PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.MSE News: Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters
Comments
-
Speaking as a tenant, I would welcome the chance of a three-year tenancy. It's the lack of security that makes renting a precarious solution. We can't all afford to buy, and those of us who are looking for long-term rentals want somewhere to call 'Home'. Not a property, but a HOME! Somewhere that you can settle for a while, make friends, participate in local events and so on. Just like the rest of you. We're no different, we just don't have the money/circumstances to buy.
I've rented three homes, the first for fifteen years (given notice to quit as landlord was retiring and wanted to sell the house); the second for five years (our dream cottage in the country, again an out-of-the-blue notice to quit as it was a farm cottage and was needed for a new farm worker). We've been in this one almost a year and have a fantastic landlord, who says he will probably need it in three or four years' time as he intends to retire to it. But who knows? He may change his mind. His prerogative, but my problem.
We're good tenants, just the two of us, never paid rent late, looked after everywhere we've lived as if it were our own, spent a fortune on paint, curtains, garden stuff, moving costs etc. That's all part of renting. It's very much a gamble, so anything that gives you a bit of peace of mind is very, very welcome.I can't imagine a life without cheese. (Nigel Slater)0 -
Speaking as a tenant, I would welcome the chance of a three-year tenancy. It's the lack of security that makes renting a precarious solution. We can't all afford to buy, and those of us who are looking for long-term rentals want somewhere to call 'Home'. Not a property, but a HOME! Somewhere that you can settle for a while, make friends, participate in local events and so on. Just like the rest of you. We're no different, we just don't have the money/circumstances to buy.
I've rented three homes, the first for fifteen years (given notice to quit as landlord was retiring and wanted to sell the house); the second for five years (our dream cottage in the country, again an out-of-the-blue notice to quit as it was a farm cottage and was needed for a new farm worker). We've been in this one almost a year and have a fantastic landlord, who says he will probably need it in three or four years' time as he intends to retire to it. But who knows? He may change his mind. His prerogative, but my problem.
We're good tenants, just the two of us, never paid rent late, looked after everywhere we've lived as if it were our own, spent a fortune on paint, curtains, garden stuff, moving costs etc. That's all part of renting. It's very much a gamble, so anything that gives you a bit of peace of mind is very, very welcome.
But you are the dream tenants. Others are not. And a LL might not know the difference. So they give an initial six months so that landlord and tenant can decide whether they want to continue their relationship. After that, if both are happy, there is no reason for the relationship not to continue.(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
We just need much more social housing to be built. Demand outstrips supply leading to too many unscrupulous landlords, charging exorbitant rent.
When I first privately rented in the 70's, it was simple. Rent book, months rent in advance, fair rents officers around and plenty of choice of flats.
LinYou can tell a lot about a woman by her hands..........for instance, if they are placed around your throat, she's probably slightly upset.
0 -
We just need much more social housing to be built. Demand outstrips supply leading to too many unscrupulous landlords, charging exorbitant rent.
When I first privately rented in the 70's, it was simple. Rent book, months rent in advance, fair rents officers around and plenty of choice of flats.
Lin
Who will pay for this housing? The reason social housing rent is cheaper is because it is not at market rate and so is being effectively subsidised by the tax payer.0 -
Who will pay for this housing? The reason social housing rent is cheaper is because it is not at market rate and so is being effectively subsidised by the tax payer.
That's not really true is it? Social landlords are not trying to make a profit whereas private landlords are in it for the money (nothing wrong with that BTW). Private landlords tend to have higher costs than social landlords such as letting agency fees and mortgage interest. I imagine that tradespeople are also more expensive for private landlords because social landlords have more properties and can therefore put more business their way. Surely the unit price of having one boiler serviced is more than having hundreds of boilers serviced.0 -
I've actually found the opposite. At one point I had one managed and one unmanaged (i.e. self managed) property and the tradesmen charged far less at the former than the latter. The reason was that the managing agent put huge amounts of business their way, knew what jobs ought to cost, and didn't fall for the repeated visits scam where the tradesman repairs several inessential expensive things before fixing the actual cheap-to-fix problem.That's not really true is it? Social landlords are not trying to make a profit whereas private landlords are in it for the money (nothing wrong with that BTW). Private landlords tend to have higher costs than social landlords such as letting agency fees and mortgage interest. I imagine that tradespeople are also more expensive for private landlords because social landlords have more properties and can therefore put more business their way. Surely the unit price of having one boiler serviced is more than having hundreds of boilers serviced.
The most outrageous instance of this was when, as an owner, I had a faulty boiler that wouldn't light and a dishonest plumber replaced the control panel for £300. It still didn't work and an honest plumber replaced a c-shaped strip of metal that was part of the ignition and which cost £1.
Between that and the fact that tenants get a better service, I reckon management pays for itself. The reason landlords don't use it is that they're so over-borrowed, paying for management would wipe out their cashflow. For landlords like that, avoiding or stinting on doing proper repairs is the difference between making a profit and making a loss.0 -
westernpromise wrote: »I've actually found the opposite. At one point I had one managed and one unmanaged (i.e. self managed) property and the tradesman charged far less at the former than the latter. The reason was that the managing agent put huge amounts of business their way, knew what jobs ought to cost, and didn't fall for the repeated visits scam where the tradesman repairs the most expensive thing.
Between that and the fact that tenants get a better service, I reckon management pays for itself.
Is that the opposite of what I said? Bulk purchasing gives the purchaser more power to negotiate costs down is what I was saying and now you are agreeing. I'm guessing you took a little care when choosing the letting agent and didn't use Foxtons...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11658257/Foxtons-facing-huge-legal-bill-after-landlord-is-charged-616-to-change-light-fitting.html
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/19/foxtons-letting-bill-charge-landlord-tenants-check0 -
Is that the opposite of what I said? Bulk purchasing gives the purchaser more power to negotiate costs down is what I was saying and now you are agreeing. I'm guessing you took a little care when choosing the letting agent and didn't use Foxtons...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11658257/Foxtons-facing-huge-legal-bill-after-landlord-is-charged-616-to-change-light-fitting.html
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/19/foxtons-letting-bill-charge-landlord-tenants-check
My point was that private landlords who go through a letting agent enjoy the same advantages of scale as a social landlord would, whereas individual BTLers do not.0 -
Crashy_Time wrote: »Did they only have one branch?
The branch we lived above!0 -
We just need much more social housing to be built. Demand outstrips supply leading to too many unscrupulous landlords, charging exorbitant rent.
When I first privately rented in the 70's, it was simple. Rent book, months rent in advance, fair rents officers around and plenty of choice of flats.
Lin
But a lot of the people who need long-term lets aren't the same people that would qualify for social housing! This is why we rent privately in the first place. The house prices around where I live are just crazy, we have debts to pay back and we don't have rich parents to give us a deposit, so we can't afford to buy.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards