Right to buy tenant plan to cost LLs £50 Billion

Chrysalis

Green_Bear wrote: »

If the junkies were bad enough for the courts to evict them from social housing, then they'll probably be willing to evict them from private rental. Unless you predict the govt will make security of tenure for private tenants greater than that for council tenants?

The reason social landlords evict so many anti-social tenants, is because the govt rules force them to prioritise them for housing in the first place.

When council housing was first built, it was allocated for all respectable workers for life (including RMT Union officials) to provide stable communities. It wasn't allocated to junkies and ex-prisoners. They went to Mr Rachman.

Indeed, one thing we can be certain off, whatever law changes may come about, no one is ever going to get the same protections in private rental as they do in social rental, so if a council can evict someone, then so can a private landlord.

A landlords protection against bad tenants is not super short 6 month tenancies, its tenants breaching the tenancy terms and conditions. If people are been evicted without breaching these t&c, then they probably not a that bad tenant in the first place. I have read landlord's stating they want a tenant out simply because her boyfriend isnt clean shaven, there is a ton of prejudice out there, and landlord's can be extremely picky. 6 month AST's should never really have been a thing in the first place.

Green_Bear

Chrysalis wrote: »

Indeed, one thing we can be certain off, whatever law changes may come about, no one is ever going to get the same protections in private rental as they do in social rental, so if a council can evict someone, then so can a private landlord.

A landlords protection against bad tenants is not super short 6 month tenancies, its tenants breaching the tenancy terms and conditions. If people are been evicted without breaching these t&c, then they probably not a that bad tenant in the first place. I have read landlord's stating they want a tenant out simply because her boyfriend isnt clean shaven, there is a ton of prejudice out there, and landlord's can be extremely picky. 6 month AST's should never really have been a thing in the first place.

I agree.
The problem with private BTL, is that the tenant's home is at the whim of a private landlord's circumstances.
If the private LL needs the property back, either to sell or for whatever valid reason (divorce, job loss etc) - the tenant is evicted.

If a council or housing association manger gets sick or leaves their job, this is not the tenant's problem.

With increased security of tenure, the landlord would (probably) have to sell to another landlord. Whatever happens, it's not the tenant's problem. Similar to commercial property leases.

Pinklady1992

My question to everyone. If this is unacceptable for private landlords (which I think it is), why should it be acceptable for council owned property? If anything, the social housing is there to home those in need, so I don't really agree with that policy either, the discounted rates are fairly similar.

Cakeguts

Green_Bear wrote: »

Why would private landlords be giving junkies security of tenure?
Unless the landlords get caught out by a sudden law change.
I would expect the junkies to end up in hostels etc with a license to occupy, rather than a tenancy.
That's all any private LL in their right mind should be offering them now, in my opinion.

The answer to that is simple. When the S21 is abolished all tenancies will be assured tenancies and all tenants will have security of tenure apart from the landlord wanting to sell, the landlord wanting to move back in, non payment of rent or anti social behaviour by the tenant but for the anti social behaviour one the landlord has to provide evidence. If you know how long it takes for a council to get evidence of anti social behaviour and how many people they employ to get the evidence you can see that no landlord is going to be able to evict an anti social tenant without spending a small fortune.



How many tenants evicted from social housing do you think mend their ways and become model citizens or how many do you think get evicted over and over again from private housing?



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/775002/EPLS_main_report.pdf It is quite a good idea to read this because it gives the reasons for evictions by the landlords who took part in the survey and if you use the kind of statistics that some housing charities use you can say that it applies to the whole country.


Or how about this where it says that they don't know where evicted social housing tenants live after eviction. https://www.24housing.co.uk/opinion/social-housing-must-end-high-numbers-of-evictions/



If local authorities with all their employees can't get a tenant to sustain a tenancy why are they expecting private landlords to be able to do it?



What I want to know is what they will do next when they realise that the same number of tenants are being evicted from assured tenancies for the same reasons as they were from the assured shorthold tenancies?



Also the next question that I don't know the answer to is this. If all tenants claiming the LHA are seen as a possible problem because landlords have become more careful who they let to because of the lack of section 21 then the solution for landlords is to raise the rent so that it is a long way above the LHA. So what comes next? Rent controls?



