Right to buy on privately rented homes

Green_Bear

Malthusian wrote: »

Telling people that they're not allowed to discuss the proposal until Labour releases additional details that Labour hasn't worked out yet is not discussion.



Well, the funny thing is that if you're a good tenant you don't really need one. Asking for a three-year tenancy ties you down for three years. All you gain in return is the assurance that the landlord won't suddenly decide to sell up and chuck you out rather than sell the property with a sitting, reliable tenant. The first usually outweighs the second.

That depends on the laws brought in.
Often (ie in other countries) the 3 year minimum period applies only to the landlord. The tenant can leave at any time by giving a month or two notice.
Similar to a council tenant. They can stay for life, or leave with a month's notice.

Green_Bear

MobileSaver wrote: »

The law will never be changed so that legal charges on property become invalid; even the Labour party wouldn't be crazy enough to try such a thing.


Even comrade Corbyn, when he first touted the idea, admitted that the State would have to cover the discount. Unfortunately for him he was going to use BTL tax allowances to fund it but these have already been removed so it's difficult to see where the money would come from now...

George Carney has a computer that creates UK currency. Takes a few seconds.

Strictly speaking, it's not money, it's currency - but that's a different topic!

westernpromise

Green_Bear wrote: »

Well that is interesting. I'm not a LL, so have little direct experience.
But when you applied for a rental property in the past (eg council, secure tenancy etc), no one asked what length of tenancy you wanted. The tenancy terms were standardised in law. You could sign what ever document you wanted, but once you'd moved in and paid rent you had a secure tenancy. What the tenant or landlord wanted was not relevant.

A bit like getting married. The terms of contract could not be altered. It was set by the govt, not the parties involved.

That's not how renting works in my experience. One of the first questions landlords ask a tenant is How long do you want the property for, and a frequent question for the landlord from the tenant is What's the risk you'll need to reoccupy and evict me?

Occasionally someone says Can we agree to fix the rent for the first two years, and I usually say Sure, but in that case we'll need to be slightly closer to the asking rent.

In reality, like lots of landlords, I never put the rent up to a sitting tenant who's paying, because why would you? And anyway nobody knows what the "right" rent is within a couple of per cent. But a tenant who says that is indicating they'd expect to pay more after a year. So if that's what they're expecting, you oblige them by charging them a bit more. I'm happy because I've obtained a rent rise pre-dated to the start of the first year, and they're happy because they've avoided a rent rise at the end of the first year.

Nobody's ever coupled that with a request for a three-year tenancy though. As I have no current plans to reoccupy, all my tenancies are indefinite so far as I'm concerned, but if someone wanted that written into the rental agreement, well, once again you don't ask for something unless it's worth something to you.

I think one of the problems of politician amateurs messing with the property market is that they're never equipped to think this sort of issue through. I'd be fine if three-year tenancies became a thing, as I'd just charge more for them.

Green_Bear

westernpromise wrote: »

The point that nobody who is keen on exterminating the kulaks ever seems to absorb is the differential occupancy rates between rented and owner occupied properties.

A 5-bedroom 3-reception house converted to HMO may house 16 people. Drive the kulak out of the lettings business and the house may well be sold to owner occupiers - but to a family of maybe five, not 16. That leaves a net nine people homeless and looking for accommodation in whatever is left of the shrinking rental supply. That's in the optimal case where the buyers aren't existing owner-occupiers trading up for more space - in which case there'd be 16 homeless ex-tenants.

This applies to pretty well all properties regardless of size. Given that renting is generally more expensive than owning, you need three incomes to serve the costs of renting where two would cover that of owning. As a result, when three tenants are evicted from a 2-bed flat, two owner-occupiers will succeed them. The 2-bedder that I occupied first singly and then as part of a couple has been occupied by three people for all but one of the last 15 years.

Although inconvenient for landlord-phobes, this problem isn't going to go away. Twenty years ago, nobody had heard of an HMO. Denial via the usual lazy assumption that tenants convert one-for-one to owner occupiers has no basis in fact. You only have to look at the nature of rental sector growth to appreciate this. If one magically converted the entire rental sector (20% or so) to owner-occupied you'd make somewhere between 5 and 10% of the population homeless.

