What will the new government mean for tenants?

pyueck

If I had to give Labour a rating out of 10 for how they have treated tenants I would probably give them a 5.

Legislation wise, Labour certainly took their time before they passed any meaningful housing legislation, but when the housing act was passed in 2004, it certainly did end many of the most clear problems for tenants (i.e. landlords charging tenants what they like at the end of the tenancy out of their deposit, with the tenants only course of redress being the courts). For all it's failings the housing act 2004 has in my opinion been a good piece of legislation, although sloppy wording and odd interpretations by the court (especially with regard to the penalty for not protecting deposits) has somewhat undermined its good intentions. Unfortunately on the downside, Labour can probably get a 1/10 for supplying rented accomodation to the social sector, and their inability to allow the building of new homes (especially appropriately proportioned properties) has left a generation of tenants with overpriced accomodation that does not provide adequate living space, and does not cater for basic needs (i.e. somewhere to dry clothes, storage space etc). Also the labour government can be praised for making progress on registering estate agents, although letting agents remain stubbornly unregulated. Unfortunately the problem of letting agents being completely untrained, unregistered and having no requirement to be part of an ombudsman scheme leaves tenants with little redress if they need to make a complaint against a letting agent. Also while landlords now have legally many obligations, the tenants ability to enforce these obligations relies on them taking court action, something that seems unfair in a consumer/business relationship, and puts most consumers off excercising their legal rights.

I would like to see the new government bringing in legislation that registers and regulates all agents and landlords. Secondly I would like the independant dispute resolution avaliable to tenants (not just for deposits) to be free and funded by the industry, much like the FOS is for banking. Finally I would like the government to reduce the restrictions on building on green belt land, as currently almost all developments (especially in the south east) are flats built on brownfield land, where the developers cram in accomodation to maximise profits, leaving tenants with living space that is very small and barely any outside space.

I really hope the new government gets its head out of the sand when it comes to housing, difficult decisions relating to greenbelt need to be made, as currently this legislation is affecting the lives of millions of the countries poorest people.

clutton_2

i see you are on your usual "exaggeration soapbox" when you say

""has left a generation of tenants with overpriced accomodation that does not provide adequate living space, and does not cater for basic needs (i.e. somewhere to dry clothes, storage space etc"

You are referring to inner city apartements/flats.....

there are millions of terraced, semi detached and detached houses in the Private Rental Sector all of which have outside space and plenty of it.....

you also say ""(i.e. landlords charging tenants what they like at the end of the tenancy out of their deposit, with the tenants only course of redress being the courts""

this should read " a small proportion of landlords"

btw - the court option is still available to both parties as use of the ADRs is not compulsory - i think this was a backward step in the legislation

i also agree that some green belt will need to be re-categorised soon.



if you want to be taken seriously stop start being objective for once.....

adg1

pyueck wrote: »

does not cater for basic needs (i.e. somewhere to dry clothes, storage space etc).

Since when has somewhere to dry clothes and storage space been a 'basic need'?

Water supply, sanitation, power etc are basic needs not an extra bit of space to hang out some washing.

Jowo_2

This should be moved to Discussion Time.

The bill for LHA will approach 20 billion pounds next year. Market rents in some areas are far higher than the tenants can earn through employment. The loss of social housing through Right to Buy has created a benefits model that effectively bankrupts the nation.

Having said that, living in social housing should be a springboard into employment as the tenants aren't hobbled by such high rents yet typically social housing tenants are benefit dependent and have a high degree of worklessness. Building more social housing will not improve the employment prospects of its occupants.

The new government needs to cap immigration which is contributing to the housing shortage/high rents and make changes to the benefits system which means single parents often receive more in benefits than they can receive through employment.

For example, a single parent of 2 children typically receives in their hand each week around £65 income support, £35 in child benefit and £100 tax credits. On top of this £200 per week, they get full council tax discount so this equates to around 11.5k per year, the equivalent of a taxable salary of around 14, and not have to pay a penny towards their rent, no exposure to child care costs and no travel expenses for work.

They can keep all the CSA they are given, plus up to £15 per week if their rent is lower than the LHA rate. If their rent is £200 per week, which it is for 2 bedroom properties in many areas, this takes up their notional income to more than £400 per week through all their benefits, which means they'd need to earn £500 per week to replace what they receive through the state, plus have a liability to pay travel expenses to get to work and childcare costs they did not have to spend on before.

There are hundreds of thousands of single parent households currently enjoying a standard of living that they cannot replicate in employment.

Hopefully the proposed changes in the tax system which tempt more into employment.

pyueck

clutton wrote: »

i see you are on your usual "exaggeration soapbox" when you say

""has left a generation of tenants with overpriced accomodation that does not provide adequate living space, and does not cater for basic needs (i.e. somewhere to dry clothes, storage space etc"

You are referring to inner city apartements/flats.....

there are millions of terraced, semi detached and detached houses in the Private Rental Sector all of which have outside space and plenty of it.....

you also say ""(i.e. landlords charging tenants what they like at the end of the tenancy out of their deposit, with the tenants only course of redress being the courts""

this should read " a small proportion of landlords"

btw - the court option is still available to both parties as use of the ADRs is not compulsory - i think this was a backward step in the legislation

i also agree that some green belt will need to be re-categorised soon.



if you want to be taken seriously stop start being objective for once.....

