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

Cakeguts

buglawton wrote: »

Big assumptions there. The council estates here in Berkshire have had a long history of tenant buy outs then changing hands. In my corner of this originally council estate 80% are now privately owned. I'd estimate prices are at about 95% of the private equivalent (better built and larger rooms than any private developments since the 70s). Agreed, some mega-estates are unattractive and have problems. But by no means all council estates do. Don't make assumptions before you tour an area and maybe view.

Berkshire is a bit different from Heywood. The house prices in Berkshire make it difficult for anyone to afford anything. In Heywood there is a lot of choice. There are vast areas of the UK that are not in the South East where ex council properties are really difficult to sell on. People avoid them.

buglawton

Cakeguts wrote: »

Berkshire is a bit different from Heywood. The house prices in Berkshire make it difficult for anyone to afford anything. In Heywood there is a lot of choice. There are vast areas of the UK that are not in the South East where ex council properties are really difficult to sell on. People avoid them.

Exactly. Go by area and locality, not by whether it’s an ex-council property.

westernpromise

Norman_Castle wrote: »

There might currently be a premium for offering longer tenancies but if three years becomes standard they are no more or less desirable than optional shorter tenancies.

But if they were desirable now landlords would offer them, which by and large they do not. It follows that if the law forced them to become standard but a tenant didn't want one, a landlord would probably give them a discount for a one-year - if shorter tenancies are better for landlords.

Hence you end up back at the place where three years costs tenants more. As it should; after all, if it's better, how can it not be worth more?

ProDave

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Or more likely the financial burden of an empty house will focus people`s minds on dropping prices to get a buyer. This is what the government want to happen, there are votes in getting more and cheaper properties on to the market, but they are doing it by the back door i.e attacking the BTL/Just rent it out mania that has appeared in recent years.

I still await an explanation of what you expect me to do.

If I dropped the price of the old house to make it sell, then just who is going to reduce the cost of building materials and labour to reduce the construction cost of the new house I am building proportionately to the drop in the sale price?

cloo

TBH, Dh and I the one time we rented were annoyed we couldn't find anything with less than12 months AST! I think this is a fine offer for purpose-built rental, but it will still want to offer earlier get-out for tenants (as that will hardly matter to big corporate owners), but a pain for private LLs, but at the same time, people do need to be encouraged to see the places they have bought to let as someone's home, not just a cash box for them.

westernpromise

ProDave wrote: »

I still await an explanation of what you expect me to do.

If I dropped the price of the old house to make it sell, then just who is going to reduce the cost of building materials and labour to reduce the construction cost of the new house I am building proportionately to the drop in the sale price?

He's a crash troll. You can't expect coherence.

Rosemary7391

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree with this post. I only have one property. My last tenant was there for over two years, with a rolling contract after his initial six months expired. He would have stayed longer if he had managed to avoid being detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. He was a good tenant inasmuch as he paid the rent on time and kept the place clean and tidy and could have stayed as long as he wished.

The property is now vacant (from today) and the new tenant will have an initial six month's contract. And why not? For all I know they may wreck the place or expect me to sub them for six months. If they are unsuitable, I want to be able to evict them when their six months finishes. If they turn out OK, then they can have a rolling contract and can stay as long as they wish.

If this becomes law, I shan't get another tenant when the next one leaves. I shall sell up. I'm sure a lot of small landlords will. And that will be a lot of rental properties out of circulation.

Yeah, I'm not sure forced 3 year tenancies are helpful. I'd rather see fault evictions become more normal, rather than the S21 "no fault" route being used because it's too hard to evict someone under S8, and then make the "no fault" evictions have a (much) longer notice period and more advantageous terms for the tenant (like reduced rent/reduced notice to leave on their timescale). I wonder how landlords/tenants would feel about that?

humptydumptybits

I am a landlord, two properties, from my perspective tenants staying long term is great, no periods without rent, no setting up costs with the letting agency. Why do people think landlords want to keep turfing people out after 6 months? I have a brand new tenant in one property, she is in her first month, previous tenant was there for 7 years. My other property has had the same tenant for 2 years, she is settled there with her children at local schools. I assume she will be there long term.


I keep my properties nice, last year I spent more on the one house than I got in rent as after 7 years it was time for a spruce up so new central heating, redecorated throughout, new carpet and it wasn't cheap stuff.


I'm fed up of all the red tape, fed up of being a villain for providing homes for people so I am thinking of selling up next year, I feel bad for the tenant with children but feel I am being driven to do it. She is a single parent and couldn't afford to buy the house, I would offer her a discount if she could raise anywhere near the realistic price of the house so another family homeless for the council to deal with. I haven't increased her rent since she moved in so a very reasonable rent for the area so it will definitely cost the local council tax payers money but I've had just about enough of the hassle.

tom9980

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not sure forced 3 year tenancies are helpful. I'd rather see fault evictions become more normal, rather than the S21 "no fault" route being used because it's too hard to evict someone under S8, and then make the "no fault" evictions have a (much) longer notice period and more advantageous terms for the tenant (like reduced rent/reduced notice to leave on their timescale). I wonder how landlords/tenants would feel about that?

The problem is if i had evicted my last tenant with s8 rather than s21 they wouldn't have been given a property by the local Housing Association, they would have been deemed intentionally homeless. I would then have been stuck with them for months not being paid any rent at all.

They ultimately would have been left homeless with a young baby, naturally I as their evil Landlord would have been blamed for this and not them for failing to bring their arrears down or listen to me in my attempts to get them to talk to debt charities on at least 3 occasions.

IF the s8 eviction route was quicker (14 days) then i really have no issue with longer 3 year contracts because i can actually get rid of the bad tenants when i need to. This is why this proposal is bad it offers good Landlords nothing but more risk, in turn it will hurt all the good Tenants with less supply and maybe higher rents. This proposal is designed to BUY votes just as Labours ideas on housing are, they do not in my opinion fix or alleviate our housing problems long term at all.

Pixie5740

ProDave wrote: »

I still await an explanation of what you expect me to do.

If I dropped the price of the old house to make it sell, then just who is going to reduce the cost of building materials and labour to reduce the construction cost of the new house I am building proportionately to the drop in the sale price?

What does the market value of the property you are trying to sell have to do with cost of buying your building materials. It's no different to those people who won't accept that their house isn't selling because they need to achieve a price of £X in order to be able to afford the next house. The house being sold is only worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it.