Can you explain how government subsidized 'sitting tenants' used to work pre- 1988 housing act?

user225688

I have been watching a few nicky van hoogstraten videos lately having only just discovered this colourful character and he is always bemoaning 'sitting tenants' and how the government forced the landlords to keep those tenants at a loss and them being almost impossible to evict bar with his notorious 'winkling' tactics.

So was it really like that? where the government forced the landlords to keep them for 'almost 0 rent'? What is the rationale behind that on the government's part? I mean I am sure it is good for the tenants and the government; the former get a house and the latter get the praise for accomodating their housing but the landlord gets 'stiffed'?

I am certainly not one to jump to a landlords defense but that seems like a very poor arrangement for them?

Could someone explain how things worked back then? because that seems a very strange setup. I could understand if the government owned the properties but how can they demand that landlords fix the rent at a some pittance rent? that smells of socialism/communism to me.

knightstyle

Look at the 1965 act the new Labour government brought in, all rents had to be registered and tenants could get the rent appraised and fixed at a low rate, this rent was only allowed small increases and could be passed on to family if the renter left the property.
I knew NH slightly, his accountant more, and did several (mostly legal) jobs for him back in the late 60s and 70s.

theartfullodger

Ah, according to WikiPedia & I think various TV programmes, the convicted criminal Hoogstraten
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_van_Hoogstraten
- worth a read.

It worked fine. Then Thatcher swung powers massively in favour of landlords, who seem these days to be moaning about what a rough time landlords suffer.

I was such a landlord, briefly, in the '70s. It worked fine. Had a charming tenant, top floor of a house I bought, £10/week.

Landlords have always moaned about how hard things are for them.



Cheers! Artful, Landlord again since 2000.

Owain_Moneysaver

Problem with low fixed rents and sitting tenants is that the landlord often has neither funds nor incentive to maintain the property.

G_M

user225688 wrote: »

....
Could someone explain how things worked back then? because that seems a very strange setup. I could understand if the government owned the properties but how can they demand that landlords fix the rent at a some pittance rent? that smells of socialism/communism to me.

Errrr... but it was a socialist government.



To some degree at least. Labour has always been a party that supports provision and control from the centre. Think NHS eh? Union support (the Labour Party was born out of the union movement).


Nationalised railways. Utilities, and the car industry.


Provision of cheap housing and protection of tenants from exploitative landlords was just part of the same philosophy.


Now, how you balance the pros and cons of all that depends where you sit on the political spectrum - a question that is currently highly pertinent as we face a choice on Dec 12th between a far right or a far left government.

[Deleted User]

There is a political spectrum now, temporarily probably, but there hasn't been for a long time. The only problem is now (IMO) we have two parties at extreme ends of the spectrum which raises all sorts of issue.

I do remember when I started renting, it was possible to get fair rent assessments. I guess the thought at the time was to stop tenants being taken advantage of by private LL's but the long term issues (such as sustainability) were completely ignored. Nowadays lol, with LHA levels, private tenants on low income are being eliminated (slightly tongue in cheek but only slightly). And problems arising out of this, ignored once again. Oh well, at least its consistent.

It really does depend on your perspective as to whether one approach or another, or a completely new approach is the right way to go. But to be honest, this thread might be better on another board (political).

user225688

G_M wrote: »

Dec 12th between a far right or a far left government.

Far left certainly with Corbyn but far right? Or you are referring to Farage and his cronies? because certainly the Tories would not be 'far' right.

I have heard it said many times that the right in the UK is even more left than the supposed left in america.

EDIT: sure if mods want to move it to political, let them do so.

Linton

Corbyn is hardly far left. All the proposals I have seen floated seem pretty superficial compared with what could be done to redress the imbalances in our society.

user225688

Ok relatively then. Sure he is not Mao Zedong. But any person in (democratic) politics are constrained by the current confines of what they can act in aren't they?

Look at Trump, he hasn't been able to do half the things he wanted to due to 'them pesky democrats' thwarting him.

bouicca21

Them pesky democrats weren’t in control of Congress till the last set of elections. It was them pesky republicans before then.

user225688

bouicca21 wrote: »

Them pesky democrats weren’t in control of Congress till the last set of elections. It was them pesky republicans before then.

Doesn't invalidate my point that trump did a lot less than he could have done if he was unfettered.