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

caprikid1

I think the problem is that as stated Thatcher gave Landlords more power and made it more attractive to rent property.


In the meantime Thatcher gave away our housing stock and created a market for Private Landlords. The old tenancy laws were there to protect against awful landlords.

lincroft1710

Back in the early 1980s came across an old lady who was living in a house with a tenancy that had been rent controlled since at least 1957. Her rent - 15 pence (yes PENCE, I saw her rent book) a week!! She was bemoaning the fact her landlord wouldn't paint the outside of the front door, which admittedly had paint remaining on only about 20% of its surface.

user225688

So the pittance they claimed was actually true. How did the government justify that? Is it just because the rent of 15p was normal in the 50s and the 'locked in' rate did not increase with the market?

And was the thatcherite idea conversely to make it more attractive to landlords and thus there would be more houses built for tenants? but then there would be more houses but much less affordable no due to less checks and balances from the gov?

Elinore

I lived in a row of rent-controlled old cottages, but I would like to say in this instance the set up was fair.

Most were originally estates staff or farm workers not paid salaries (or ridiculously little) but were promised the house to live in as part of the agreement with the estate's owners. It was a very common set up where families all lived and worked for the estate all their lives.

it's a bit sad that my very elderly neighbours worked all their productive years for the benefit of the estate to have their contributions forgotten at a later date when it's not convenient for the modern landlords to honour the agreements made and are being pressured or harassed to move out of the homes they have lived in all their lives.

Cakeguts

caprikid1 wrote: »

I think the problem is that as stated Thatcher gave Landlords more power and made it more attractive to rent property.


In the meantime Thatcher gave away our housing stock and created a market for Private Landlords. The old tenancy laws were there to protect against awful landlords.

They didn't protect against awful landlords because those were the only landlords available to anyone wanting to rent. The number of private rental properties got less and less over time as landlords sold up when they became vacant. Eventually you got left with a lot of badly maintained property. It was nowhere near the standard of property that you can rent now because people didn't buy or let good quality property because they couldn't get a decent rent.

lincroft1710

user225688 wrote: »

So the pittance they claimed was actually true. How did the government justify that? Is it just because the rent of 15p was normal in the 50s and the 'locked in' rate did not increase with the market?

And was the thatcherite idea conversely to make it more attractive to landlords and thus there would be more houses built for tenants? but then there would be more houses but much less affordable no due to less checks and balances from the gov?

Even in 1957 15p was cheap. It was less than a gallon of petrol! Dinky Toy cars cost between 12.5p and 15p. Observer Books were 25p.

zagubov

I think we're getting too carried away with thinking that accommodation has to be private or public-owned.

The UK, after WWII, preferred the state to run many parts of the economy.
Think about travel and transport beyond the rail/road systems. Thomas Cook and Lunn Poly travel agents, and Pickfords Removals used to be state-owned (and, later on, re-privatised).

Housing's intensely vital to every country.

In the 1960s, the free-enterprise-obsessed Singaporean government nationalised their housing stock after a cartel of landowners tried to dominate the housing market,and collude to gouge their tenants.

I doubt there's an "ism" that can answer everything. Capitalism and/or socialism are fine until they hit their limits.

phillw

user225688 wrote: »

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.

How far left/right you see them is more down to your own prejudice & rose tinted glasses than reality.

The current cabinet are certainly not center right. They have had to stop JRM talking in case he reveals his thoughts again.

Corbyn is more moderate than the picture the right are painting for political gain.

Owain_Moneysaver

Cakeguts wrote: »

They didn't protect against awful landlords because those were the only landlords available to anyone wanting to rent. The number of private rental properties got less and less over time as landlords sold up when they became vacant. Eventually you got left with a lot of badly maintained property. It was nowhere near the standard of property that you can rent now because people didn't buy or let good quality property because they couldn't get a decent rent.

I remember in the 1980s and early 1990s it was incredibly difficult to find decent affordable 'middle rank' property to rent.

Mostly there was a choice of either student-like squalor (we are talking no heating or hot water apart from the electric shower) or stylish "young professional" pads with correspondingly high rents.

Now even the properties aimed at tenants on benefits will have double glazing, combi boilers, and reasonable decoration - at least in most areas where supply and demand are reasonably balanced.

Cakeguts

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

I remember in the 1980s and early 1990s it was incredibly difficult to find decent affordable 'middle rank' property to rent.

Mostly there was a choice of either student-like squalor (we are talking no heating or hot water apart from the electric shower) or stylish "young professional" pads with correspondingly high rents.

Now even the properties aimed at tenants on benefits will have double glazing, combi boilers, and reasonable decoration - at least in most areas where supply and demand are reasonably balanced.

In the early 80s I rented a bedsit room. There was a hole in the floor where you could see down into the cellar. No central heating. I had a fan heater. Electricity was from a meter. There was a sink and a baby belling cooker one side of the room and a bed and a couple of armchairs in the other side. The room was damp and clothes got mouldy if you put them in the cupboard. The windows were single glazed and didn't fit the frames. The bathroom and toilet was shared between 4 bedsit rooms. This was what I could afford and there wasn't anything much better. I remember someone who earned more than I did eventually managed to find a 1 bed flat to rent. All rental property was in short supply. It wasn't so much of a case of not being able to find anything better it was a case of being able to find anything at all.



People who complain about the standard of rental property now quite clearly didn't experience private rentals before the introduction of the assured shorthold tenancies. With the removal of section 21 there is a good chance of the quality of rental property returning to the standards of the early 80s as many private landlords sell up. This is already happening. They are being replaced by build to rent property but build to rent landlords charge more than private landlords and eventually they are going to get a monopoly of rental property apart from a few criminal private landlords. All the middle of the rental market will disappear again leaving the grotty properties at the bottom and the very expensive at the top. Rent controls will just speed this process up.