Would you support or oppose proposals for the government in introduce a “rent control

antrobus

cells wrote: »

there is no need to control the increase

but there is a need to cap the rent

something like £600pm max outside London and £800pm max inside

or why not take it further, £400 max everywhere. A fair rent for all

If you "cap the rent" you are controlling the increase. You have just set the maximum allowable increase at 0%.

Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious.:)

cepheus

OK I'm very suspicious that this forum is dominated by private landlords, and ultra right wing Tories, so it would be interesting to compare our results to a Survation national poll.

Q Would you support or oppose proposals for the government introducing a “rent control

House Prices and the Economy forum result

Support 51%

Oppose 59%

No Opinion 5%

Survation result

Support 59%

Oppose 7%

No Opinion 34%

So on this board, 8 to 9 times as many people oppose rent controls than in the general population. Exactly what we might expect from a board dominated by those profiting from the private rented sector.

Rent controls were popular with the supporters of all political parties with 55% of Conservative supporters backing such a measure and 58% of UKIP supporters. 69% and 70% of current Labour and LibDem supporters backed controls. While rent controls were predictably popular with private sector tenants, receiving the backing of 77%, there was a high level of endorsement from homeowners, 56% of whom backed the measure.

http://survation.com/public-back-introduction-of-rent-control-survation-for-generation-rent/

CLAPTON

cepheus wrote: »

OK I'm very suspicious that this forum is dominated by private landlords, and ultra right wing Tories, so it would be interesting to compare our results to a Survation national poll.

Q Would you support or oppose proposals for the government introducing a “rent control

House Prices and the Economy forum result

Support 51%

Oppose 59%

No Opinion 5%

Survation result

Support 59%

Oppose 7%

No Opinion 34%

So on this board, 8 to 9 times as many people oppose rent controls than in the general population. Exactly what we might expect from a board dominated by those profiting from the private rented sector.



http://survation.com/public-back-introduction-of-rent-control-survation-for-generation-rent/

alternatively one might expect a different result from people who have actually thought about the issue and know a little about effects of rent controls and know a little economics, compared to people asked a random question in a survey.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

if rents rarely rise when why have rents risen?

Carl31 wrote: »

Well, exactly, why haven't rents risen? Why are there some landlords that raise and raise rents, yet others manage fine without doing so for years and years?

To answer this

I don't raise rents during a tenancy, however in between tenancies, I assess the market and adjust the rents to be competitive.

Hence, I could have 2 or 3 years with 0% increase, then apply a 10% increase for the new tenants.

The tenants themselves see no increase during the tenancy, but over the course, the property rents increase.

Whenever you market a property, you are competing with the other available supply against the levels of demand out there.

For as long as I can recall, there has always been demand which outstrips available supply.

I've not advertised for about 6 years as tenants are lining up to take over the property, even knowing the increase I am applying between the tenancies

Percy1983

CLAPTON wrote: »

alternatively one might expect a different result from people who have actually thought about the issue and know a little about effects of rent controls and know a little economics, compared to people asked a random question in a survey.

Or thought about the effect on their own pockets...

CLAPTON

Percy1983 wrote: »

Or thought about the effect on their own pockets...

Given the way the question is worded, then one would expect landlords to be opposed on both the grounds that it is bad for themselves personally and bad for society in general.
Non landlords like myself, can be disinterested and take the moral and logical standpoint that says it's bad for tenants and society.

Percy1983

Still fail to see how giving more protection to the more vulnerable in society against the more greedy of society is so bad for the mentioned more vulnerable group.

Yes caps which reduce rents to a third of current rates will cause huge shifts and potential problems, and yes there is many LL's who are less greedy in not asking for more profit while somebody buys a house for them.

But reasonable caps really could add a level of certainty/security for many people, all we then need is longer tenancies which can't be broken because the LL's just feels like it and we will a long way there to making renting actually acceptable to many (ie in its current state only sheer desperation would cause me to pay [STRIKE]somebody else's mortgage[/STRIKE] rent)

IveSeenTheLight

Percy1983 wrote: »

Yes caps which reduce rents to a third of current rates will cause huge shifts and potential problems

Can you see this occurring?

Most politicans acknowledge there is a shortage of properties, rentals included and such actions will no doubt reduce rental supply dramatically, if not all together.

The reality, is an index linked rises from whenever the act was put in place, which would likely increase rents faster than they currently are.

CLAPTON

Percy1983 wrote: »

Still fail to see how giving more protection to the more vulnerable in society against the more greedy of society is so bad for the mentioned more vulnerable group.

Yes caps which reduce rents to a third of current rates will cause huge shifts and potential problems, and yes there is many LL's who are less greedy in not asking for more profit while somebody buys a house for them.

But reasonable caps really could add a level of certainty/security for many people, all we then need is longer tenancies which can't be broken because the LL's just feels like it and we will a long way there to making renting actually acceptable to many (ie in its current state only sheer desperation would cause me to pay [STRIKE]somebody else's mortgage[/STRIKE] rent)

the problem with rent controls

-some landlord will sell : good for some OO buyers but bad for any renters remaining
-rentals tend to have higher occupancy levels than owner occupied property (flats shares etc ) so the number of new OOs will be fewer than there were tenants

so what happens to the people who still need to rent?

PS every time you buy something you are paying some-ones mortgage

Percy1983

CLAPTON wrote: »

the problem with rent controls

-some landlord will sell : good for some OO buyers but bad for any renters remaining
-rentals tend to have higher occupancy levels than owner occupied property (flats shares etc ) so the number of new OOs will be fewer than there were tenants

so what happens to the people who still need to rent?

PS every time you buy something you are paying some-ones mortgage

To a point I do wonder on the higher occupancy, here goes:

From personal experience I don't know anybody who is renting with more people in a house than they would buy, ie all families/couples living very much the same way I am. Of course this doesn't mean all rented accommodation is rented like this but I would guess this means most of rented is just families/couples who would be a 1:1 swap rented to owners ie no change (essentially the priced out).

So if this process of selling off does start yes in headline figures it may change but in real terms it means nothing iie:

5 houses. 3 have families of 3 in and 2 are shared with 5 in. so thats gives occupancy of 3.8 per house.

Now to of the houses go up for sale, and 2 of the families buy, to which I agree stats wise thats 2 buys of 3 form a 3.8 pool, yet again fits with what you are saying.

But lets look at the results:

We now have 2 houses owned with 3 in each, 1 rent with 3 and 2 rented with 5 in.

So yes the stats say everything has changed but I fail to see where the homeless people come in.

So here is my the thing with that point if it does cause some landlords to sell, in most if not all cases it will be a 1:1 relationship of rented household to ownership, and this will be the main group to buy said properties as they are the ones who mostly wanted to buy but where priced out due to LL's buying up the properties pushing prices up.

Genuine question?

"PS every time you buy something you are paying some-ones mortgage".

If I understand this correctly is it, I buy something, it pays wages which in turn pay mortgages? if so I very much agree, but there is a big difference, in the process of paying there mortgage I have just received an item or service.

If you mean this in some other way, please explain what you mean.