Right to buy tenant plan to cost LLs £50 Billion

Green_Bear

Chrysalis wrote: »

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?

True. but it shows the direction of travel the govt is headed in.
It's gradually making BTL less attractive.
But a lot of BTLs landlords have their head in the sand or are suggesting elaborate ways to try and mitigate against the effects.
It's a strange kind of stubbornness that doesn't work well in investing.
It's not contrarian, it's denial.

Cakeguts

Chrysalis wrote: »

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?

We have rental property in another country in Europe. Taking the price paid for the house the rentals received are roughly the same level as they for Greater Manchester. However the rentals are very different. The leases are 3 years. The rents rises in line with inflation every three years. Some houses are let with fitted kitchens but they don't have to be. The minimum requirement is one cupboard and a sink. So a fitted kitchen isn't necessary in a rental property as the tenant is expected to fit their own if they want one and take it with them when they go. I would be more than happy to have that introduced into UK lettings. Houses are unfurnished and white goods are not provided. There is no piped gas so houses do not have central heating. I am quite happy to let houses in the UK without central heating it gets rid of the problem of the gas certificates. Heating is either large gas containers, or oil or wood or air source heat pumps. Maintenance of the property is paid for by the landlord but running of the property is paid for by the tenant. There are no light fittings. The tenant gets bare bulb in a flex and they get their own light fittings. As they get their own light fittings landlords do not pay for new bulbs.



I would be quite happy to let property in the UK with no light fittings and no fitted kitchen and no central heating however I don't think I would be allowed to.


As to anti social behaviour I don't know what the solution is but I don't think that an anti social tenant should be allowed to continue to live in a house if they are making their neighbour's lives hell.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

We have rental property in another country in Europe. Taking the price paid for the house the rentals received are roughly the same level as they for Greater Manchester. However the rentals are very different. The leases are 3 years. The rents rises in line with inflation every three years. Some houses are let with fitted kitchens but they don't have to be. The minimum requirement is one cupboard and a sink. So a fitted kitchen isn't necessary in a rental property as the tenant is expected to fit their own if they want one and take it with them when they go. I would be more than happy to have that introduced into UK lettings. Houses are unfurnished and white goods are not provided. There is no piped gas so houses do not have central heating. I am quite happy to let houses in the UK without central heating it gets rid of the problem of the gas certificates. Heating is either large gas containers, or oil or wood or air source heat pumps. Maintenance of the property is paid for by the landlord but running of the property is paid for by the tenant. There are no light fittings. The tenant gets bare bulb in a flex and they get their own light fittings. As they get their own light fittings landlords do not pay for new bulbs.



I would be quite happy to let property in the UK with no light fittings and no fitted kitchen and no central heating however I don't think I would be allowed to.

ll.

What you describe (in Germany?) is closer to the commercial property lease in the UK.

The-Joker

Green_Bear wrote: »

It leads to populist politics and social unrest.

Yellow vest protests spread to the UK when the fallout rom brexit uncertainty dust settles

Chrysalis

MobileSaver wrote: »

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.

Wow, but I will respect the fact you at least have a proposal which is far better than many others I ask these type of questions to.

Your idea keeps them with a roof over the head and has them deal with other potential nut cases, so is a means to let them know how it feels to others, so its not the worst idea I have heard.

I remember as a child I was brought up in a private house area, and thatcher's BTL scheme was well under way, a family moved onto the street who had sold their council home they got from BTL, they were initially ok, but became a couple of years later very anti social, the kids bullying others on the street including my mother, and when the parents were asked to do something about it by other residents they became very hostile and anti social. By the time this was happening I was already 17-18 so wasnt long before I moved and my parents also moved away not long after that also. So I do respect the comments on anti social behaviour, its horrid. But I also dont like prejudice, one cannot assume e.g. everyone on a council estate doesnt know how to behave.

Thrugelmir

MobileSaver wrote: »

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.

Lowlifes with money would remain unaffected.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

My

In the 1960s when they moved to the area where I was brought up (see I am old) there were 5 what we would now call family sized houses on the market for sale in the whole area. One of those was in a bad state with dry rot. People forget how little property there was available for sale. Even if you wanted to buy somewhere often there was nothing available. People either rented from their employers, stayed at home or got a council flat.

You can't have boarding houses now because of the HMO situation. By introducing all the red tape that goes with HMOs the governments since the 1960s and 1970s have caused rents to become much higher in shared accommodation. A landlady cooking for boarders now would have lodgers and too many of those would turn her accommodation into an HMO or a B&B with the same problem.


I wouldn't buy anything that I couldn't get several years worth of wears out of.

I think there was less housing for sale back then, because people just moved less.
People often stayed in the same town all their lives and married local partners.

Another thing I remember is how easy it was to find accommodation above pubs.
As in rooms to sleep in, not flats to rent.
Quite often when working away, we'd just turn up at a pub and ask for a room.
I don't think they even took any ID. It was just a case of hand over the cash and get your room key.
These days hardly any of the pubs still open offer sleeping accommodation. Not sure why.

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Lowlifes with money would remain unaffected.

You've got to start somewhere. May as well be the poor.

We can extend the list of undesirables as we go. Baby steps.

Cakeguts

Chrysalis wrote: »

Wow, but I will respect the fact you at least have a proposal which is far better than many others I ask these type of questions to.

Your idea keeps them with a roof over the head and has them deal with other potential nut cases, so is a means to let them know how it feels to others, so its not the worst idea I have heard.

I remember as a child I was brought up in a private house area, and thatcher's BTL scheme was well under way, a family moved onto the street who had sold their council home they got from BTL, they were initially ok, but became a couple of years later very anti social, the kids bullying others on the street including my mother, and when the parents were asked to do something about it by other residents they became very hostile and anti social. By the time this was happening I was already 17-18 so wasnt long before I moved and my parents also moved away not long after that also. So I do respect the comments on anti social behaviour, its horrid. But I also dont like prejudice, one cannot assume e.g. everyone on a council estate doesnt know how to behave.

I think it is a case of everyone knows where there was a council estate where the local council did not deal with the anti social tenants until really quite recently so the decent tenants had to put up with them for a lot longer than they should have had to.

MobileSaver

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Lowlifes with money would remain unaffected.

My proposal is for people who are expecting subsidised rent; if you are a lowlife with money then you are affected as you will need to use your own money to rent from a private landlord. However...

Sailtheworld wrote: »

We can extend the list of undesirables as we go. Baby steps.

Exactly. We should extend the existing Right To Rent laws (which currently cover immigration status) to dissuade private LLs from renting to anyone with a CPN/CBO/ASBO at the risk of a £3,000 or more fine if they're caught. (Effectively a blacklist so that even lowlifes with money are left with little choice than living in the ghettos.)