Labour plans longer tenancies and rent control

wotsthat

wymondham wrote: »

3 years is still pretty short though isn't it? What is it on the continent?

In Germany landlords walk in front of their tenants throwing rose petals under their feet before doing the shopping for them.

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

I think that (I would need to see all the details) I could live with this proposed scheme, especially the bit that allows landlords to evict if they want to sell the property, so you are not trapped in the market. Our tenants tend to stay for 3 or more years anyway. What would concern me though, is this the thin end of the wedge, with more to come.

The problems start when they try to set a market rent. So it's going to be a mix of inflation and current market rents. How long until the unions/left start banging on about a 'fair rent' or a 'living rent' or some such twaddle?

This sort of thing is never the end of it IME. It's a road that ends with Rachmann.

wymondham

wotsthat wrote: »

In Germany landlords walk in front of their tenants throwing rose petals under their feet before doing the shopping for them.

is this a value added service?

Bantex_2

If it slews some of the funds from landlords to owner occupiers, how can it be a bad thing?

GeorgeHowell

Typically irresponsible Labour. We had this sort of situation years ago and the private rental market was dire as a result. That's what started the obsession with owner-occupation in this country. Just when the private rental market is regaining a sensible foothold, easing the situation for those who can't afford to buy, or who choose not to, these idiots propose to come in with something to take us back to the dark ages. The only good things are (a) it shows that they're getting desperate and (b) it might just induce a few more people not to vote for them. And it shouldn't just be landlords who take that view, because if you going to be renting you will find that there's a lot less rental properties out there to rent. And for those saying it's not a problem because those properties will come on the market to be bought -- okay if you can raise a deposit and get a mortgage ....

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

...I said that this was a risk. It's such a big target and 'free'.

I've always said that the greater the number of private renters, the greater the chance of the return of the Rent Acts.

Conrad wrote: »

As ever the detail has been missed. Lenders do not allow longer than 12 months on an AST, as they need to be able to repossess in the event of default....

Perhaps that's the Cunning Plan.

If landlords can't let without granting a 29 month tenancy, and lenders won't lend on anything more than 12 months, cue the end of BTL as we know it.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

I've always said that the greater the number of private renters, the greater the chance of the return of the Rent Acts.



Perhaps that's the Cunning Plan.

If landlords can't let without granting a 29 month tenancy, and lenders won't lend on anything more than 12 months, cue the end of BTL as we know it.

the market will adjust

michaels

New properties will get built while there is a profit to do so. At the margin a flat costing 60k to be build will be built if it can be sold to a btl investor for 61k. If the new rules mean it is only worth 59k to btl investor then it will not get built leaving the potential tenant living with their parents.

So no this is unlikely to lead to any existing properties being left empty but at the margin it will reduce building.

slopemaster

Conrad wrote: »

As ever the detail has been missed. Lenders do not allow longer than 12 months on an AST, as they need to be able to repossess in the event of default.

According to the Independent
"Labour would allow landlords to enter shorter contracts when they are contractually obliged to do so as part of an existing buy-to-let mortgage."

slopemaster

wymondham wrote: »

3 years is still pretty short though isn't it? What is it on the continent?

In France 3 years - BUT the LL is obliged to renew unless they need the property for their own use - in which case they have to give 6 months notice to the tenant to end at the end of a 3-yr term.
And rent rises are tied to an index.
And once the tenants are over 65 the LL can't ever get the house back, even for their own/their familiy's use.

Result of all that is, a lot of private lets are done illegally, payment in cash, no contract.