Homeless figures treble amongst private rental tenants

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

PN, I've mentioned a number of times that selling from a LL to a OO is fine from a short term viewpoint but doesn't address the longer term reduction in supply for the next generation.

You haven't reduced supply. When you sell the house, it doesn't disappear. It might well be sold to someone who rents, so one less renter and one less rented house. Nothing changes.

PasturesNew

What used to happen was you just started renting ..... no X months ... you said "I'll have it" and moved in ..... and to leave you just gave a month's notice. One of the "issues" as a tenant is these cookie cutter term agreements.

princeofpounds

Well we refuse to issue 6 month tenancy agreement and we have tried to force our tenants onto two year agreements, but we gave up after so many refused. But I will not budge on 6 month agreements, I would rather sell up that put up with changing tenants every 6 months. The funny thing is that most tend to renew their annual tenancy agreement many times over, one tenant has been with me over 10 years now.

Hi chuck,

I thought your post was interesting, because although many tenants have been the victims of short-term landlords, I do recognise there are some like you who are not short term.

I can imagine it is a real mystery why tenants, many of whom call for greater security of tenure (like me, although I no longer rent), seem suddenly reluctant to sign up to longer contracts.

There are actually two very simple reasons for this.

The first is that when you sign up to a new place, as a tenant you have no real idea what the landlord is like, and no idea what the property is really like. If the mould starts growing through the cheeky layer of fresh paint after 2 months, and the landlord's phone is turned off, it's very frightening to be locking into a property for 2 years with almost zero ability to control the standard of maintenance. The systems to enforce repairs do not work well at all, generally, especially if you do not have the capital to pre-pay the repair and reclaim from rent via the Lee Parker vs Izzet 1971 route. Then you have to rely on a sluggish council and glacial courts.

Obviously after 6 months, the decision is much easier.

The second issue is the idea of rent as a liability. Like any contract, there is both an asset to the tenant (use of the property) and a liability (rent). The opposite situation is for you as landlord.

The difference is that as landlord, you normally have the resources to completely cover your liability. The house is there, and can be rented out for as long as you like, with basically no risk to your performance of the contract.

(Perhaps the situation might change for heavily-mortgaged landlords if interest rates were hiked, but the BoE seems to want to bend over backwards to protect property owners under all circumstances)

For tenants however, it's quite rare that they already have the resources to pay out a long term contract. If you sign up for a long-term contract, you need to earn that money every month. If something happens (illness, job loss, family breakdowns in particular) then you can be stuck with an absolute liability for accommodation that is unaffordable and/or inappropriate.

In the financial analysis world, long-term leases are often modified to be classed as debts. Often the reluctance you see from renters to sign up to long term contracts does not reflect their desire for security of tenure, but their fear of signing up to a debt that may bankrupt them if their luck fails.

PasturesNew

As a renter I've also hated the constant "intrusion" of inspections .... they're a new phenomenon. I was getting them every 3 months!

This time next month I'll be in my own home ... never having to worry about picking up my dirty pants from the floor if I want to go away for a week or more because it's MY home and nobody else has a key and can let themselves in for any airy fairy reasons. I can leave my personal mail, belongings and everything where I want ..... no strangers poking around in things they have no concern poking about with....

chucknorris

princeofpounds wrote: »

The first is that when you sign up to a new place, as a tenant you have no real idea what the landlord is like, and no idea what the property is really like. If the mould starts growing through the cheeky layer of fresh paint after 2 months, and the landlord's phone is turned off, it's very frightening to be locking into a property for 2 years


Our incoming tenants always meet the outgoing tenants, that is good for everyone:


1. I don't have to spend time showing tenants around (our properties are 2-3 hours round trip away from where we live.


2. It allows prospective tenants to ask the outgoing tenants about us and the property.


with almost zero ability to control the standard of maintenance. The systems to enforce repairs do not work well at all, generally, especially if you do not have the capital to pre-pay the repair and reclaim from rent via the Lee Parker vs Izzet 1971 route. Then you have to rely on a sluggish council and glacial courts.


The longer you leave a maintenance issue the more expensive it becomes to deal with it, so we don't hang around. With normal things like leaks etc. the tenants usually just call British Gas (with whom we have a maintenance contract). Obviously mould is a different kind of problem, we have experienced that in a couple of our properties and after looking into it, it was caused by the tenants drying their clothes indoors (rather than in the garden/balcony), we solved it by providing dehumidifiers.

.

See replies in red text above.

BillJones

Bantex wrote: »

Your "let them eat cake" attitude is not always the case.

Were it my attitude, you may have a point.

It is very telling, though, that you want to turn the debate away from the great mass of people to a negligible subset, with learning difficulties so severe that they cannot make their way in the world.

As ever, the left like to pretend that the right would have these people starve. The fact is that this is pretty much never the view of anyone. Everyone, right and left, wants a strong safety net for those who need it.

The difference is that people like you seem to insist that we only look at this small set. You simply do not want to admit to the vast, unexamined set of people who did have choices, and who simply made the one that was easy at the time, and then later decided that they wanted the same outcome as that gained by people who made the hard choice.

Why is this? Why when someone brings up people whose choices were bad, do you disingenuously respond about different people entirely? You yourself used the term "not that bright". When I responded to it, you dishonestly switched to talking about people with "learning difficulties".