If you introduce rent controls what happens to the build to rent companies? What reaction would there be from the banks providing Buy to Let finance?

Green_Bear

Pinklady1992 wrote: »

My question to everyone. If this is unacceptable for private landlords (which I think it is), why should it be acceptable for council owned property? If anything, the social housing is there to home those in need, so I don't really agree with that policy either, the discounted rates are fairly similar.

In both cases, RTB is a wealth transfer, designed to buy votes. And in that respect, it's been very successful.

But remember, councils can grant themselves planning permission on pretty much any patch of land. They can also compulsory purchase any inconvenient buildings or property in their way (within reason). So effectively many councils can build houses at a fraction of the cost of private developers. Especially in SE England, where planning permission gives such an uplift to land prices. In the North, more of the housing cost is due to labour and materials (as a proportion), so councils have less of an advantage.

So the short answer is:
Councils can afford to replace houses sold at a discount, because the replacement house costs them less to build.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

The answer to that is simple. When the S21 is abolished all tenancies will be assured tenancies and all tenants will have security of tenure apart from the landlord wanting to sell, the landlord wanting to move back in, non payment of rent or anti social behaviour by the tenant but for the anti social behaviour one the landlord has to provide evidence. If you know how long it takes for a council to get evidence of anti social behaviour and how many people they employ to get the evidence you can see that no landlord is going to be able to evict an anti social tenant without spending a small fortune.



How many tenants evicted from social housing do you think mend their ways and become model citizens or how many do you think get evicted over and over again from private housing?


If local authorities with all their employees can't get a tenant to sustain a tenancy why are they expecting private landlords to be able to do it?


If you introduce rent controls what happens to the build to rent companies? What reaction would there be from the banks providing Buy to Let finance?

Councils (or more often housing associations these days) will usually be getting complaints from neighbours of the problem tenant. These neighbours may well be tenants of the HA.
These councils / HAs will probably be more willing to deal with the problem tenant, in order placate the complaining neighbours, who they will be obliged to respond to.

As private landlords probably have no relationship (or duty of care) to the neighbours, they are more likely to get away with ignoring the neighbours. Also not being a public body, the private landlord can ignore complaints to MPs or ombudsmen etc.

Also, I suspect, that a judge is more likely to believe and take notice of a council or HA saying their tenant is a problem.
The council / HA has less financial motive to evict the problem tenant, whereas a private landlord may have some financial motivation.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

The answer to that is simple.


Also the next question that I don't know the answer to is this. If all tenants claiming the LHA are seen as a possible problem because landlords have become more careful who they let to because of the lack of section 21 then the solution for landlords is to raise the rent so that it is a long way above the LHA. So what comes next? Rent controls?


finance?

The landlord could try to exclude LHA tenants by more thorough referencing etc.
But in reality any working tenant can lose their job and require LHA.
Landlords can only really charge the market rent. If you could get a rent far above LHA levels, why wouldn't you be charging that already?

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

The answer to that is simple.

If you introduce rent controls what happens to the build to rent companies? What reaction would there be from the banks providing Buy to Let finance?

Maybe BTR companies will be exempt rent controls? It wouldn't be hard to grant them a special status. Just look at the special tax status REITs and PAIFs get from HMRC at present. And ETFs like IUKP are exempt from stamp duty. Why? Because they're a fund? They're still traded on an exchange.

Generally speaking, any large plc or listed investment fund is going to get treated a lot more favourably by govt, compared to a small business or BTL landlord.

That's just the way it is.

Chrysalis

Cakeguts wrote: »

The answer to that is simple. When the S21 is abolished all tenancies will be assured tenancies and all tenants will have security of tenure apart from the landlord wanting to sell, the landlord wanting to move back in, non payment of rent or anti social behaviour by the tenant but for the anti social behaviour one the landlord has to provide evidence. If you know how long it takes for a council to get evidence of anti social behaviour and how many people they employ to get the evidence you can see that no landlord is going to be able to evict an anti social tenant without spending a small fortune.



How many tenants evicted from social housing do you think mend their ways and become model citizens or how many do you think get evicted over and over again from private housing?



