We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tenants' rights when renting a home
Comments
-
The cost for a landlord to operate their business doesn't have a direct link to the cost of renting a property from them. The cost is directly linked to how much tenants can or are willing to pay.
All threads on renting on this forum are the same. If you impose any cost to the landlord, it will always be passed on to the tenant, however, no reductions in costs ever will. That's just how this forum is, and it's been done to death.
Rents are usually roughly set by housing benefits anyway, at least that's my experience. You don't get 3 bed homes marked at higher prices exclusively let to non housing benefit recipients. You do see add's saying no DSS, but theres very little difference in price, if any.0 -
It depends on the business and where the business will primarily be making money. BTL is a high capital, low yield (when leverage is involved) investment. I imagine a lot of the newer (last 20 years) BTL businesses are banking on long term capital appreciation more so than the actual yields from tenants.0
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »All threads on renting on this forum are the same. If you impose any cost to the landlord, it will always be passed on to the tenant, however, no reductions in costs ever will.
That is probably because most landlords are normal businesses and pass on extra costs just like any other business. It's not rocket science.Graham_Devon wrote: »Rents are usually roughly set by housing benefits anyway, at least that's my experience.
Er, you could not be more wrong, it is the other way around. Housing benefit (LHA) is set by looking at the average rent in the local area.Every generation blames the one before...
Mike + The Mechanics - The Living Years0 -
The landlord in that case with the 92 year old women had no business renting out a flat he/she had no intention of maintaining.0
-
moneyinmypocket wrote: »The landlord in that case with the 92 year old women had no business renting out a flat he/she had no intention of maintaining.
I am starting to really like you:rotfl::rotfl:0 -
What I find interesting is that same people who demand 'moral hazard' when buying a house with a mortgage, are the same people who demand a raft of legislation to protect people from renting. Aside from structural problems that cannot be seen by the naked eye, if a property looks shabby and uncared for, then don't rent it. If a property you are renting is neglected then move on.
It's not rocket science. Tenants should have the 'moral hazard' of finding themselves a nice place to live and of moving out if they thing the landlord is neglecting the building.0 -
Maybe a criminal rather than a civil liability would be the way forward in the case of such an (apparent) colossal failure on the part of the landlord. It might help concentrate the mind a little more.0
-
When thinking about the rules that should apply to letting a property, maybe it would make sense to think about whether the same rule(s) should apply on the sale of a property?
e.g if you want to make something a criminal offence for letting, could you reasonably do the same with a sale?
generally the market controls the adequacy of rental property and price. There are cases where LLs do not comply with their obligations, but that's true in almost every other market:-
Financial Advice
Food sales
Double Glazing
Kitchen Fitting
I'd be surprised if anyone can come up with a single market-force driven, cusomter orientated service/sale that does not have examples of sharp/illegal practice; however. for the most part, they only become illegal if they are a significant threat to life or relate to some sort of fraudulent activity.
:cool:0 -
-
Not really. A sale is a one off event: caveat emptor. A rental agreement is an ongoing obligation.
You've simply described the difference between the two situations. You haven't given any reason the two cannot be treated with similar regulations.
I think everyone knows that a sale is a one-off event. However, the sale of a property as long term implications. Are people who buy houses much more aware of the risks, concerns and implcations of their purchase than renters are of their commitment?
You could put "caveat emptor" against rental commitments, with similar consequences.
:cool:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards