Priced out generation fights back

IveSeenTheLight

nickmason wrote: »

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.

The employee / employer relation is quite a good one, however as you have seen in the last couple of years, redundancy is a means whereby employers can get you to leave their employment with very little payment in relation to what you might earn.

It's not as one sided as you portray

nickmason

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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.

But why!? Why does it have to be the same? If it's of more value to the tenant than to you as the landlord, surely you'd be better off charging for the difference, rather than the "we'll all go down together" approach?

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.

I've been in this situation, and actually it's not that easy, because all the apparatus of finding alternative tenants exists for the landlord, not the outgoing tenants. As such it requires a landlord to actually do the work.

IveSeenTheLight

nickmason wrote: »

But why!? Why does it have to be the same? If it's of more value to the tenant than to you as the landlord, surely you'd be better off charging for the difference, rather than the "we'll all go down together" approach?

It's not a case of all going down together.
The market is what it is and there is a balancing in order to be competative to ensure there are no voids.

I market my property how I believe it fits in best with the local market, but of course upong contract negotiation, length of contract, price, etc etc etc can all be discussed.

nickmason wrote: »

I've been in this situation, and actually it's not that easy, because all the apparatus of finding alternative tenants exists for the landlord, not the outgoing tenants. As such it requires a landlord to actually do the work.

As a LL, I've also been in this situation and thanked by the tenant when I obtained tenants a month earlier than her contract expiry.

The LL, still has a requirement to find alternative tenants as at some point the contract would expire and new tenants would have to be sought otherwise.
If anything, it's in the interests of the LL to find tenants earlier as it reduces the risk of non paying tenants and essentially extends the contract length till expiry.

Running_Horse

From the same paper:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/apr/10/priced-out-property-mortgages-homeownership