The Shame of Britain. Young shredded in inter-generational economic meat grinder

Bantex_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

I live in the real world.

Yes, there are very real problems with the London market overheating and have been for some time, but that degree of acuteness is not suffered to that extent by the rest of the country. I do not like that there is a shortage of housing any more than you do, and - like you I suspect - would also like to see more building, both in London and the rest of the country.

However, the regulations are better than they used to be. There's also room for them to get better: for example letting agency regulation as Graham pointed out. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to prove me wrong and show how the regulations are now worse.

Say, as rugged asserts, everything was rosy in the past, and the current generation of young workers really was the only one that had ever been affected. Were that the case, then you wouldn't have heard of Rachman in the fifties and sixties, or had programmes like Rising Damp made in the 70s. Shorthold tenancies of one form or another have been the norm in private renting for a very long time (late 80s?). Large scale council house building finished before the vast majority of boomers reached maturity. It is good that people - all people of all ages - have increased rights.

I maintain though that people are right to fight their landlords if there is a problem. They shouldn't roll over and give in. I have helped some people that I know with issues with theirs. In one case the heating to the house didn't work, in the other a roof leak went unrepaired. Both were sorted out with a bit of pushing but without going as far as a letter before action. I don't know what the stats are, if you have them I would be interested to know, but I would imagine that the vast majority of people get problems sorted before resorting to court. Tenants want good landlords, but equally landlords want good tenants and they don't want to give up on good regular payers and risk voids. Again, if you feel that this is wrong and that a whole generation is suffering, please feel free to prove it.

A whole generation is one heck of an emotive statement, and I would imagine, quite wrong.

Bit one sided when a landlord has an absolute tight to evict at 2 months notice for no reason at all.

moneyinmypocket

Why are renters moaning? They have a roof over there heads. If they don't like a house they can move somewhere else?

tiger_eyes

I truly hate the term "yoof" with a burning passion.

JencParker

vivatifosi wrote: »

I live in the real world.

Yes, there are very real problems with the London market overheating and have been for some time, but that degree of acuteness is not suffered to that extent by the rest of the country. I do not like that there is a shortage of housing any more than you do, and - like you I suspect - would also like to see more building, both in London and the rest of the country.

However, the regulations are better than they used to be. There's also room for them to get better: for example letting agency regulation as Graham pointed out. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to prove me wrong and show how the regulations are now worse.

Say, as rugged asserts, everything was rosy in the past, and the current generation of young workers really was the only one that had ever been affected. Were that the case, then you wouldn't have heard of Rachman in the fifties and sixties, or had programmes like Rising Damp made in the 70s. Shorthold tenancies of one form or another have been the norm in private renting for a very long time (late 80s?). Large scale council house building finished before the vast majority of boomers reached maturity. It is good that people - all people of all ages - have increased rights.

I maintain though that people are right to fight their landlords if there is a problem. They shouldn't roll over and give in. I have helped some people that I know with issues with theirs. In one case the heating to the house didn't work, in the other a roof leak went unrepaired. Both were sorted out with a bit of pushing but without going as far as a letter before action. I don't know what the stats are, if you have them I would be interested to know, but I would imagine that the vast majority of people get problems sorted before resorting to court. Tenants want good landlords, but equally landlords want good tenants and they don't want to give up on good regular payers and risk voids. Again, if you feel that this is wrong and that a whole generation is suffering, please feel free to prove it.

A whole generation is one heck of an emotive statement, and I would imagine, quite wrong.

Which regulations are better? The ones that give tenants no right to stay any more than they are contracted to - typically 6 or 12 months? The ones that mean having to move and find somewhere else to live every year (which includes having to find deposits/agency fees/credit check fees etc.) The ones where, other than for a very limited period of time, they are at the mercy of whether a landlord lets you stay or not.

Renting as it stands now, is about having somewhere to live for a limited period of time, it is not about having a home.

I am a boomer so I remember well how renting was. My first rented flat was rented under the Rent Act and I could still have been living there now, paying a reasonable rather than extortionate rent, had I not bought. Of course it was not all rosey, however, it has gone to the other extreme where the tenant has few rights and everything favours the landlord/investor.

You might maintain the right for tenants to fight for their lives, but the reality is that they can seldom afford to do so. The very nature of the situation is that those renting are generally those least able to afford legal costs. If they had that sort of income they would have bought.

Of course things weren't always rosey - I lived through the 15% interest rates - buying a house was always a struggle, however, things are far more difficult for the young today.

ruggedtoast

There is absolutely no point in anyone with an AST trying to fight any kind of legal battle with their landlord as they will just be promptly evicted.

Most tenants think carefully before complaining about anything because the landlord tenant power base is so one sided.

I have no idea what this 'letter before action' is supposed to do. Prepare you for the action of moving house yet again maybe. ..

Nice_Weather_For_Ducks

It someone wants to succeed, and put in hard work to do so, then they will. Whether it be a young person today, or a young person 30 years ago.

I would say that person would have even more chance today, as the % of people who are hard working, reliable, honest and literate seems to be much lower today than it was 30 years ago, so there is less competition!

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I would invite you to try living as a private tenant for a few years if you think it's so pleasant.

No?

Didn't think so.

Now bear in mind that that living arrangement that you (sensibly) would not go near with a barge pole is all many young people are expecting for the rest of their lives.

all my children have lived as private tenants without any difficulty.

most of my friends have children who have lived as private tenants without difficult

the only real problem that anyone had was when they unfortunately lived in a housing association flat


I'm sure in varies between landlord and landlord and I'm sure they are many very poor landlords but the majority are running a business

Graham_Devon

vivatifosi wrote: »

However, the regulations are better than they used to be. There's also room for them to get better: for example letting agency regulation as Graham pointed out. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to prove me wrong and show how the regulations are now worse.

The regulation is better, certainly.

However, considering the massive increase in BTL, letting agents, HMO's etc etc, the regulation is, IMO, still woeful.

For example, protecting deposits.. The law says a deposit has to be protected. However, in law, so long as the landlord protects the deposit the day before the court case, the landlord is covered. What then, is the point of the tenant pursuing it? They have to wait until their contract has ended in order to fight their corner.

It's a bit like going to court for a drink driving case and the judge throwing it out as the defendant is now sober on the court date.

The problem is, it costs the tenant money in order to try and protect themselves. It also costs them their home (they will be evicted) and it may cost them their deposit as the landlord tries to keep as much from the deposit as possible for wear and tear items.

So while the regulation has got better, it's become somewhat more involved and costly, sometimes even pointless.

The way the regulation is set out at the moment, the only real time you are going to get anywhere is when you have a good landlord doing everything by the book - and in that case, you are unlikely to require the protection.

That said, the current regulation is sub standard for landlords with bad tenants too.

MobileSaver

Bantex wrote: »

Bit one sided when a landlord has an absolute tight to evict at 2 months notice for no reason at all.

Hardly one sided when a tenant can leave on the last day of a fixed term AST with absolutely no notice or if on a periodic agreement only has to give just one month's notice.

Fella

Young people in the UK are massively privileged & pampered compared to most young people in the world.

And yet some of them still seethe & whine that they don't have more.