Milliband promises rent controls

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

It might be a London thing, leaving your smaller house or flat to move into a bogger home elsewhere.

We both have to small a biased selection to make conclusions with jist what we know. However the ONS collects data on the composition of the housing stock and what it shows is that continuously since 2000* single person households have been increasing. So if the idea is to cram more people into existing homes to solve the shortage thats not likely**




* and before then.
** whats happening is many more single person households and alsp many more higj-number households lile HMOs. A fragmentation of the market from those who can/could afford lots of housing bought at cheaper prices and those that can't afford it at current prices

The London point could well be true there are not many places you could move from where a small flat would buy you a large house somewhere else.

Do people in HMOs count a single person households.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Do people in HMOs count a single person households.

I don't think so

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

I don't think so

This link http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-and-quick-statistics-for-wards-and-output-areas-in-england-and-wales/sty-how-people-are-living-in-england-and-wales.html seems to show that the proportion of households that are single didn't change between 2001 & 2011 but other households which include house shares etc have increased by 28%.

buglawton

ukcarper wrote: »

I really can't see it making that much of a difference landlords can set rent they like at start of tenancy and increase by CPI during tenancy. I certainly don't think it will cause the rental market to seize up but then I don't think it will make much difference to majority on tenants.

I'm looking at this from the London/S.E. England perspective.
The rental market is already very tight here which is amazing considering how much rental property has come onto the market in the last 2 decades. My son moved back home from renting recently due to high cost/low quality of rented accommodation. I'm not surprised that many tenants feel disgruntled. Won't take much in the way of hamstringing legislation to move it past a tipping point by reducing supply. Maybe Labour will succeed in making the rental market as moribund as the buying market is.

ukcarper

buglawton wrote: »

I'm looking at this from the London/S.E. England perspective.
The rental market is already very tight here which is amazing considering how much rental property has come onto the market in the last 2 decades. My son moved back home from renting recently due to high cost/low quality of rented accommodation. I'm not surprised that many tenants feel disgruntled. Won't take much in the way of hamstringing legislation to move it past a tipping point by reducing supply. Maybe Labour will succeed in making the rental market as moribund as the buying market is.

I just don't think it's a big enough change to make any real difference it certainly wouldn't effect the landlords I know they prefer long term tenants and don't increase their existing tenants rent all the time. This is in the SE.

audigex

cells wrote: »

Better to cap rents at £800pm in London and £600pm elsewhere

15 million renters would surely vote for that

It needs to be more specific than "London" and "Not London" - £600 rent where I am would be a nonsense on a flat or small house, for example.

Also where do you differentiate property type: surely a 7 bedroom house commands more than a flat?

A sane basic idea, but the execution would be messy

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure that the housing situation has ever been 'satisfactory' in the London and SE

but making things worse is no solution.

diabolically bad is an over statement of the issue: in many ways the quality of housing is better than ever.

Not sure these lot agree ....

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/28/uk-housing-crisis-in-breach-of-human-rights

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

Not sure these lot agree ....

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/28/uk-housing-crisis-in-breach-of-human-rights

they are all people who get very high salaries for their lobbying function.

whilst we have 500,000 people arriving each year and don't build sufficient houses then there will be a shortfall between people wishes for houses what is available.

you will have to make your own mind what is a 'need' and what is a 'want' and how the housing stock is distributed between people and whether you think that the level of population and it's distribution is a relevant parameter.

but I do agree with you the problem is entirely been made by the government since the late 1990s but does have a simple solution : build more properties and limit immigration.

Jonbvn

cells wrote: »

Better to cap rents at £800pm in London and £600pm elsewhere

15 million renters would surely vote for that

I would, particularly if it was for One Hyde Park.;)

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Interesting that this research done for Camden comes out very strongly against mandatory restrictions on rent, perhaps Antrobus you could bring over a few salient quotes?.....

The bottom line is that the LSE conclude;

Our recommendation is therefore that Camden should positively enable longer-term tenancies with index-linked rent increases, voluntarily agreed by landlord and tenant, while at the same time improving transparency and contractual enforcement for both landlords and tenants across the sector.

Which is basically exactly what Labour are proposing nationally.

michaels wrote: »

...It is funny isn't it, come election time policies that sound popular as soundbites but with serious problems if they were actually implemented get brought out; the problem comes if an attempt is made to actually implement them...

The important thing is that you get a good headline. Most people won't read any further than that.