Two thirds of private rental landlords will leave sector if Labour win

ruggedtoast

I actually dont agree with rent controls, it will just lead to the landlords trying to screw their tenants in other ways, or being even more reluctant to do repairs or accept people without perfect documents.

What we need is more secure social housing so the grasping hands of a few venal landlords cant keep monopolising desperately needed homes and gouging hardworking families.

It is no surprise that families have to face an endless cycle of being uprooted and having to find new schools for their children, when 25% of MPs are buy to let landlords. Time to kick them where it hurts, right in their ballot boxes.

chucknorris

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Time to kick them where it hurts, right in their ballot boxes.

On the subject of the election, it is really encouraging to see that the tories have recently firmed up on betfair, in the most seats market the approx. odds are:


1.70 Tories
2.47 Labour
180 UKIP
930 Libdem

Generali

ruggedtoast.

I suspect that you don't remember the Golden Era of Council Housing.

You weren't allowed to make any repairs yourself: all repairs had to be made by highly unionised staff who were very well paid but provided with little in the way of colleagues or materials to complete the tasks. They were unsackable and it showed.

My uncle secured a council house and he was unbelievably happy when he got the Right To Buy. The reason? He was a passionate cabinet maker and couldn't bear the shoddy work being done where he lived.

Then there was this of course:



Ronan Point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

The collapse itself was caused by a very small gas explosion. It could also have been caused by high winds, such was the very poor construction of the building. This is how much councils up and down Britain cared about the safety of their tenants after Ronan Point:

The Building Research Establishment published a series of reports in the 1980s to advise local councils and building owners on checking the structural stability of their LPS blocks. The contents of two of the reports relied on local authorities sending returns in to the Ministry of Housing over the years 1968–69. This was not exhaustive, with many authorities failing to do so and thus not having their blocks assessed after the issue of interim structural methods by the Ministry in 1968–69. Among these authorities were Lambeth and Southwark in London and Birmingham. Birmingham owned over 300 LPS blocks and when these were assessed in 1998 it was found that a number which did not meet 5 psi (34 kN/m²) still had a piped gas supply. A number of those blocks were demolished. The London Borough of Southwark owns the largest LPS estate in the UK, the Aylesbury Estate, which has a piped gas supply; it has been questioned whether the structure is strong enough to resist a 5 psi explosion.

So after 4 deaths and a mother being left standing on a tiny ledge that was all that was left of her sitting room, councils still couldn't or wouldn't submit a list of possibly vulnerable buildings to the Government for 30 years. Imagine if Ford or Toyota treated recalls like that. Actually they have and it's cost executives their jobs and cost the companies hundreds of millions of dollars in legal settlements.

The penalty paid by the executives in Birmingham that refused to go through the rather annoying process of stopping their tenants being killed? None that I'm aware of. They're probably in the union.

A feature of current affairs programs of my childhood was a family living in a rotting council house or flat. They couldn't rehouse themselves because there was no private rental to go to, they weren't being rehoused or having the place fixed by the Council and they couldn't fix it up themselves as it was illegal.

You have to wonder why people living in the much vaunted Council Housing system were so eager to take their houses out of that system at the first opportunity. The RTB discount only really transferred the rent discount tenants were already getting to the capital value of the house.

If you want to solve the housing problem in the UK, build more houses. That's the problem and has been for decades. People don't want more houses built near them and they don't want houses built in the countryside (that they never go to) away from them.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

ruggedtoast.

I suspect that you don't remember the Golden Era of Council Housing.

You weren't allowed to make any repairs yourself: all repairs had to be made by highly unionised staff who were very well paid but provided with little in the way of colleagues or materials to complete the tasks. They were unsackable and it showed.

My uncle secured a council house and he was unbelievably happy when he got the Right To Buy. The reason? He was a passionate cabinet maker and couldn't bear the shoddy work being done where he lived.

Then there was this of course:



Ronan Point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

The collapse itself was caused by a very small gas explosion. It could also have been caused by high winds, such was the very poor construction of the building. This is how much councils up and down Britain cared about the safety of their tenants after Ronan Point:

A feature of current affairs programs of my childhood was a family living in a rotting council house or flat. They couldn't rehouse themselves because there was no private rental to go to, they weren't being rehoused or having the place fixed by the Council and they couldn't fix it up themselves as it was illegal.

You have to wonder why people living in the much vaunted Council Housing system were so eager to take their houses out of that system at the first opportunity. The RTB discount only really transferred the rent discount tenants were already getting to the capital value of the house.

If you want to solve the housing problem in the UK, build more houses. That's the problem and has been for decades. People don't want more houses built near them and they don't want houses built in the countryside (that they never go to) away from them.

A mixture of the two would be nice. More houses would alleviate the housing crisis.

Unfortunately the scenario you outline from the 70s is just the other side of the ideological coin to what we have now. Old Labour's policy to house everyone and the Tories' policy to house no-one.

Some people will never need social housing and some people will spend their lives homeless unless they have access to some.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

ruggedtoast.

