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

Cakeguts

ripplyuk wrote: »

I don’t understand this part. Landlords don’t have any incentive to maintain properties now. They can just evict tenants if they complain. A secure tenancy means the tenant doesn’t have to be afraid of getting evicted and can contact environmental health/take legal action etc.

Or do you mean there was no regulations back then and they could just leave them all as slums?

What happens is that the landlords that do want to maintain their properties either sell them or leave them vacant. You then get left with all the dumps. What happened was all the nice properties got sold off and the landlords with the dumps didn't maintain them most often because the amount they could charge in rent for one whole year didn't cover the cost of the repairs so they didn't do them.



The incentive for landlords to repair their properties now is that a nice house in a nice location in good condition attracts the best tenants and the highest rents. That is an incentive for someone running a business. The problem comes from the bad tenants and the bad landlords. There is no incentive for a landlord to repair a property if the tenants that they let to continually cause more damage than the deposit will cover.

thelem

westernpromise wrote: »

It will reduce supply, of course, because many mortgage lenders won't tolerate

But if the minimum term for all landlords is 3 years, then mortgage lenders will have to change their rules or exit the BTL market. That's exactly why this sort of change needs to happen through regulation rather than market forces.

westernpromise wrote: »

FTBs (or others) buying these are not the solution, because typically three owner-occupiers take up the same space as four renters.

That may be the case, but it doesn't necessarily follow that encouraging people to buy will encourage people into larger homes. I'd say it's more likely that people who can only afford a small property choose to rent, but people who can afford a larger property choose to buy.

gettingtheresometime

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Crazy idea, maybe we should be looking at doing something like that again?

End right to buy & I'll support that idea

Red-Squirrel_2

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

End right to buy & I'll support that idea

Well obviously that's a given!

Cakeguts

There has to be a get out of tenancy free card otherwise people who are renting short term after a house fire or a flood will be stuck for 3 years.

Thrugelmir

thelem wrote: »

But if the minimum term for all landlords is 3 years, then mortgage lenders will have to change their rules or exit the BTL market. That's exactly why this sort of change needs to happen through regulation rather than market forces.

There'll be lenders that will tailor their products to suit. With the more professional business orientated landlords applying might even open up the market. Offering better rates.

Wongus

Fully support that tenants should receive better protection, we also need to think about what the role of a landlord is? Are they operating to maximise their own profit, or are they providing a social utility? Arguably we can't operate without landlords, so perhaps they are providing a social utility? So in conclusion, this is leveling the playing field for the tenant.

Owain_Moneysaver

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Crazy idea, maybe we should be looking at doing something like that again?

Post-war there were ample supplies of land from bomb sites, slum clearance (including lots of what would now be regarded as sought-after Georgian and Victorian terraces and tenements), and agricultural land released from food production.

Now if you try and clear an inner city slum area (which are usually already social housing) and build nicer housing you get accused of gentrification.

Red-Squirrel_2

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

Now if you try and clear an inner city slum area (which are usually already social housing) and build nicer housing you get accused of gentrification.

Not if you build council houses.

It doesn't need to be only in the inner cities though does it? There's plenty of room for some decent social housing in this country.

t0rt0ise

Ironic that social housing providers often now give one year tenancies. Just a tad hypocritical of the government I think.