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

westernpromise

The corollary to this, of course, is that there is often a lazy assumption that every rental house that is sold is net neutral: two people rented it and now two people will own it. This isn't the case. Rental property is more densely occupied than owned in a ratio of something like 4:3, i.e. you might get two couples renting a two-bed flat but if it is sold it will be occupied by a couple with a child.

The effect of this is that every landlord who sells such a property will evict four tenants and the flat will then house only three ex-tenants. The fourth tenant still has to rent and the rental pool is shrinking. This can have only one effect on rental costs. If anyone is dumb enough to interfere with rents, it will just accelerate matters to crisis point that much faster.

As Cakeguts observes, we'd then be back in the 70s when the only type of rental available was of the Rising Damp or Man About The House variety - grotty but still expensive because in short supply. And the landlord lived downstairs.

Smodlet

Querty wrote: »

You could get Environmental Health involved and there is legal action you can take by this route but if you are the homeowner it can be more sensible to sell than get into an actual neighbour dispute.

Querty, either I have not been clear or you missed the part about the injunctions, plural. Admittedly, I have not told the whole story as I do not want to give away any more than I already have for fear of being identified. We have done the court thing. We have done the EH thing to death. It is purely down to the judge's incompetence that the Chav was not evicted, imprisoned or both last month.

Why should we move? She is the one in the wrong and even her useless LL will get her out one day. In the meantime, if she makes more noise than we are prepared to put up with, we call the police and she should be arrested.

Thank you very much for your interest and I can only reiterate I wish either you, Cakeguts or any of the other decent LLs on here were her LL. You would never have let to her in the first place, I feel pretty sure.

dekaspace

I have a mixed experience of renting on one hand people can call me a "bad" tenant because I had a few issues over the years when I have lost my job or had a benefits issue meaning I ended up a few weeks or a month behind in rent (which is always sorted) but never caused problems.


The landlords who were rude to me and claimed I was a "bad" tenant would ask every 6 months did I want to sign new tenancy (so I pay more fees) Seemed obsessed with not letting me move out, always remember one property where I lived 3 years making me laugh thinking about it as my neighbour who was with same landlord was a drug dealer, his dog went to toilet on every carpet in house, the kitchen had smashed tiles from the clients, the dealers clients damaging the communal close area but as he always paid rent on time and didn't want repairs done he was a "good" tenant.


Meanwhile when I moved out the LL wanted new carpet when I had a professional clean done, spent £30 myself cleaning and even wanted a whole bedroom repainted as the metal bed frame had scraped the wall around the headboard, he even had the cheek to claim I never cleaned once in 3 years despite having photos of a spotless property.


On prices, in the estate I live 4 years ago you got a grotty run down 2 bed unfurnished property for £200-£275 a month, the nice part of town was £400 for the same but proper maisonette or even a house, im not blaming migrants but the area has become the migrant living area so the supply and demand has changed, the rents have gone up to coincidentally LHA rates £350 a month for a grotty 2 bedroom flat even £400 but the nice flats have only gone up by £25-£50 in better part of town!


These properties are so bad as they are ex council, the ones with overgrown gardens, dumped matresses and furniture everywhere, drunken teenagers and adults on street shouting abuse.


Why live there when a better place is up the road? Supply and demand sadly.

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

The corollary to this, of course, is that there is often a lazy assumption that every rental house that is sold is net neutral: two people rented it and now two people will own it. This isn't the case. Rental property is more densely occupied than owned in a ratio of something like 4:3, i.e. you might get two couples renting a two-bed flat but if it is sold it will be occupied by a couple with a child.

The effect of this is that every landlord who sells such a property will evict four tenants and the flat will then house only three ex-tenants. The fourth tenant still has to rent and the rental pool is shrinking. This can have only one effect on rental costs. If anyone is dumb enough to interfere with rents, it will just accelerate matters to crisis point that much faster.

As Cakeguts observes, we'd then be back in the 70s when the only type of rental available was of the Rising Damp or Man About The House variety - grotty but still expensive because in short supply. And the landlord lived downstairs.

After the hard Brexit we seem to be heading for it is the number of people looking for rental that will shrink, not the pool of available houses, there are plenty of houses, always has been.

westernpromise

Wrong as always, Crashy. Net immigration is still rising. We would need net negative immigration for rental demand to shrink. As the source of our net positive immigration is not and never was the EU, leaving the EU will not move us to net negative immigration.

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

Wrong as always, Crashy. Net immigration is still rising. We would need net negative immigration for rental demand to shrink. As the source of our net positive immigration is not and never was the EU, leaving the EU will not move us to net negative immigration.

A hard or "bad" Brexit will cost jobs, especially financial services, so less people will have a reason to want to rent a property here. Doesn`t matter where people come from, if they don`t have a job to come to they won`t come, and if benefits are not reigned in we are going to end up with a far right government IMO.

Cakeguts

Smodlet wrote: »

Querty, either I have not been clear or you missed the part about the injunctions, plural. Admittedly, I have not told the whole story as I do not want to give away any more than I already have for fear of being identified. We have done the court thing. We have done the EH thing to death. It is purely down to the judge's incompetence that the Chav was not evicted, imprisoned or both last month.

Why should we move? She is the one in the wrong and even her useless LL will get her out one day. In the meantime, if she makes more noise than we are prepared to put up with, we call the police and she should be arrested.

Thank you very much for your interest and I can only reiterate I wish either you, Cakeguts or any of the other decent LLs on here were her LL. You would never have let to her in the first place, I feel pretty sure.

If by accident we had let the property to her and it would have only happened if she had lied to get the tenancy she would have got an S21 after the first 6 months fixed term.

Heliflyguy

westernpromise wrote: »

Wrong as always, Crashy. Net immigration is still rising. We would need net negative immigration for rental demand to shrink. As the source of our net positive immigration is not and never was the EU, leaving the EU will not move us to net negative immigration.

If you look who is renting in the private sector in the road that I live in then you would notice that approx 75% of the rental properties are being rented by people from the EU.
When they leave they are replaced by others from the EU.

You cannot use net immigration to determine the effect on private rentals (certainly not in my area).

Smodlet

Cakeguts wrote: »

If by accident we had let the property to her and it would have only happened if she had lied to get the tenancy she would have got an S21 after the first 6 months fixed term.

And when she ignored it...?

Cakeguts

Smodlet wrote: »

And when she ignored it...?

Get taken to court and if in rent arrears get a CCJ. The CCJ costs extra but we do it so that the tenant can't do it to any other landlord as long as the landlord checks. It does make it more difficult for people to get credit to.