Your post is completely unfair.

Firstly, I never said that there are not houses with outside spaces in the private rental sector. My point was that due to the government's housing policy, most new rented accomodation is small, with not much living space. You correctly highlight that the trend in the last government was to supply city flats, which for many young people working in cities are their only realistic prospect of affordable accomodation.

Secondly I said landlords used to charge tenants what they like at the end of the tenancy before the housing Act 2004 with the tenants only line of redress being the court. This is correct, landlords did charge what they like, I never said all landlords took this opportunity. My point was not as you seem to want to make it that all landlords are bad, but that tenants were not protected from bad landlords.

Your point about ADR not being compulsory is an interesting one, I suspect it was put into the legistation to protect tenants and landlords if there was a feeling that the ADR was not robust or giving balanced judgements.

pyueck

adg1 wrote: »

Since when has somewhere to dry clothes and storage space been a 'basic need'?

Water supply, sanitation, power etc are basic needs not an extra bit of space to hang out some washing.

Do you seriously believe this? Just where do you intend tenants to dry their clothes if they are not provided with a tumble drier or outside space?

N79

clutton wrote: »

i see you are on your usual "exaggeration soapbox" when you say ..... if you want to be taken seriously stop start being objective for once.....

Come off it Clutton - your post is a little jaded. There is nothing wrong with pyuek's post.

Jowo wrote: »

This should be moved to Discussion Time.

However, I agree with this. I also agree that LHA is distorting the rental market and that one of the biggest problems in the UK is affordable housing - whether social or private. The construction of a huge number of tiny flats has merely been the construction of the ghettos of tomorrow. I'm not sure why pyuek thinks this problem is limited to Ts - plenty of owner occupiers have bought these flats and lots of them are part of various shared ownership (property price prop) scams. They are just badly designed. Where are the large family flats?

I also agree with pyuek that deposit protection is a good development as it stopped an abuse that was most definately perpertrated by a large minority of LLs.

pyueck wrote: »

Do you seriously believe this? Just where do you intend tenants to dry their clothes if they are not provided with a tumble drier or outside space?

The local laundrette. A tumble dryer is not an essential of life. Unrealistic housing expectations are part of the overall problem as these unrealistic expectations get in the way of the provision of acceptable standard, affordable housing.

However, one thing that has always puzzled me is why people are so reluctant to use the courts to resolve disputes and why people think that some sort of alternative process is better?

adg1

pyueck wrote: »

Do you seriously believe this? Just where do you intend tenants to dry their clothes if they are not provided with a tumble drier or outside space?

On a clothes horse. Get one that hangs over the bath, or fits in the corner of the lounge.

Or why not build floating gardens for the city centre flats, one each of course, so tenants can hang things outside.

You actually believe that having a place to dry clothes additionally to the living space in the property is a human right?! Would you really rank it along side water supply and sanitation?

lynzpower

adg1 wrote: »

Since when has somewhere to dry clothes and storage space been a 'basic need'?

Water supply, sanitation, power etc are basic needs not an extra bit of space to hang out some washing.

HHSRS - look into it !

pyueck

adg1 wrote: »

On a clothes horse. Get one that hangs over the bath, or fits in the corner of the lounge.

Or why not build floating gardens for the city centre flats, one each of course, so tenants can hang things outside.

You actually believe that having a place to dry clothes additionally to the living space in the property is a human right?! Would you really rank it along side water supply and sanitation?

I said:

'their inability to allow the building of new homes (especially appropriately proportioned properties) has left a generation of tenants with overpriced accomodation that does not provide adequate living space, and does not cater for basic needs (i.e. somewhere to dry clothes, storage space etc)'

Firstly I agree the problem also applies to home buyers, but my main campaign is for tenants rights.

I did not say that a separate space in a property to dry clothes is a human right, I said it was a basic need. Let me clarify. Maybe i'm not the norm, but I choose to wash my clothes on a pretty regular basis. When clothes are washed they get pretty wet and need to dry. Landlords often supply washing machines but not tumble driers. The size of many modern day flats means that by hanging up clothes around the house, living space is seriously affected. I know this may sound ridiculous to somebody swanning around in their five bed detached, but when your only living space is a bedroom and a very small lounge with kitchen built in this can be a real problem. Laundrette's are expensive for people on modest incomes, are time consuming to use and any many towns no longer have one. Many flats also do not have baths to dry clothes in. Finally drying clothes in a very small area in which you live can cause damp and problems for people with breathing difficulties.

You may even argue that because of the health impacts of the current conditions in which people do dry their clothes it is a human right under Article 25

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

I though never spoke of human rights, I spoke of the basic needs of people living in accomodation, and I believe adequate provision for drying clothes is a real problem with the design of modern properties.

BexInLondon

Clothes horse, window open, job done.