Repeal S21.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

True, although there are millions of them and even if properties are filled at a cheaper rate, it won't lead to the desired pool of vacant places for ex-tenants to buy.

The truth is that the student market isn't what it used to be. More and more specialist student accommodation is being built and fewer now have to rely on the "Rigsby's" of this world. Students are also quite demanding in terms of what they expect to be provided and have a far higher instance of fall-outs and tenancy/contract breaches. For most, it is their first taste of independent living and their lack of skills in this area can prove costly to a landlord unprepared for it.

But they have to live somewhere.

Where your argument falls down is in the numbers. If you have 100 students, and 200 rooms which LLs wish to rent to students, then the 100 rooms let will be dirt cheap and the 100 unlet will cost the LL in voids, unless he dips into a different market, or sells up.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

Pointless thread to debate a non-issue.

S.21 is there to encourage investment by giving confidence that possession can be recovered easily.

However, landlords do not want to go to the cost and uncertainty of evicting good tenants.

In many parts of the country people are moaning that there are not enough houses and that prices are high: the last thing one intelligent person would want is to make matters worse.

But would it make matters worse? Putting the brakes on the gravy train that is B2L might go some way to addressing high prices and availability. It's a given that lets are, on average, far shorter in duration than owner-occupation, so the fewer rented properties, the lower the void periods and numbers, which means higher the occupancy rates and, effectively, more availability for occupation.

I'm not suggesting it's an entire solution, but better use of the resources we have could be part of a solution.

jjlandlord

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

But would it make matters worse?

Well, obviously since it would reduce supply... I.e. it would be more difficult to rent and landlords could demand higher rents.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

but better use of the resources we have could be part of a solution.

Err, the issue, at least in some area is that there are not enough resources (properties available).
Anything that reduces supply would not be part of a solution.

franklee

I don't buy this reduction in supply argument. The properties will still exist it's just that the ownership would change. Arguably owner occupiers can make more efficient use of the property as they can take in lodgers which tenants cannot do.

jjlandlord

franklee wrote: »

I don't buy this reduction in supply argument. The properties will still exist it's just that the ownership would change.

Why do tenants don't buy now, then?
If they wouldn't be the ones buying, where would the live?

franklee wrote: »

Arguably owner occupiers can make more efficient use of the property as they can take in lodgers which tenants cannot do.

Most people do not want to take in lodgers.

Cornucopia

franklee wrote: »

I don't buy this reduction in supply argument. The properties will still exist it's just that the ownership would change. Arguably owner occupiers can make more efficient use of the property as they can take in lodgers which tenants cannot do.

The issue is that as things stand, BOTH the rental market and the market for purchase of houses are oversubscribed in certain areas.

That's because those areas suffer from an overall shortage.

The effect is to raise rent and house prices to the level the market will only just tolerate. It's typically also a market that is buoyed by money from outside the area and outside the UK.

Reducing the number of properties available to rent might (possibly) have a short-term impact on house prices, but at the expense of making rents higher.

lighting_up_the_chalice

jjlandlord wrote: »

Well, obviously since it would reduce supply... I.e. it would be more difficult to rent and landlords could demand higher rents.

Err, the issue, at least in some area is that there are not enough resources (properties available).
Anything that reduces supply would not be part of a solution.

It would only reduce supply if landlords decided that demolition was a viable alternative to renting them out. Can't see it, somehow.

mrginge

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It would only reduce supply if landlords decided that demolition was a viable alternative to renting them out. Can't see it, somehow.

It absolutely would reduce supply and to suggest otherwise is economically illiterate.

franklee

If the market was flooded with landlords bailing out then the selling price is going to fall while rents for the remaining properties rise (albeit capped when affordability gets stretched beyond what the market can bear). So long as it is occupied by someone then it's not reducing the overall supply of properties lived in. So I'd suggest that the distribution between OO and let may shift towards OO. Unless you are suggesting the landlords bailing out will keep the property empty so it's neither sold or let. That would reduce supply but it's not cheap to keep a property empty especially if it's mortgaged.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It would only reduce supply if landlords decided that demolition was a viable alternative to renting them out. Can't see it, somehow.

Ooo I dunno some might but then it would be a building plot ... so will contribute to supply eventually. Unless landlords en-masse choose to run allotments, or fun fairs or summat

Cornucopia

It may increase supply to OO, but may not decrease the price. Therefore the people that are priced-out now may continue to be so.