as to how long the service will be provided for.

nickmason wrote: »

If subletting were allowed, then I would think there to be less need for tenants to be on short notice periods, and so maybe we could equalise it on tidiness grounds.

As I understand it, sub letting would become a legal nightmare.

IveSeenTheLight

nickmason wrote: »

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.There are two points here.
1) Service providers should provide what customers want. The market is supposed to make them do that (hence the ban on cartels etc). Of course you should be liable to the contract you sign; but you - as customer - should have choice over the nature of the contract. When it's the suppliers who have control, rather than customers who have choice, then we have problems.

That's the point, the tenancy agreement is a contract agreement, between the supplier (landlord) and the customer (tenant).

Only when the two are agreed is the tenancy contract signed.

I'm happy to give tenants a 5 year lease and if they wish to include a 6 month notification clause I'm happy to include that as well.
I would however wish to include that as a Landlord I too have the same 6 month notice ability.

Similarly I would not expect the tenant to agree to 5 years with no notification while I have the 6 month safety net

nickmason wrote: »

Therefore
2) If the incentives are different for provider and recipient - there is a greater need/benefit for tenants to have security of tenure - then it should be the case that the contracts might have different terms.

Not with you here.

I could go into a supplier and agree to purchase something over 48 months.
I wouldn't expect to be able to hand it back and break the contract after only 6 months.

nickmason

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I was merely looking for a comparios so it would be easier to understand the implicaitons.
Isn't the fact that the absence of any good examples not an indicator as to why they are not widely utilised?

hmm - I'm sure that has been the clamour of many a good luddite!

I'd love to be able to sign up for sky / mobile etc and then move / stop whenever I wanted without being held to a pre-determined contract length.

Actually you can with mobiles. Pay as you go. Or broadband payg suppliers. Sky is different - as per my point, they have a monopoly, so the competition mechanic breaks down. Of course, a new market is normally characterised by a "customer grab", so loss-leading contracts are offered to snare them. These contracts have tie-ins, but are otherwise cheaper than the no-commitment arrangement because the acquisition cost has been factored in, and so they dominate the market.

Housing of course isn't really the same; the "market" for different contracts doesn't really exist, it's determined by legislation.

They are similar because there has to be an agreement between the supplier and the client as to how long the service will be provided for.

That still doesn't explain technically why they should be similar. Most customer rights aren't mirrored by supplier rights.

As I understand it, sub letting would become a legal nightmare.

I think this is probably the case. Which is why it seems to me that there is a reason why asking for 5years on both sides of the contract doesn't work - it would be very difficult for tenants to manage.

nickmason

I think the question is whether this is simply an exchange of goods over time (in which case ISTL's position holds, although I maintain that if there were competition in the marketplace then contracts would still evolve to different timescales)

OR whether this is an exchange of money for a service.

For example, employment is money for a service. We have employee rights, that are not replicated in employer rights. I can leave my employer with a letter and 3 months notice; they - basically - can't do the same. I cannot see why the two sides need to be identical - after all the substantive element is of a completely different nature anyhow.

IveSeenTheLight

nickmason wrote: »

I think this is probably the case. Which is why it seems to me that there is a reason why asking for 5years on both sides of the contract doesn't work - it would be very difficult for tenants to manage.

Which brings it back nicely to the point I initially made in what length of security is a tenant looking for?

There are loads of options in property from length of tenancy, to location, to property type, to multple tenants (sharing) etc.
It's about finding out what you want and fitting it in with your requirements.

Like I've said before, I'm happy to give tenants a long term lease, with no early release clause for the landlord.
I would however expect a similar liability to be in force for my tenant.

Of course if I agreed a 5 year lease and a tenant expressed a need to break the clause after 1 year, I'd work with them to find alternative tenants who cover the remaining term of the agreement.