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

Crashy_Time

rachpid wrote: »

The branch we lived above!

Good way to make sure you keep the noise down?

buggy_boy

Bulk buying should give you a discount, apart from when it is in the public sector, if you even have to deal with any part of the public sector you will know they are awful at knowing what they want and with policy and process changes... My experience is private companies give no discount to the public sector and milk them so it actually costs a lot more.

The huge advantage for giving social tenants to the PRS is the risk is also passed on.. If rent is not paid or the property is wrecked the landlord foots the bill rather than the tax payer...

The biggest issue for building more social houses is the right to buy. Lets look at the rough figures... (potentially worst case figures I agree but not out of the question).

Build a house for £200k, so have to borrow the money at a rate of 2% (interest rate arguably high although interest rates likely to rise eventually so still conservative long term)

so £4000 pa interest
£1500 pa maintenance/insurance etc
TOTAL = £5500 pa

A house that would get £650pcm would go for about £450 pcm so income of £5400 pa

So the property makes a loss of £100 pa, and that does not include rent arrears, the place being destroyed, management fees etc. Then to add to it all after just 5yrs the house could be bought via right to buy at a 35% discount...

So over 5 yrs it could cost £70,500 with risks, compared to paying a private landlord the market rent for 5 yrs of £39,000 with all the risks put on the landlord.

If they change or get rid of right to buy then it might make more sense but that would be very difficult politically.

westernpromise

rachpid wrote: »

The branch we lived above!

They were afraid if they bought more than one that they'd never be able to sell it so they rented for 22 years.

Cakeguts

rachpid wrote: »

As a tenant, all I want to know is that my tenancy is secure and I will be able to make my rental property my home for as long as I want it to be.

In our last property, we were told that the landlord would be happy to extend once the 6-month contract was up, as it was we found out a month in that he wanted to sell and would be happy for us to leave early (which we did but only because we were found a new, better property by the letting agent and had some fees deducted for the inconvenience).

We're now on a 12-month contract at our new place, but due to our recent experience can't help but have a nagging doubt that for whatever reason not in our hands maybe we won't be able to stay for as long as we'd like. That's no way to live! We can't afford to buy, and won't be able to for a good while yet. A longer contract would at least give us the security, even if it was 18 or 24 months rather than 36.

How many properties does your landlord own? The ones who only have one that is let are the ones who are more likely to end the tenancy. Landlords who own several properties are running a business and they don't evict good tenants. Sometimes you can find out by word of mouth who the bigger landlords are in each area.

Querty

Politicians are just hell bent on ridding the market of the scourge of buy-to-lets without thinking it through at all. This might succeed in driving out a lot of smaller landlords who can't carry the hugely increased risk but it will end up backfiring on tenants anyway, if it is left to market forces to sort it all out.

Cakeguts

Querty wrote: »

Politicians are just hell bent on ridding the market of the scourge of buy-to-lets without thinking it through at all. This might succeed in driving out a lot of smaller landlords who can't carry the hugely increased risk but it will end up backfiring on tenants anyway, if it is left to market forces to sort it all out.

The trouble is that the people who will lose out by a reduction of private rentals are the people who can't afford to buy and the people who need social housing but can't get it. Anyone renting from choice will not have a problem.



Unless there is an increase in social housing for each private rental lost there is going to be a problem. Many councils rely on private rentals to provide housing.

FBaby

As a Landlord running a business, you have to look at the best value for money, so you want to get the tenants who will look after the property in such a way that things won't need replacing as quickly as a tenant who live like a pig, even though it is their choice to do so in their house.

What it will mean is that those LL who won't have sold their property will do even more strident checks before renting and only those with perfect credit scores, secured job, who don't have pets, or kids, or whatever will get the property.

I am fortunate to have a type of property in a location where demand far exceeds supply. Last time, I had the choice of 3 families within the first day of it being advertised. All 3 families met the criteria or appeared to be good tenants, but I went for the one where both were professionals and who upon meeting appeared to be the most house proud. The bigger risk was that they were moving from another area and would most likely look to buy within a year, but I rather have a family going quicker than a family causing me trouble. As it is, there are still there 2 years on and are the perfect tenants. If they wanted to stay for 10 years, I'd be delighted.

At the moment, I might prioritise finding a tenant as soon as possible as long as they are 'ok', but if that 3 years business comes into play, I will opt to keep the property empty for longer to find the 'perfect in my eye' tenant.

I really don't believe this is benefiting tenants as much as it pretends to do.

need_an_answer

So as a tenant and indeed a LL you both sign a fixed 3 year tenancy with a fixed price for that period.


It all becomes a bit of a finger in the air moment when the price for that property is fixed.Rising rent is happening in a lot of areas now but does anyone want to really predict rent in 2 or 3 years time?

parkrunner

Querty wrote: »

Politicians are just hell bent on ridding the market of the scourge of buy-to-lets without thinking it through at all. This might succeed in driving out a lot of smaller landlords who can't carry the hugely increased risk but it will end up backfiring on tenants anyway, if it is left to market forces to sort it all out.

What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.

Crashy_Time

Querty wrote: »

Politicians are just hell bent on ridding the market of the scourge of buy-to-lets without thinking it through at all. This might succeed in driving out a lot of smaller landlords who can't carry the hugely increased risk but it will end up backfiring on tenants anyway, if it is left to market forces to sort it all out.

After a hard Brexit and Trump`s tariffs there are going to be a lot less workers/tenants in the UK, it will all balance out IMO.