Labour plans longer tenancies and rent control

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

Housebuilders, landowners, government in varying amounts.

All supernormal profits, caused by an artificially imposed scarcity, paid by anyone seeking to house themselves.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Types_of_profits_in_the_long_run_in_oligopoly

Of course, you then get the indirect beneficiaries, such as landlords who see increased rental demand. They also get the bonus of a subsidised funding market due to the BoE printing money like confetti - trebles all round! (for those with capital in the form of land, anyway)

the reality is that builders get their money from building: farmers etc. get the huge benefit of the huge price increase once planning permission is given.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think I have to make a choice between paying people's rent or paying to build them a house. I have to pay my own 'storage costs' - why can't they? My definition of 'need' is very much at odds with a politicians definition - we're increasingly treating capable grown adults like children.

If we stopped making people rich just because they have the money and persistence to get planning permission many of the problems would disappear.

Yes, we'll build lovely well designed houses, ensure they're allocated based on true need, anyone that subsequently falls outside of the criteria will be asked to pay a market rent and required to find their own housing. And never will they be sold at a discount to the tenant.

Can you hear oinking overhead?

Nothing is ever going to be perfect. I'm not trying to paint a scenario whereby everything would be perfect.

That doesn't mean we can't do better than what we currently do.

You are relying on yet more exaggerations to make your point which makes it all a little pointless discussing further in truth.

pbouk

michaels wrote: »

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.

Rent rising or rent stable over three years. What has "the lack of basic numeracy in the population" got to do with that.

Fella

Landlords in general are likely to be fairly enterprising. At the very least they're all enterprising enough to be LLs. If Labour introduce populist nonsense & acres of extra red tape LLs will either put up rent to compensate or sell up & do something more profitable. There seems to be a misguided set of people who think that a LL is a LL no matter what & that if Labour introduce a set of anti-LL laws those landlords will be forced to seethe & comply.

Yet another pointless awful policy from Labour, a party incapable of actually improving anything and who's manifesto now consists of nothing but policies designed to make "poor" people & "rich" people hate each other.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

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.

It’s a good question (certainly not trolling) and I fully understand why you ask, I did originally plan to get out when the market was up coinciding with my age getting to about 60 (so not that far away as I’m 56 now).

But there isn't anywhere better to invest the equity, certainly in the short term (I would have to make 5% on the equity released) due to having low margin tracker mortgages, even in the medium term (when rates go back up) I still like the rental income and capital gain. But obviously with the market being cyclical, that capital gain comes and (partly) goes, so that may be an argument for getting out in the next few years. That does depend upon what the future of letting looks like, maybe a labour Gov will force my hand. But in any case when rates creep up again I will be constantly reviewing my options. It could actually be a lifestyle change (wintering in Spain/Algarve when we retire in about 4 years) that convinces us that it is time to sell up.

Thrugelmir

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.

Lenders would require higher deposits to reflect the increased risk of loss.

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Lenders would require higher deposits to reflect the increased risk of loss.

I was talking about existing loans, it just isn't feasible to put a lender/borrower in that position with existing loans, new loans yes, but not existing.

Bantex_2

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

andybenw

Personally I would be happier with 3 year contracts than 6 months. Then again I rent below market value and usually refuse a few tenants before I rent and try to ensure decent tenants. (hmo rooms). Security of tenure is what a lot of tenants fear also. Rent controls I'm not so happy about but by the sound of it this would only be controls during tenancy and would be applicable to rises on the agreed rate at the start of the tenancy. Hardly a return to Rigsby.

andybenw

As to the letting agents fees these would simply be moved onto landlords. Cue pages of rentals in the local papers. I expect websites would open up for flat rentals such as those currently available for room rentals such as spareroom etc.