Jason74

BillJones wrote: »

Were it my attitude, you may have a point.

It is very telling, though, that you want to turn the debate away from the great mass of people to a negligible subset, with learning difficulties so severe that they cannot make their way in the world.

As ever, the left like to pretend that the right would have these people starve. The fact is that this is pretty much never the view of anyone. Everyone, right and left, wants a strong safety net for those who need it.

The difference is that people like you seem to insist that we only look at this small set. You simply do not want to admit to the vast, unexamined set of people who did have choices, and who simply made the one that was easy at the time, and then later decided that they wanted the same outcome as that gained by people who made the hard choice.

Why is this? Why when someone brings up people whose choices were bad, do you disingenuously respond about different people entirely? You yourself used the term "not that bright". When I responded to it, you dishonestly switched to talking about people with "learning difficulties".

Leaving aside the issue of who meant what by various comments for a moment, you do have a point here to a large extent. It's quite right that those who have the greatest combination of ability and effort get (in material terms) the best outcome, while a strong safety next exists that provides security and dignity for those who truly lack the capability to independently make their way in the world.

But, there is (as you eloquently point out) a wide range of people between those two extremes. Now of course, "not that bright" is a highly subjective term, and there are many different versions of "bright", encompassing many different skillsets. But I think that there is a basic standard of living that anyone who goes out and works full time is entitled to expect. That standard of living as far as I'm concerned includes decent quality housing, with full security of tenure. I'm not talking 5 bedroom houses in the best areas for everyone. Simply a home that meets people's needs in the context of a rich country in the 21st century (so comparisons with the third world or how people lived 100 years ago are irrelevant in this context).

The problem with the private rented sector as it stands is that it takes this
"right" (and I use the term loosely before anyone jumps on it) away from many people, leaving them insecurely housed, to the benefit of landlords who already have wealth. Even with a "good" landlord, the tenant still has the insecurity of knowing that the landlord has control over their security of housing, and that's a very unsettling way for anyone to have to live. That's why it needs to change.

princeofpounds

Chucknorris, I agree with both your replies. There were times I would have jumped at a two year agreement like yours (probably most after 3 flats in 2yrs, none of which were my choice to move). But then I could have paid outright from the start, so also knew I could cover the risk (a blessing for my peace of mind during the 08/09 crash)

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Leaving aside the issue of who meant what by various comments for a moment, you do have a point here to a large extent. It's quite right that those who have the greatest combination of ability and effort get (in material terms) the best outcome, while a strong safety next exists that provides security and dignity for those who truly lack the capability to independently make their way in the world.

But, there is (as you eloquently point out) a wide range of people between those two extremes. Now of course, "not that bright" is a highly subjective term, and there are many different versions of "bright", encompassing many different skillsets. But I think that there is a basic standard of living that anyone who goes out and works full time is entitled to expect. That standard of living as far as I'm concerned includes decent quality housing, with full security of tenure. I'm not talking 5 bedroom houses in the best areas for everyone. Simply a home that meets people's needs in the context of a rich country in the 21st century (so comparisons with the third world or how people lived 100 years ago are irrelevant in this context).

The problem with the private rented sector as it stands is that it takes this
"right" (and I use the term loosely before anyone jumps on it) away from many people, leaving them insecurely housed, to the benefit of landlords who already have wealth. Even with a "good" landlord, the tenant still has the insecurity of knowing that the landlord has control over their security of housing, and that's a very unsettling way for anyone to have to live. That's why it needs to change.

In reality, you have no interest in proposing a workable private sector housing system.

Your vision is a state run subsidised social housing system, offering life long tenancies at cheap rates irrespective of continuing need or level of income.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jason74 wrote: »

That standard of living as far as I'm concerned includes decent quality housing, with full security of tenure.

The problem with the private rented sector as it stands is that it takes this "right" (and I use the term loosely before anyone jumps on it) away from many people, leaving them insecurely housed,

That's why it needs to change.

Which is a great argument for government finding hundreds of billions of pounds to embark on a mass social house building programme.

However if governments, (and they all do no matter which party) expect the private sector to fill that gap in the meantime, then it has to be done on commercial terms that make sense for both parties.

At the moment, we arguably have a system that many landlords don't want, where it's difficult to do longer term leases, too easy for both parties to terminate with little notice at the end of a short term lease, but too hard to evict for good reasons (such as non-payment) during that lease.

I doubt many landlords would argue against a fairer system for all.

Perhaps one that combines longer term leases with stronger rights for good tenants (fewer voids for landlords, makes commercial sense) along with it being much easier and faster to evict bad tenants, such as those that don't pay the rent.

The problem we have at the moment is a significant minority of irresponsible tenants who abuse the current system, trash houses, pay rent late if at all, and then are advised by people on these very boards how to use every possible legal loophole to delay their eviction for up to 6 months!!!

Causing financial stress for good landlords and blocking those houses from being occupied by the responsible majority who would look after a property and pay the rent on time....

Do both those things, ie, create 2 year leases that cannot be ended early except under very narrow circumstances on either side, AND then create a mechanism that lets landlords get bad tenants out of the property within a reasonable period of time, say, 6 weeks from start to finish, and I doubt many people would object. Other than perhaps the army of MSE barrack-room lawyers on the housing boards... But I'm sure they can find something more productive to do.;)