Labour plans longer tenancies and rent control

Generali

wymondham wrote: »

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

Don't know about all of Europe but France is 3 years for an unfurnished let and 12 months for a furnished one (furnished can be a single bed, a table and a chair in a 5 bed house).

At the end of the tenancy, the LL & tenant can either sign a new agreement or the LL can give 6 or 3 months notice respectively. At any point the tenant can give 3 and 1 months notice respectively.

The LL can get occupation of the property earlier to live in it himself or to sell.

If you rent to an old, poor person you have an obligation to find them a new place to stay. No new place, no getting your house back.

What you find in France is that people sublet illegally with a nod and a wink to the LL. In tourist areas it's normal to rent a place for 10 months a year while the sub letting tenant-LL rents to tourists for July and August. For example, a waiter mate of mine in Brittany used to sleep on the floor above his Uncle's restaurant with his wife and kids for 2 months of the year. He thought it was a pretty good deal as for 10 months he lived in a nice house he could never afford otherwise.

I lived for a bit in a 2 bed flat with 5 others in Paris. That was massively dodgy but hardly unknown for the area. The place was a huge firetrap with terrible electrics.

Generali

slopemaster wrote: »

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

That was my experience of France.

At the cheap end of the market you don't get the legal rights because you can't afford them. It's only the posh places that are done legitimately.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Interesting to read the reactions here. I thought it was the first vaguely sensible thing I've ever heard Ed M say. At least a senior politician is acknowledging there is a problem and proposing something as a discussion point. The scrutiny and regulation of letting agencies is long overdue. If charges are increased elsewhere but a more professional service is offered (ie agents required to actually have knowledge of housing law) then that is of benefit to both landlords and tenants in the long run. Remember agents cheerfully rip off both parties.

If it's not profitable for private companies to build more houses, then I think the government should step in and do so themselves; it may not be commercially viable in the short term but certain social issues are above this.

Generali

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Interesting to read the reactions here. I thought it was the first vaguely sensible thing I've ever heard Ed M say. At least a senior politician is acknowledging there is a problem and proposing something as a discussion point. The scrutiny and regulation of letting agencies is long overdue. If charges are increased elsewhere but a more professional service is offered (ie agents required to actually have knowledge of housing law) then that is of benefit to both landlords and tenants in the long run. Remember agents cheerfully rip off both parties.

I agree that consumers need protection from letting agencies. They effectively run as local cartels and there is clear market failure there.

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

If it's not profitable for private companies to build more houses, then I think the government should step in and do so themselves; it may not be commercially viable in the short term but certain social issues are above this.

The problem is, you can't get planning permission. Make that simple and cheap to get and the housing problem would solve itself.

slopemaster

Generali wrote: »

That was my experience of France.
At the cheap end of the market you don't get the legal rights because you can't afford them. It's only the posh places that are done legitimately.

Exactly.

It's also why the property I rent out is in the UK, not France, altho I live in France so it would be easier.
I don't want to let illegally, but neither do I want to be locked into a contract I can't get out of.

From what I've heard so far, the Labour proposals sound like a sensible compromise.

pbouk

I think this might just get him elected in 2015.

michaels

pbouk wrote: »

I think this might just get him elected in 2015.

1 tell everyone if they vote for you everything they buy will be cheaper (fuel, housing,....)

2 tell everyone that they will be paid more (next announcement minimum wage to be set at 'living wage'?)

3 get elected

'Works' in Argentina and Venezuela so why shouldn't it work here, the lack of basic numeracy in the population can only help.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

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.

I agree that could end up messy and even convince me to sell up and get out, but the ability to sell up and not be trapped holding property that I could only sell at a discounted price is my concern. I appreciate that I am looking at my situation rather than the entire market of course. From my prospective, the profit has been made and I am looking for consolidation rather than trying to get somewhere financially, hence my concern/focus is avoiding disaster such as being trapped in a rapidly declining market caused by lifetime tenancies. I would rather stay in the market, but if the choice is being screwed financially or becoming a gangster landlord then I would rather be out of the market, as neither is acceptable.

Bantex_2

Add in Landlord licencing and it should help weed out some of the chancers who are really in no position to have such influence over others lives.

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

I agree that could end up messy and even convince me to sell up and get out, but the ability to sell up and not be trapped holding property that I could only sell at a discounted price is my concern. I appreciate that I am looking at my situation rather than the entire market of course. From my prospective, the profit has been made and I am looking for consolidation rather than trying to get somewhere financially, hence my concern/focus is avoiding disaster such as being trapped in a rapidly declining market caused by lifetime tenancies. I would rather stay in the market, but if the choice is being screwed financially or becoming a gangster landlord then I would rather be out of the market, as neither is acceptable.

If you don't need the capital appreciation why stay in risk assets? (Genuine Q BTW, not trolling).

If nothing else, you should consider 'tapering', that is slowing reducing your risk exposure, as you age.