Labour plans longer tenancies and rent control

CLAPTON

off topic I know




all official bodies support the use of self closing fire doors


every actual fireman tells the joke --


-what are fire extinguishers used for?
answer - to jam fire door open


self closing fire doors in private properties are either disabled or kill people in the event of fire by being jammed open.

JencParker

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


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.

But there's always a silver lining - more property available to those that wish to buy their own home.

ladeeda

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


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.

I'm sure that the electricity, gas & water suppliers would rather not be regulated either - it costs. Mortgages (for owner occupiers anyway) and insurances for properties are regulated. These are all contracts between willing adults or would you see this as nanny state interference too?

Regulation is part and parcel of running a legitimate business. We wouldn't just accept the word of any utility company that they are providing a decent service, neither should we be expected to. Why should we then do this for the providers of housing? Providers of rental property should be regulated to ensure a decent, secure, reliable service offering consistency to tenants across the country.

And if landlords don't like the business they are in, or can't make it work financially then they have the choice to leave by selling as you are doing. Hopefully regulation will become country wide rather than specific to particular councils.

Generali

ladeeda wrote: »

I'm sure that the electricity, gas & water suppliers would rather not be regulated either - it costs. Mortgages (for owner occupiers anyway) and insurances for properties are regulated. These are all contracts between willing adults or would you see this as nanny state interference too?

Regulation is part and parcel of running a legitimate business. We wouldn't just accept the word of any utility company that they are providing a decent service, neither should we be expected to. Why should we then do this for the providers of housing? Providers of rental property should be regulated to ensure a decent, secure, reliable service offering consistency to tenants across the country.

And if landlords don't like the business they are in, or can't make it work financially then they have the choice to leave by selling as you are doing. Hopefully regulation will become country wide rather than specific to particular councils.

The difference is that utilities firms have monopolies, Landlords don't.

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

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.

What do you mean by that?

I agree that adequate infrastructure is required but NIMBYs often are unhappy about starter housing. If they are willing to consent to new houses they want properties of the type that their sort of people might live in.

ladeeda

Generali wrote: »

The difference is that utilities firms have monopolies, Landlords don't.

True, no formal monopoly exists. As a wild untethered group a monopoly of sorts exists though - the lack of regulation of BTL mortgages combined with a shortage of housing enables this.

If you can’t afford to buy & there is little chance of social housing, you are left with LL's who have possession & control of the supply of PRS housing. An unfair advantage exists.

BobQ

Bantex wrote: »

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

They would be progressively sold and the increased supply of homes to buy would make it more affordable for some of the renters as prices would probably be more moderate.

Frankly, all this opposition is absurd. We all agree that if you want to make rents lower you must increase the supply of affordable properties to buy by building more. This proposal may make a marginal adjustment in the supply of houses to buy if landlords decided to sell.

All Milliband is saying is tenants have less rights than they should. If a property is poorly maintained most tenants will want to move on well before 3 years and will still do so. But if you have a properly maintained property you usually want to let it for longer than six months and the tenant usually wants to stay for longer anyway and they will still do so..

I suspect the landlords who are complaining about this are the sort that treat their tenants badly. As long as a landlord has the right to end the tenancy to sell it or live in it, and there is a reasonable way of adjusting rents during that period, the world will keep turning.

BobQ

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
....................................................................................
Well done Labour, another back firing initiative.

Which council?

LydiaJ

chucknorris wrote: »

I was wondering about that, a lender would have to take a hit on the price if they repossessed and could only sell to an investor due to the property being tied into a tenancy for a couple of years.

Sorry if the points I'm making have been addressed already - I haven't been following the thread up to now, and I've only had time to read the first page today.

If it ever happened, it wouldn't be a problem for getting a BTL mortgage - banks won't insist on a 6 month AST if a 6 month AST is no longer legal. I don't see why it should make any difference to banks at all, because if LLs are allowed to evict tenants "if the LLs want to sell" then I don't think that's a problem for lenders repossessing. The bank clearly want to sell the property they've just repossessed, so the exemption kicks in and the bank can evict the tenant without waiting.

I also think it's a good idea for the LL rather than the tenant to have to pay any fees to the LA for signing the tenancy agreement etc. The LL is running a business and should expect costs up-front. The tenant needs somewhere to live, and has already got to find a deposit plus the first month's rent before getting their deposit back off their last LL. Yes of course it will be passed on to the tenant in increased rent, but that will be spread across the whole tenancy, not front-loaded.

Not that I'm saying that the whole package is a good idea. LLs will get more annoying hoops to jump through, and tenants won't actually get any increased security, if the LL can just give two months notice if they want to sell, change the use, live in it themselves, use it for family etc.

chucky

JencParker wrote: »

But there's always a silver lining - more property available to those that wish to buy their own home.

People can buy their own home whenever they want.