Autumn Statement discussion

Pixie5740

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Who knows...

I think we do know. Rent increases were down to supply & demand. Demand has now dropped because there are less jobs so now you can rent the same property for less than you could in 2010 before and letting agent fees were made unlawful in 2012.

Miss_Samantha

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I think we do know. Rent increases were down to supply & demand. Demand has now dropped because there are less jobs so now you can rent the same property for less than you could in 2010 before and letting agent fees were made unlawful in 2012.

You don't know either, then.

Pixie5740

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

You don't know either, then.

No you're right what would I, someone renting in Aberdeen before letting fees were made unlawful, after letting fees were made unlawful, before, during and after the boom of $100+/bbl know about the property market in the area?

Many people seem happy with the proposed changes some of them are even landlords. Why are you so unhappy about it Miss Samantha? Do you run one of these shoddy letting agents that will be hit by the changes by any chance?

Heliflyguy

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

The issue is that a holding deposit that must always be refundable in full if the tenant decides to change her mind is of no use at all.

Well I guess we dont know why Scotland didnt get rid of that fee or deposit along with all the others if it is of no use.

At least it will now free up some work for these guys..

https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/all-news/tag/Holding%20Deposit

Miss_Samantha

Pixie5740 wrote: »

No you're right what would I, someone renting in Aberdeen before letting fees were made unlawful, after letting fees were made unlawful, before, during and after the boom of $100+/bbl know about the property market in the area?

Yes, that does not prove anything either way. Thus you do not know either. QED.

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Many people seem happy with the proposed changes some of them are even landlords.

Amongst any group of people there are always a few who do not understand what they are doing

This is obviously not good for landlords.

It potentially kills an income stream, potentially increases costs, and potentially removes a differentiator (for landlords who do not charge any fee now).

Not a single positive angle for landlords.

All agents will be hit. To claim that it'll only hit 'shoddy' agents is disingenuous.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Yes, that does not prove anything either way. Thus you do not know either. QED.



Amongst any group of people there are always a few who do not understand what they are doing

This is obviously not good for landlords.

It potentially kills an income stream, potentially increases costs, and potentially removes a differentiator (for landlords who do not charge any fee now).

Not a single positive angle for landlords.

All agents will be hit. To claim that it'll only hit 'shoddy' agents is disingenuous.

How on earth do they manage in Scotland then? I'm yet to hear about the wanton shortage of rental property north of the border.

As we found in the banking crisis - sometimes a little regulation is needed.

Miss_Samantha

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

How on earth do they manage in Scotland then?

Err, one can manage most bad news... It does not turn them into good news, though, does it?

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

As we found in the banking crisis - sometimes a little regulation is needed.

We don't need more regulation, we need more homes.

marksoton

Long overdue.

I hope Foxtons in particular get their fingers burnt.

dlmcr

Far too many letting agents out there providing generally a dreadfully poor, and poor value for money service to landlords and tenants, it will be no bad thing to see them diversify into doing something useful or go out of business.
Even if rents go up, which I doubt they will (LHA / benefits cap is just one of a number of reasons for this) , as previously mentioned even if additional rent is charged this will remain less than the agents fees, and will in any case go straight to the landlord. It can therefore be negotiated between landlord and tenant so both parties will have more power to negotiate, with the agency moving to being out of the picture.

BarryBlue

Crashy_Time wrote: »

And if landlords didn`t own those homes that are "provided" I suppose the homes would disappear in a puff of smoke? :rotfl:So funny seeing people clinging to the old memes as the ground shifts beneath their feet.

All that may be true for some people. I have properties that would give me a good profit if I sold them all tomorrow, given the market where I live. I choose to continue to rent out at a fair price with a competent agent that gives tenants a fair deal and does the job for me very well too.

There is very strong demand for rental property where I am. I can't speak for other areas. I would point out that I don't rent to HB tenants, and in fact most properties in this area are to young professional people. I also don't have any mortgages to worry about. So nothing is shifting beneath my feet here.

As I have said, I am all for good tenants being better protected against unscrupulous landlords and agents. But it needs to help landlords too by penalising bad tenants and enabling evictions to take place on such people very quickly, so that 'blocked' property can be brought back into the market. Ultimately the good tenants are currently subsidising the bad ones.