Calls for long term contracts as rents at record high

chewmylegoff

i wouldn't want to be tied in to renting a property for 5 years, i only rent because of the flexibility. whilst i recognise that not everyone has the choice, i might as well just buy somewhere if renting becomes more inflexible than owning.

wotsthat

Not sure why Shelter think we need Regulation.

Surely if someone wanted a longer tenancy agreement they'd just ask their landlord in the first instance and take it from there.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i wouldn't want to be tied in to renting a property for 5 years, i only rent because of the flexibility. whilst i recognise that not everyone has the choice, i might as well just buy somewhere if renting becomes more inflexible than owning.

This isn't what they are saying.

Indeed, the article states: "He added that the contracts should still allow landlords to evict bad tenants, or to sell up, and offer tenants the chance to leave if they gave two months' notice."

It's just more about security, which I would assume, means less of the S21 notices for seemingly anythinmg and everything.

Also, these 5 year contracts would set a certain limit for rental increases, capping them at inflation. So for instance, someone with a montly rental payment of £800, could only see a monthly increase of £20 this year.

Security is about more than just staying in the same house. It's about the kids staying in the same school etc. It's a bit worry for a lot of renters who fear being evicted at the landlords whim and having to move their children to another school etc.

PasturesNew

It was the changes in legislation (96/97 or so) giving birth to the AST that let somebody see a "gap in the market" and approached lenders to say "Hey, look, they can be evicted quite quickly now" ... and hence the start of the buying frenzy for BTL. Lenders didn't lend on longer tie-ins because if the LL defaulted they'd have a heck of a job getting their hands on the property to auction it off. Before that, with longer leases/more security, LLs had to stump up more like 50% of the house value and get a proper commercial loan.

Wheezy_2

There's not many areas where Belgium can serve as an example, but rental regulation surely is. They have the so-called 3-6-9 lease which can be explained like :
(blatantly copied from website)

A standard lease in Belgium runs for a period of nine years and is often referred to as a 3-6-9 lease.

This is because the base rent can be increased only at the beginning of each 3-year period, and then only if written notice has been given.

Under the standard lease, you must give at least three months’ notice in writing in order to break or terminate the lease (usually six or nine months’ notice is required).

If you break the lease within the first year, you must pay a penalty of three months’ rent. During the second year, the penalty is reduced to two months’ rent, and during the third year to one month’s rent. After the third year, there’s no penalty provided you’ve given adequate notice. After each three-year period, the landlord may eject you if he needs the property for his own or a close family member’s use, but he must give six months’ notice and pay you a large penalty (equal to nine months’ rent after three years and six months rent after six years).

If the landlord fails to give proper notice, he must pay you 18 months’ rent as a penalty. At the end of the nine-year lease period, the lease is automatically renewed for another nine years unless you or the landlord has given notice of an intention not to renew at least six months’ in advance by registered letter.

http://www.belgium.alloexpat.com/belgium_information/housing_in_belgium.php?page=0%2C2
Fair to both landlord and tenant I believe.

Callie22

I don't really get to know anything about my landlord before the tenancy starts - I get to know what a letting agent tells me, but that's often not true. My current letting agent couldn't sing the praises of my landlord highly enough at the start of the tenancy. Now we've moved in and the repairs aren't getting done, the agent's admitted to us that 'the landlord hasn't got a pot to p*** in' (his words ...) and there's 'no chance' that some fairly urgent stuff will get done.

My point here is that much as I'd like more security of tenure, there's no way I'd want to sign up for five (or more) years in a house if I can't guarantee that I'm going to be able to get repairs and maintenance done, to a reasonable standard, in a reasonable time. Much as I hate renting on short term contracts (and much as I hate wasting money on endless house moves) at least now I know I can move fairly quickly if I reach a point where I can't stand the letting agency or landlord, or if my health or safety is compromised too much.

LydiaJ

If you usually have to give 6 or 9 month's notice to leave a place where you've lived for a few years, are you able to arrange your next place to move into, that far in advance? What about it you're buying?

I was living in a rented house when I came into enough money to enable me to buy. It was very convenient for me to be on a rolling tenancy. When the other people in my chain got themselves sorted out, it was easy to find a date that was OK for me because I only had to give a month's notice.

I don't know what I could have done if I'd needed to give 9 months' notice to my LL. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to give notice on my tenancy before my house purchase was secure, but I doubt a chain would have been happy to hang around for 9months for me to see out my notice, and I wouldn't have wanted to be paying both rent and mortgage for months, either. So do tell us how it's managed in Belgium, please.

Thanks.

ruggedtoast

Wheezy wrote: »

There's not many areas where Belgium can serve as an example, but rental regulation surely is. They have the so-called 3-6-9 lease which can be explained like :
(blatantly copied from website)


http://www.belgium.alloexpat.com/belgium_information/housing_in_belgium.php?page=0%2C2
Fair to both landlord and tenant I believe.

That would have Britain's buy to let scum lords bursting with rage.

They operate on a 4 week window and have a can of magnolia and some MDF on standby to get more bodies through the door. They have some dingleberry of a letting agent with a fat tie and a limited command of written English to manage for them.

There is probably some pin head called Chas, who has a rusting panel van and who does "maintenance" that has a 50% chance of killing people.

And these prancing ingrates are who we have ended up with housing a land "fit for heroes".

This country knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

chucknorris

JonnyBravo wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19664133

Landlords should offer five year tenancies.

I'm not against it. I love the security of a (good) tenant. Not too sure many tenants will be interested. Even the tenant I had for over 5 years only wanted a year at a time.

Same here, although I would hope that the 5 year would be optional, because I do want to sell up eventually (I have owned investment property over 21 years). It is important to sell at the right time and selling with a tenant isn't going to appeal to the wider market. But that Belguim system sounds OK to me.

homelessskilledworker

JonnyBravo wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19664133

Landlords should offer five year tenancies.

I'm not against it. I love the security of a (good) tenant. Not too sure many tenants will be interested. Even the tenant I had for over 5 years only wanted a year at a time.

Just out of interest Johnny, would you be happy to allow your imaginary tenants 5 year tenancies with the option to give you a month or two notice??
And out of interest would any of the real landlords allow this.