I suspect that you don't remember the Golden Era of Council Housing.

You weren't allowed to make any repairs yourself: all repairs had to be made by highly unionised staff who were very well paid but provided with little in the way of colleagues or materials to complete the tasks. They were unsackable and it showed.

My uncle secured a council house and he was unbelievably happy when he got the Right To Buy. The reason? He was a passionate cabinet maker and couldn't bear the shoddy work being done where he lived.

Then there was this of course:



Ronan Point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

The collapse itself was caused by a very small gas explosion. It could also have been caused by high winds, such was the very poor construction of the building. This is how much councils up and down Britain cared about the safety of their tenants after Ronan Point:

So after 4 deaths and a mother being left standing on a tiny ledge that was all that was left of her sitting room, councils still couldn't or wouldn't submit a list of possibly vulnerable buildings to the Government for 30 years. Imagine if Ford or Toyota treated recalls like that. Actually they have and it's cost executives their jobs and cost the companies hundreds of millions of dollars in legal settlements.

The penalty paid by the executives in Birmingham that refused to go through the rather annoying process of stopping their tenants being killed? None that I'm aware of. They're probably in the union.

A feature of current affairs programs of my childhood was a family living in a rotting council house or flat. They couldn't rehouse themselves because there was no private rental to go to, they weren't being rehoused or having the place fixed by the Council and they couldn't fix it up themselves as it was illegal.

You have to wonder why people living in the much vaunted Council Housing system were so eager to take their houses out of that system at the first opportunity. The RTB discount only really transferred the rent discount tenants were already getting to the capital value of the house.

If you want to solve the housing problem in the UK, build more houses. That's the problem and has been for decades. People don't want more houses built near them and they don't want houses built in the countryside (that they never go to) away from them.

Perhaps I have more experience of council housing than you. I live in private rented accommodation until till I was sixteen moving to a council house then and living there until I got married. The council house I moved to although not perfect was considerably better than the private property I lived in. I had family members and friends in council housing and private renting some and the council properties were better maintained than the private properties.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

A mixture of the two would be nice. More houses would alleviate the housing crisis.

Unfortunately the scenario you outline from the 70s is just the other side of the ideological coin to what we have now. Old Labour's policy to house everyone and the Tories' policy to house no-one.

Some people will never need social housing and some people will spend their lives homeless unless they have access to some.

There is nothing wrong with social housing per se IMHO. Some people need support in housing because they're old or unwell or just plain dumb and that's fine and something the state should provide or at least pay for.

For the vast majority, the private sector is perfectly able to house us if they can build. The problem is the crazy laws in the UK that prevent builders from building.

I think the number one challenge of any Government is to help the worst off in society. I think they can best do that by enabling then to work, have decent accommodation and good access to training and healthcare. That's not to say they should provide it though.

Council housing was, when aimed as being where pretty much everyone should live in the post-WW2 period, lousy. Councils did manage to put up a lot of housing very quickly in the 1940s and early 50s which was of variable quality but better than living on a pile of blown up bricks. After that things very quickly went bad.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps I have more experience of council housing than you. I live in private rented accommodation until till I was sixteen moving to a council house then and living there until I got married. The council house I moved to although not perfect was considerably better than the private property I lived in. I had family members and friends in council housing and private renting some and the council properties were better maintained than the private properties.

Anecdote isn't data of course and you're comparing council housing to private rentals with very strict controls which made them unprofitable unless you lived off the depreciation which of course the LLs did.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Anecdote isn't data of course and you're comparing council housing to private rentals with very strict controls which made them unprofitable unless you lived off the depreciation which of course the LLs did.

I accept that the standard of private rentals have improved but I still know people living in old council stock which is now housing association and the properties are well maintained. My experience might be anecdotal but it's not just the odd person. Personally I'm not against BTL and realise they serve a useful function, but some people on here seemed to be just as blinkered against council/social housing as others are against BTL.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with social housing per se IMHO. Some people need support in housing because they're old or unwell or just plain dumb and that's fine and something the state should provide or at least pay for.

For the vast majority, the private sector is perfectly able to house us if they can build. The problem is the crazy laws in the UK that prevent builders from building.

I think the number one challenge of any Government is to help the worst off in society. I think they can best do that by enabling then to work, have decent accommodation and good access to training and healthcare. That's not to say they should provide it though.

Council housing was, when aimed as being where pretty much everyone should live in the post-WW2 period, lousy. Councils did manage to put up a lot of housing very quickly in the 1940s and early 50s which was of variable quality but better than living on a pile of blown up bricks. After that things very quickly went bad.

I agree, I wish the government thought the same thing too though. Not everyone can be or wants to be a high flyer.

chucknorris

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I agree, I wish the government thought the same thing too though. Not everyone can be or wants to be a high flyer.

Another thing that they could do (in addition to providing more social housing) would be to remove people that obviously do not need it. Unfortunately the person I am going to use as an example died recently, but nevertheless Bob Crow was on a salary of approx. £145k. I find it ridiculous that was allowed to continue to benefit from social housing when there are much more needy cases than him.