MSE News: Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters

Smodlet

Yep, it is always about massaging figures to make the government look good, never about helping actual people least of all those at the lower end of the food chain who probably don't vote Tory. Just look at the pig's ear they have made of the energy prices issue.

I don't know why they don't have the stones just to lie without all this "consultation" BS. It is not as if we don't all know they lie anyway.

Crashy_Time

https://www.property118.com/government-look-throw-landlords-bus-3-year-tenancies/comment-page-7/

parkrunner

Cakeguts wrote: »

So instead of years waiting on the council house waiting list and tenants being offered "temporary housing" they will be offered housing with a private landlord on a 3 year tenancy which will not be classed as temporary housing because the whole point of the 3 year tenancy is to give tenants more security to put down roots. So working from what has been written about the reasons for these 3 year tenancies you can see straight away that a 3 year tenancy with a private landlord will not be classed as temporary housing and will be classed as permanent housing so the tenant can be removed from the council house waiting list. This will leave only tenants who need adapted housing, supported housing or over 60s housing on the waiting list and the number people classed as homeless would be reduced to almost zero more or less overnight.

But surely tenants on a six month tenancy aren't considered to be temporary? Also only anecdotal obviously but so far and including myself only one person I know is against the idea of a three year tenancy.



I think once it's finalised (if ever) it might be that landlords have to offer a three year tenancy along with existing options and the tenant has the right to pick the best option for them.

Cakeguts

Well here is an interesting idea. Your next door neighbour who is a landlord lets a property to a family. They have feral children. Social housing providers have the means to evict for anti social behaviour. I don't think there is a clause in the AST for this particular purpose because the fixed term can be for only for 6 months? Now who wants to live next door to a family where the children jump on the bonnets and roofs of all the cars in the street and they can continue to do it for 3 years while they "put down roots." In the survey I completed I didn't see anything that provided for eviction for anti social behaviour only for non payment of rent.



The other thing I didn't see anything about was what happens if the tenant removes an internal wall that is part of the structure of the property. I actually know of one person who actually did remove an internal wall while they were renting a property. They were not in the UK so the landlord was able to evict them and recover the cost of putting the damage right. I am not sure how popular a tenant paying a landlord £30,000 in damages for property damage at the rate of £5 a month is going to be.



Because there was so little information about how the system would work in practice in the survey there was no way that you could answer the questions in it because there wasn't enough information provided to to form an opinion either as a tenant or landlord.

Pixie5740

Cakeguts wrote: »

Well here is an interesting idea. Your next door neighbour who is a landlord lets a property to a family. They have feral children. Social housing providers have the means to evict for anti social behaviour. I don't think there is a clause in the AST for this particular purpose because the fixed term can be for only for 6 months? Now who wants to live next door to a family where the children jump on the bonnets and roofs of all the cars in the street and they can continue to do it for 3 years while they "put down roots." In the survey I completed I didn't see anything that provided for eviction for anti social behaviour only for non payment of rent.

Unlike in Scotland, landlords in England have no responsibility regarding the behaviour of their tenants to others. You are free to let the property to Wayne and Waynetta slob without any comeback. Many times when posters here have issues with anti-social neghbours who are private tenants they are told there's no point contacting the landlord.

Cakeguts wrote: »

The other thing I didn't see anything about was what happens if the tenant removes an internal wall that is part of the structure of the property. I actually know of one person who actually did remove an internal wall while they were renting a property. They were not in the UK so the landlord was able to evict them and recover the cost of putting the damage right. I am not sure how popular a tenant paying a landlord £30,000 in damages for property damage at the rate of £5 a month is going to be.

That's an extreme case. Even if the AST was only for 6 months the tenant could still remove the internal wall and scarper out of England or Wales.

Cakeguts wrote: »

Because there was so little information about how the system would work in practice in the survey there was no way that you could answer the questions in it because there wasn't enough information provided to to form an opinion either as a tenant or landlord.

I'm not sure 3 year AST are the way to go. I think a system like the new PRT in Scotland would be better - no end date for the tenant but more grounds for eviction for the landlord.

Cakeguts

parkrunner wrote: »

But surely tenants on a six month tenancy aren't considered to be temporary? Also only anecdotal obviously but so far and including myself only one person I know is against the idea of a three year tenancy.



I think once it's finalised (if ever) it might be that landlords have to offer a three year tenancy along with existing options and the tenant has the right to pick the best option for them.

There aren't any existing options planned. The whole point is so that "families can put down roots." so obviously 6 months is viewed as not long enough and is viewed a temporary otherwise there would be no need for the 3 years.



