Labour plans longer tenancies and rent control

Gangaweed

Generali wrote: »

The biggest part of the problem there is that there is no money. There simply isn't a way for the Government to build, say, 400,000 houses a year for the next 8-10 years.

Course there is. They've just created bazillions through QE. The government is spending £25billion a year on housing benefit. If councils only (nevermind the private sector) built 200,000 homes a year for 3 years in the right places, that would pay for itself.

This policy is madness. Ed may diagnose problems much better than Cameron but he comes up with the most stupid way of solving them. They should have learnt from the 70s but no... they are slow learners and need to be reminded every couple of generations.

At the moment there is a shortage of houses, hence they are allocated based on wealth. With Ed in the driving seat, they would simply be allocated on a much less transparent means.

Fella

Bantex wrote: »

If all these landlords chucked it in, what would happen to all the properties?

They'd be sold. Whether that would do anything to address the shortage is another matter given the increasing population. And obviously there wouldn't be extra more houses, just less of those existing houses would be rentals.

GeorgeHowell

BTL has stimulated new builds. A lot of properties have been built with BTL landlords as part of the target market, especially flats. If BTL collapses this will stop, and the slack will not necessarily be taken up with new builds for owner occupation. The rate of increase in the total stock of available housing will reduce over time. The ignorance displayed over these straightforward economic realities is nothing short of frightening.

Conrad

STOP PRESS**




The Labour run London council where I have 2 buy to let flats has just announced the regulation of the local lettings market.


This means the following for me;


£575 fee to the council
Hardwired smoke alarms - installed by an electrician
Fire doors
Door closure mechanisms


Etc etc


So guess what I've just decided to do? Bare in mind I only completed on one of these last Friday.


I'm going to sell it.


Why, because the tory run borough next door where I also have a flat has none of this. I shall stick to buying here.


I do not want a nanny state hectoring me as I am a decent landlord and cannot stand the nanny state interfering in contracts between willing adults.




WHAT WILL THIS MEAN?


Having spoken to a few other LL's this morning others are also selling - the sales market is booming btw.


This thus means less rental supply so rents will rise.




Well done Labour, another back firing initiative.

chucknorris

Conrad wrote: »

STOP PRESS**




The Labour run London council where I have 2 buy to let flats has just announced the regulation of the local lettings market.


This means the following for me;


£575 fee to the council
Hardwired smoke alarms - installed by an electrician
Fire doors
Door closure mechanisms

Which council is this? Is your house an HMO? That fee sounds high is it annual?

N1AK

Bantex wrote: »

If all these landlords chucked it in, what would happen to all the properties?

That's a bit like asking what we'd do if all the nuclear reactors on earth spontaneously blew up at the same time: Both pointless and misleading.

A few moderate changes to how renting/letting works isn't going to lead to a complete exodus from the market. The small proportion that choose to leave the market are more likely to sell than leave them empty. The buyers would likely be potential renters or new landlords. So the impact is likely to be limited.

Personally I think Labours proposals go too far, and rent controls generally lead to as many issues as they solve (landlords looking for excuses to kick long term tenants out because they could get far more rent from a new tenant etc). I do however think that stronger tenants rights would be a good thing. The argument that government interference is automatically a bad thing is a bit of a red herring because there's already huge amounts of government involvement to ensure deposits are treated properly, properties are safe etc and I don't think many people think these are bad things.

N1AK

Gangaweed wrote: »

This policy is madness. Ed may diagnose problems much better than Cameron but he comes up with the most stupid way of solving them.

To be fair he did previously propose building more housing, with money that has since been allocated elsewhere. It seems that building more houses just isn't a politically viable policy because for every vote you gain from someone who appreciates it needs to be done you lose 10 from NIMBYs who worry the homes will be near them.

However you have to be seen to do something. That's why the current government brought in HTB etc etc, and that's why Labour are currently talking about rent reform.

GeorgeHowell

The main reason that NIMBYs don't want homes near them is because builders are allowed to put up jerry-built rabbit hutches, clustered together like eggs in a box, often in unsuitable locations, and often without adequate improvements in infrastructure to maintain the quality of life in the area.

Conrad

chucknorris wrote: »

Which council is this? Is your house an HMO? That fee sounds high is it annual?

I do not live in the area, it's Enfield.
The fee is every 5 years.
Applies to all lettings, not just HMO's.

chucknorris

Conrad wrote: »

I do not live in the area, it's Enfield.
The fee is every 5 years.
Applies to all lettings, not just HMO's.

I thought perhaps the fire doors and door closers were to do with HMO's? Or has that to do with a loft conversion or just a 2nd floor?


I'm not sure how I feel about it to be honest, on the one hand it might get rid of some rogue landlords, but it could also be the start of an ever increasing continual interference. So I can understand your change of heart, are there any other newly introduced rules or additional admin?