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/775002/EPLS_main_report.pdf It is quite a good idea to read this because it gives the reasons for evictions by the landlords who took part in the survey and if you use the kind of statistics that some housing charities use you can say that it applies to the whole country.


Or how about this where it says that they don't know where evicted social housing tenants live after eviction. https://www.24housing.co.uk/opinion/social-housing-must-end-high-numbers-of-evictions/



If local authorities with all their employees can't get a tenant to sustain a tenancy why are they expecting private landlords to be able to do it?



What I want to know is what they will do next when they realise that the same number of tenants are being evicted from assured tenancies for the same reasons as they were from the assured shorthold tenancies?



Also the next question that I don't know the answer to is this. If all tenants claiming the LHA are seen as a possible problem because landlords have become more careful who they let to because of the lack of section 21 then the solution for landlords is to raise the rent so that it is a long way above the LHA. So what comes next? Rent controls?



If you introduce rent controls what happens to the build to rent companies? What reaction would there be from the banks providing Buy to Let finance?

Abolishing S21 doesnt do a whole lot on its own. With S21 outside of AST a landlord can evict for "any" reason with 2 months notice. Without S21 they can still evict but reason has to be a good reason, a Landlord can easily "cook up" a good reason to evict someone outside of contract, in practice getting rid of S21 doesnt mean a whole lot.

In the UK we have landlords panicking about the loss of S21. When in reality overseas private lettings give tenants much more rights and security. The contents of your post proves my next point. Which is I dont think the private rental market is fit for purpose. The problem been that rents are out of control in price increases, whilst at same time most tenants only have 6 months of security, a culture where they scared to report problems for fear of revenge eviction, and if anything is done to fix these issues such as potential rent controls and enforcing e.g. min 2 years of tenancy, then lots of LLs would likely consider it unacceptable and close up shop. We cannot emulate other rental markets here because the LLs have got used to a very unbalanced market. Hence the only solution is to make the majority of renters socially rent, and only use private renting for the high end market. For what its worth I dont consider rent controls a reasonable way forward, simply I think its better to mass build social homes for rent.

What is most definitely wrong is to raise rent for LHA tenants just because you think they will be anti social, that is plain and simple prejudice. There is anti social LHA tenants, but there is also anti social non LHA tenants. If they anti social excessively you can evict them, that would breach every single tenancy agreement I have signed. However you do have to be reasonable, I have seen reports on the net where the neighbour of a rented property is friends with the landlord, has a single disagreement with the tenant, and then rings the LL behind the tenants back (akin to grassing), and then both LL and neighbour try to get tenant out for what is "nothing", and then neighbour scratches head wondering why tenant then doesnt like them. This kind of stuff does happen, I can understand proper anti social behaviour but not silly things like that. Also raising rent purely as some kind of deterrent is the kind of thing that will only make rent controls more likely, as the government would definitely not see that as a reasonable reason to increase rent. If you dont want rent controls the best thing you can do is charge as low rent as possible.

There is also the question if someone is evicted for anti social behaviour what is the expected thing for them to do? they have to live somewhere. Should they have a lifetime ban of renting out somewhere as punishment? what is your proposal?

MobileSaver

Chrysalis wrote: »

There is also the question if someone is evicted for anti social behaviour what is the expected thing for them to do? they have to live somewhere. Should they have a lifetime ban of renting out somewhere as punishment? what is your proposal?

We are far too lenient on crime and anti-social behaviour in this country.

My proposal would be to create ghettos in run-down areas of towns and cities where all the lowlifes can be housed together in low cost, poor quality properties.

The police would be able to monitor the entrances to the ghetto and therefore efficiently keep track on large numbers of undesirables; this would dramatically cut down on crime in the area and already works really well for official traveller sites around the country.

To give people a chance to mend their wicked ways we could have a three strikes system; first strike and you are housed in the ghetto for six months before getting the opportunity to be housed in a nicer part of town, second strike and you'll be placed in the ghetto for a year and third strike means the ghetto will be your home forever more.

For political reasons we may wish to call these areas Enclaves, Boroughs or Estates rather than Ghettos.