What it will cause is that mobile workers will have two houses. One vacant one where they live some of the time and that they own and one rented one near to their work. So that will reduce the availability of rented housing straight away. There was nothing in the survey to say that they were considering the option of keeping the 6 month tenancies that we have now. So it looks like 3 year tenancies will be the standard.



If they also abolish no fault Section 21 we are back to the rent acts. Anyone who only has one property would do well to consider selling now. I have got absolutely wonderful tenants but I don't think I can continue to let to them if this goes through because I will have to carry all the risk.

Smodlet

Cakeguts wrote: »

Well here is an interesting idea. Your next door neighbour who is a landlord lets a property to a family. They have feral children. Social housing providers have the means to evict for anti social behaviour. I don't think there is a clause in the AST for this particular purpose because the fixed term can be for only for 6 months? Now who wants to live next door to a family where the children jump on the bonnets and roofs of all the cars in the street and they can continue to do it for 3 years while they "put down roots." In the survey I completed I didn't see anything that provided for eviction for anti social behaviour only for non payment of rent.

Or spare a thought for the homeowners the other side of a party wall from the Chav from Hell, who holds loud, weed-smoking, weed-selling parties every week end, whose all-male guest list urinates in her front garden and who is almost certainly a prostitute.

Yes, the council know, they have known for almost 2 years, as have the police and the utterly useless LL. None of them have to live next door to her. She might as well have a 3 year tenancy, she has already been there more than 2 and, apparently, has paid no rent for over 1... And guess who the LL expects us to feel sorry for!

Cakeguts

Smodlet wrote: »

Or spare a thought for the homeowners the other side of a party wall from the Chav from Hell, who holds loud, weed-smoking, weed-selling parties every week end, whose all-male guest list urinates in her front garden and who is almost certainly a prostitute.

Yes, the council know, they have known for almost 2 years, as have the police and the utterly useless LL. None of them have to live next door to her. She might as well have a 3 year tenancy, she has already been there more than 2 and, apparently, has paid no rent for over 1... And guess who the LL expects us to feel sorry for!

I expect she is exactly the kind of person that the government and housing charities have in mind. After all all those greedy landlords who are any good at being a landlord are going to be evicting her continuously after 6 months. Lets you know that the housing charities don't care about the people who have to live next door to people like this.

Crashy_Time

Cakeguts wrote: »

Well here is an interesting idea. Your next door neighbour who is a landlord lets a property to a family. They have feral children. Social housing providers have the means to evict for anti social behaviour. I don't think there is a clause in the AST for this particular purpose because the fixed term can be for only for 6 months? Now who wants to live next door to a family where the children jump on the bonnets and roofs of all the cars in the street and they can continue to do it for 3 years while they "put down roots." In the survey I completed I didn't see anything that provided for eviction for anti social behaviour only for non payment of rent.



The other thing I didn't see anything about was what happens if the tenant removes an internal wall that is part of the structure of the property. I actually know of one person who actually did remove an internal wall while they were renting a property. They were not in the UK so the landlord was able to evict them and recover the cost of putting the damage right. I am not sure how popular a tenant paying a landlord £30,000 in damages for property damage at the rate of £5 a month is going to be.



Because there was so little information about how the system would work in practice in the survey there was no way that you could answer the questions in it because there wasn't enough information provided to to form an opinion either as a tenant or landlord.

They want amateurs to stop being landlords, it is pretty obvious now? Having said that I don`t think we will see 3 year tenancies, 12 months is more than adequate.

Rosemary7391

Cakeguts wrote: »

I expect she is exactly the kind of person that the government and housing charities have in mind. After all all those greedy landlords who are any good at being a landlord are going to be evicting her continuously after 6 months. Lets you know that the housing charities don't care about the people who have to live next door to people like this.

I'm a little bit confused. Whilst I agree it is not pleasant to live next to someone who is engaging in anti-social behaviour, evicting them probably just passes the problem along? Surely the goal should be to stop the anti social behaviour? I think actually removing the no fault option to eviction would improve this process. Say that anti social behaviour was a grounds for "at fault" eviction. Such an eviction would have greater ongoing consequences and as such the threat of it would be more likely to persaude tenants to improve their behaviour.



That said, I'm not sure it's appropriate for landlords to be policing anti social behaviour. Owner occupiers can also be anti social; I don't see it as desireable that we treat them differently. Not least because different landlords will have vastly different attitudes towards it and many just won't be bothered as long as the rent is paid and house isn't damaged.