What should the politicians do?

chappers

Crashy_Time wrote: »

"Strong" is usually used by people who bought years ago and think their house is worth X, the priced out masses are going to vote for him because he is banging on about houses being "Homes not investments" and "Use it or lose it". This latter idea is catching on with the public,

Who are the priced out masses of which you speak

There are 28m houses in this country 70% are owner occupied, that's 19m.
There are 27m households in total so that leaves 8m households in rented accommodation of some sort.
Yes there is an issue with affordability, but destroying the housing market just to increase ownership isn't the answer.
Corbyn may have ideas of a "fairer" market but it doesn't necessarily involve increasing home owner ownership.
Even Corbyn isn't so stupid as to want to crash the housing market, that's just your warped interpretation.

And as for what's not to like, are you stupid, think back to the last few times. people trapped in negative equity, unable to move.
We got off lightly last time due to a relatively robust economy, high employment rates and the ability to quickly manipulate the interest rate.

Think back to the 90's when things weren't so rosy high interest rates with the inability to manipulate them, high unemployment, people just handing their keys in and walking away.

We are currently ill prepared if such things happen again and the result will be the same for those who then fall into negative equity

cloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

He wants to crash the housing market, what`s not to like?

Because crashing the housing market just replaces a housing crisis with a pension crisis?

Anyway, regarding the notice period, I feel 2 months is about right. I suppose you could make it 3 months, tops, but it feels like it is a fair stretch of time, although I guess that varies depending on when notice is given - it's probably easier to find somewhere if given notice at the end of February than if it's given at the beginning of November.

deFoix

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The landlord should put up with the hassle because the list you have given are all risks associated with letting property. If you can’t handle them don’t become a landlord.

This is such a circular argument!

We all know what the state of the law is and the associated risks. The question is that should the law be changed to provide better consequences.

Good landlords factor these risks in either by increasing rents or by screening prospective tenants (or both). This pushes up prices, fees and hassle for good tenants.

deFoix

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The problems with renting that I can see are that there is no security for tenants. If people are going to renting for all/most of their lives they need to have security. 6 and 12 month AST are not secure.

Why should tenants have a god given right of 'security' which trumps the right of the landlords security to have their asset back? If a tenant whats security of 10 years then they should negotiate this and agree it in the letting contract.

we can tinker around the edges all we want but the fundamental problem is too many people chasing too few houses hence the 'security' of home ownership is now too expensive for many people in many areas.

Pixie5740

FBaby wrote: »

That rationale is obvious! The point is that if you increase the risks and lower the rewards, people will get out of the business, which is exactly what is starting to happen. It will benefit some who can afford to be homeowners, but will penalise those who were happy to rent, but are now facing harder competition and price increase, the price being the reward to the LL for the higher risk. .

Yes supply of rental properties will drop but if there are now more owner-occupiers there will be less demand for rental properties too. There will always be a market for private rentals be it students, professionals who have to move from work, people taking their first steps away from living at home, so there will always be money to make from letting property.


The BTL market was too hot and had to be cooled down which is what the tax changes have started to do. Since the tax changes have been brought in first time buyers are facing less competition from landlords therefore creating more owner occupiers. Those who now face the higher rate of SDLT are thinking twice about hanging on to their starter homes therefore freeing up more properties for first time buyers.

FBaby wrote: »

This is for another discussion about social opportunities and of course I don't disagree that some kids will have it much harder to be grab the same opportunities.

However, this is not what I was referring to. Take two couples with the exact same social background. The first decide that both will work FT and put money aside each month. They would love to have children but decide to wait. After 5 years, they manage to save for a deposit and can afford their first home. They then decide to have a couple of children but both continue to work FT to pay their mortgage. They would love a 3rd child but couldn't afford it.

Couple two meet at the same age and within 2 years have two children. The mum decides to stay home and father decides to reduce his hours to 30. He refuses to do overtime, can't be bothered to look for promotions, is happy to enjoy family life. They go on to have 4 more children and he reduces his hours to 24.

Do you really think that the second family should be entitled to the same security than the first? I don't. Having a roof over your head is a right for anyone, having security of having that same roof for unlimited time is a luxury that should come as a reward.

That might not be what you meant but it's what you said. How sad that you think having a secure roof over your head is a luxury in the 21st century. We know there are !!!!less people out there and when it's just them being !!!!less that's one thing children should have a safe and secure home even if their parents are eejits. What couple 1 has that couple 2 won't is choice in where they live.


This is a whole other discussion but I'm not certain than couple number 1 in your scenario are necessarily right in the way they run their family. What's the point of having children if the couple are going to stick them in nursery as soon as possible to go back to long commutes and working full time? What couple 1 have that couple 2 won't is choice.

Pixie5740

chappers wrote: »

that is exactly the other side of my argument. Rogue LLs should in turn be dealt with swiftly and robustly.

But they're not. Every tenant who is in arrears will eventually leave the property be it under their own volition of because of a court order whereas SFA happens to the majority of landlords out there who aren't declaring the income, who don't have consent to let, who don't get repairs done, who don't have the appropriate landlord and HMO licences where appropriate. If you want to even the playing field than rather than focussing on rogue tenants more should be done to the rogue landlords to deter other landlords from following suit. It's the rogue landlords that really f**k it up for other landlords as more and more legislation has to be brought in to try and protect tenants from them.

Pixie5740

Boler1985 wrote: »

This is such a circular argument!

We all know what the state of the law is and the associated risks. The question is that should the law be changed to provide better consequences.

Good landlords factor these risks in either by increasing rents or by screening prospective tenants (or both). This pushes up prices, fees and hassle for good tenants.

What law do you want changed and to provide better consequences for whom? The OP asked what politicians can do to make renting better. I gave my tuppence worth so what do you think politicians should do to help tenants?

Pixie5740

Boler1985 wrote: »

Why should tenants have a god given right of 'security' which trumps the right of the landlords security to have their asset back? If a tenant whats security of 10 years then they should negotiate this and agree it in the letting contract.

we can tinker around the edges all we want but the fundamental problem is too many people chasing too few houses hence the 'security' of home ownership is now too expensive for many people in many areas.

As I have already said in this thread, housing is a need and BTL is a want. I know landlords don't let property for the good of their health but it's not as if they are selling watches or balloons they are selling a basic human need.


I never said that landlords shouldn't be able to regain possession of the property I said that they should need a bona fide reason for wanting the property back. The Section 21 has been misused by so many landlords and letting agents as a way of getting rid of perfectly good tenants just because they request repairs (yes I know there has been a change in the law but 6 months isn't much of a reprieve) or refuse to pay letting agents extortionate fees for a renewal.


As for the tenant asking for a 10 year AST, are you being serious? Given the current legislation how many landlords do you think will go for that? I bet you could count them on one hand.

Crashy_Time

http://moneyweek.com/how-to-end-the-property-boom-and-bust-cycle/

gycraig_2

if it became easier to evict tenants is it Not possible the price of rents would drop, ATM every landlord iv spoken to has to account for a percentage of his tenants screwing him over and milking him for ages, meaning everyone else has to pay more.

Personal opinion is if a landlord can prove a tenant hasn't paid rent for 2 months then they should be able to evict them at that point, have an independent arbitrator look over the facts and then be allowed to get baillifs in.