Another naive call for 5-year tenancies

westernpromise

beecher2 wrote: »

What's the SNP got to do with a Shelter campaign?

The Scottish government appears constructively to be contemplating what Shelter imagines it wants,

westernpromise

beecher2 wrote: »

http://www.scottishhousingnews.com/9470/blog-private-housing-tenancies-scotland-act-all-change-for-landlords-and-tenants/

Here's a blog post about unlimited tenancy periods in Scotland - doesn't seem to mention the issues westernpromise mentions

I think you'll find it does.

westernpromise

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No, you've failed to stop anything.

You have shown that you can't engage with any of the issues I raised and are jolly cross though.

What a shame.

Now where's my buy to let landlord violin...

You don't "raise issues", you just express hate. You must hate tenants given how happy you are about what's going to happen to their landlords and then to them.

westernpromise

GreatApe wrote: »

Many landlords do not put up rents they probably feel guilty if they did.

I wouldn't feel guilty, but I just don't think it's good business. Generally I leave the rent unaltered throughput, and I rarely ask for deductions from the deposit - only if there's a genuine cash cost to me to make good. At the end of the tenancy I have the place redecorated anyway so fixing things like draft marks and screw holes in walls is not an actual extra cost to me. I also replace appliances rather than repairing them because I figure if you're paying me £30k a year to rent my flat you should get a new rather than a repaired dishwasher if the old one plays up. It just keeps the whole place looking sharp. I'm then pleasantly surprised by the new rent level.

I find that couples on £150-£250k - who are my target market - set store by living somewhere decent in a good area, and tend to look after it well themselves. If I don't bother, why would they? They'll just move out and then I'll have to spend the same money anyway.

Thrugelmir

Is there anything LL's do like?

Don't like tax changes, don't want to be regulated, don't want to have to licenced, don't want long term tenancies.

Seems as if they aren't really business people at all. As all too much effort. All they want is easy money for doing as little as possible. .

LydiaJ

westernpromise wrote: »

Well, no, it would be the seller who would be crazy to exchange in those circumstances. When you exchange you're required to to set a completion day and to give vacant possession on that day. A seller who fails to give vacant possession is in breach of contract.

As a landlord you have absolutely no idea whether the tenants will leave by that day. They will be advised by the council not to do so, for example.

As you can't serve notice until you exchange but you can't exchange until you have served and enforced notice, any such provision would make all rented property unsaleable.

I am guessing the people who come out with this guff for Shelter are 25 year old know-nothings?

I take your point that the seller would be crazy for the reasons you outline. I hadn't seen it from that angle because I've never sold a house. I have, however, bought a house (just one, which I'm now living in) and I am quite sure I wouldn't want to buy under those circumstances. If the tenant didn't move when requested, the seller would be the one to end up in breach of contract, but the buyer would be the one turning up with a removal van and not being able to move in. Perhaps we can agree that they'd both have to be crazy? After all, the main point of my post is that while I can see what Shelter were probably trying to achieve, it's very plain that their suggestion wouldn't work, which seems to be your view too.

ETA This was cross-posted with westernpromise, whose post below this is in reply to Thrugelmir, not me.

westernpromise

All the things you list reduce supply and add cost, not value.

westernpromise

LydiaJ wrote: »

I take your point that the seller would be crazy for the reasons you outline. I hadn't seen it from that angle because I've never sold a house. I have, however, bought a house (just one, which I'm now living in) and I am quite sure I wouldn't want to buy under those circumstances. If the tenant didn't move when requested, the seller would be the one to end up in breach of contract, but the buyer would be the one turning up with a removal van and not being able to move in. Perhaps we can agree that they'd both have to be crazy? After all, the main point of my post is that while I can see what Shelter were probably trying to achieve, it's very plain that their suggestion wouldn't work, which seems to be your view too.

The buyer would indeed be the most personally inconvenienced / stuffed in the immediate case, but because the seller failed to complete, all the buyer's reasonable costs are recoverable from the seller. So if your mortgage offer lapses and you have to reapply and are charged again, or it the deal you had lapses and you get a worse one, or if the delay takes you past a deadline and you have to pay an extra 3% in stamp duty, or you have to move into a hotel for 3 months, all of those are direct costs you've incurred. The seller would be liable for the lot because they arose from his breach of contract, and what's more, he can't say he can't afford them, because he's got a house you can pursue him for.

In practice, as you suggest, I think nobody would buy a tenanted flat intending to occupy it at all - they might not be able to occupy it. Another landlord might buy it because they don't have that problem, but the price is going to reflect the fact there's an overprivileged tenant in it.

GreatApe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Is there anything LL's do like?

Don't like tax changes, don't want to be regulated, don't want to have to licenced, don't want long term tenancies.

Seems as if they aren't really business people at all. As all too much effort. All they want is easy money for doing as little as possible. .

Landlords like extending and converting homes to add to the supply of rented rooms

If HMOs were all banned or over regulated out of existence rents would surely rise, they have added lots to supply and suppressed the rents especially in towns that have easily convertible properties. What you feel are evil landlords are adding to the supply side. Maybe not a flood but probably in excess of a million additional bedrooms have been created by landlords via conversions and extensions. What do you think house prices and rents would be like if those million bedrooms had not been brought to market?

They also utilize bedrooms more effectively, many 4 bedroom rental homes will have 4 or even 5 rooms lived in by tenants. My own 6 bedroom house has one bedroom in use the others are empty. If I were to sell to an owner its very likely it would be a husband and wife so just two people in the home. If a landlord purchased it it would likely be let to 8-10 sharers.

westernpromise

I am always fascinated by the argument that landlords have contributed to a housing shortage. As the manner in which a house is owned has no impact on the total numbers of houses it is clear that this proposition cannot be true. The only way it could be is if landlords replaced a large number of occupants with a smaller, but of course in practice that is what owner-occupiers do.