Prior to the 2004 act, the term HMO was rarely used. But they existed and student areas were full of them. They were just called Shared Houses and there was much less regulation of them.

You raise an interesting point about occupancy though.

I expect the socialist answer would be state owned HMOs - ie Kommunalka.

Green_Bear

westernpromise wrote: »

That's not how renting works in my experience. One of the first questions landlords ask a tenant is How long do you want the property for, and a frequent question for the landlord from the tenant is What's the risk you'll need to reoccupy and evict me?

Occasionally someone says Can we agree to fix the rent for the first two years, and I usually say Sure, but in that case we'll need to be slightly closer to the asking rent.

In reality, like lots of landlords, I never put the rent up to a sitting tenant who's paying, because why would you? And anyway nobody knows what the "right" rent is within a couple of per cent. But a tenant who says that is indicating they'd expect to pay more after a year. So if that's what they're expecting, you oblige them by charging them a bit more. I'm happy because I've obtained a rent rise pre-dated to the start of the first year, and they're happy because they've avoided a rent rise at the end of the first year.

Nobody's ever coupled that with a request for a three-year tenancy though. As I have no current plans to reoccupy, all my tenancies are indefinite so far as I'm concerned, but if someone wanted that written into the rental agreement, well, once again you don't ask for something unless it's worth something to you.

I think one of the problems of politician amateurs messing with the property market is that they're never equipped to think this sort of issue through. I'd be fine if three-year tenancies became a thing, as I'd just charge more for them.

You'll notice I was using the past tense, whereas you have used the present tense...

phillw

Green_Bear wrote: »

George Carney has a computer that creates UK currency. Takes a few seconds.

From beyond the grave? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carney
Or this one https://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/food-drink/a26418021/george-carney-cocktail-mixing-interview/ ? Although it's more like a strainer for cocktails than a magic money machine.

Or do you mean Mark Carney?

Green_Bear

phillw wrote: »

From beyond the grave?

Or do you mean Mark Carney?

Yes, sorry.
I meant Mark Carney.
BoE governor

Cakeguts

Green_Bear wrote: »

Prior to the 2004 act, the term HMO was rarely used. But they existed and student areas were full of them. They were just called Shared Houses and there was much less regulation of them.

You raise an interesting point about occupancy though.

I expect the socialist answer would be state owned HMOs - ie Kommunalka.

Yes and they would be like some of the present housing association property. In very bad condition and not as good as most of the private rentals are now but never inspected because they would be state owned. Some people currently live in terrible social housing that a private landlord would be prevented from letting.

Cakeguts

The interesting thing is that we have rented property in a different EU country where the rental leases are 3 years minimum and there we have had one of the shortest rentals ever of only 1 year. The tenant can leave when they want to. A year for us in the UK is short. We have also had tenants leave at the end of the 3 year period. 3 years is short for us in the UK. To me offering 3 year tenancies or even open ended ones is a complete waste of time and effort unless you are in the business of trying to buy votes because most tenancies are ended by the tenant not the landlord.



I contacted our main letting agent about the S21 situation and they said that they have never had a no fault eviction. That is over all the properties they manage over all the years they have managed them. There has always been a tenant fault. So all you are doing by removing the S21 is allowing tenants who have created a problem to stay on longer creating the same problem whatever that is.

MobileSaver

Green_Bear wrote: »

The charge ... could just be transferred to the new owner.*

If a landlord buys a house for £100k. Gets a tenant, who then buys the house from the landlord for £80k

Huh?!?! So in the above scenario the bank has a £90k charge against the property, the tenant only pays £80k so the outstanding £10k charge is transferred to the new owner (i.e. the tenant!) How does that work?

Green_Bear wrote: »

the landlord has made a £20k loss.

Of course the whole discussion is moot as the original proposal for Private Ownership RTB involved the State making up the £20k difference so the LL doesn't make any loss... :beer: