Homeless figures treble amongst private rental tenants

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You got your eye on the MSE pedant of the year award?

it seems reasonable to point out that building houses creates job and provides homes for people.

whether those houses are to be owned by the government or young people anxious to own a home doesn't seems relevant.

N1AK

Bantex wrote: »

Surely just pegging rents to inflation and not being able to evict as long as the rent is up to date and the tenancy terms have not been broken, would be fairer overall.

Seems to be too much in the landlords favour at the moment.

I think different people have a different view on 'just'. Forcing someone to continue to rent a property that they no longer wish to rent indefinitely and to do so without the ability to charge the market rate doesn't seem like 'just' a little change to me.

I think there should be some improvements in tenants rights, but I don't think it's helpful to pretend that they aren't a big deal for owners/landlords.

In American cities with rent controls you'll find thousands of examples of people effectively unable to move because they've lived there for ages and market rents have gone up far faster. The landlords do the bare minimum to keep costs down and encourage the tenant to leave and if the tenant even bends the terms slightly the landlord starts eviction proceedings because they want to get a new tenant in at the market rate.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The system just isn't working for tenants.

The system needs action, and fast.

Theres a bit about Fergus too, for those it will please!

Panorama are covering it tonight at 7.30pm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27940701

This makes my blood boil. Its like a return to Dickensian times with the middle classes in a constant state of terror in case they are cast down.

No one who works hard for a wage should have to live in a cramped and unsanitary gaffe.

Conrad

Bantex wrote: »

Surely just pegging rents to inflation and not being able to evict as long as the rent is up to date and the tenancy terms have not been broken, would be fairer overall.

Seems to be too much in the landlords favour at the moment.

Put yourself in their position. You don't have to invest in property you only do so if the hassle is offset by the returns.


I invest for long term but what if I'm ill or get divorced and have to sell up?


If you place such controls on me I will take the lazy investors route and just stick it in ISA's. This then leads to a constraint in rental supply.


Also lenders may need to repossess, so cannot tolerate having an in situ tenant indefinitely (responsible lending / capital adequacy rules etc)

Bantex_2

Conrad wrote: »

Put yourself in their position. You don't have to invest in property you only do so if the hassle is offset by the returns.


I invest for long term but what if I'm ill or get divorced and have to sell up?


If you place such controls on me I will take the lazy investors route and just stick it in ISA's. This then leads to a constraint in rental supply.


Also lenders may need to repossess, so cannot tolerate having an in situ tenant indefinitely (responsible lending / capital adequacy rules etc)

Sort of agree, but do think the balance is skewed too far in favour of the landlord. Trying to bring up a family with the thought you can be evicted at two months notice or the rent can be hiked at any point to any amount is no way to live.

BillJones

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This makes my blood boil. Its like a return to Dickensian times with the middle classes in a constant state of terror in case they are cast down.

No one who works hard for a wage should have to live in a cramped and unsanitary gaffe.

No-one does. Everyone had the opportunity to do better at school, to not have children until they could afford them, to take on extra training, upskill, and so on.

If you can show me someone that did these things, and then still struggles, then I'll accept that there's something wrong. I get the impression, though, that you are championing people who are completely responsible for their situation, and who only now realise that their choices in years past mattered.

Bantex_2

BillJones wrote: »

No-one does. Everyone had the opportunity to do better at school, to not have children until they could afford them, to take on extra training, upskill, and so on.

If you can show me someone that did these things, and then still struggles, then I'll accept that there's something wrong. I get the impression, though, that you are championing people who are completely responsible for their situation, and who only now realise that their choices in years past mattered.

And if you were just born not very bright, does that mean you should never have any security for your whole life?

PasturesNew

Conrad wrote: »

This then leads to a constraint in rental supply.

The house doesn't cease to exist. Somebody will either buy it to live in it (reducing the people looking to rent by 1), or another LL will buy it to rent out.

BillJones

Bantex wrote: »

And if you were just born not very bright, does that mean you should never have any security for your whole life?

No, because fortunately being born "not very bright" is no bar to doing well in the UK.

Or are you one of those who looks down on the less academically able, and thinks that they have no ability?

ruggedtoast

Conrad wrote: »

Put yourself in their position. You don't have to invest in property you only do so if the hassle is offset by the returns.


I invest for long term but what if I'm ill or get divorced and have to sell up?


If you place such controls on me I will take the lazy investors route and just stick it in ISA's. This then leads to a constraint in rental supply.


Also lenders may need to repossess, so cannot tolerate having an in situ tenant indefinitely (responsible lending / capital adequacy rules etc)

People taking on BTL aren't causing any more supply to be created.

What they are causing are vast swathes of habitable family homes to be monopolised by clueless, caustic, self aggrandising investors who have every interest in how much they can squeeze out of their return, and no interest at all in providing a home for people.

If every BTL landlord fell down a sinkhole today (each holding hands with a banker preferably what a tragedy to mankind) it would make not one jot of difference to the available housing in this country tomorrow.