MSE News: Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters

westernpromise wrote: »

I filled in the survey too and pointed out that if tenants wanted 3 year contracts they'd ask for them but they don't, and I also pointed out that if they wanted them they'd bid more for them but they don't. So if a 3 year tenancy is worth the same to the tenant as a 1-year, what's the problem?

My suggestion was that by mutual consent landlords and renties could continue to agree to 1-year tenancies. If 3 years really are worth more to tenants and are worse for landlords, landlords will discount the price of 1-year tenancies, right?

I also suggested that Section 24 be revoked for landlords offering 3-year tenancies. As that is something the government could tangibly do to make this happen, but would cost money, we can be sure they won't do it.

I agree it should be about flexibility and mutual agreement. Even the 3 year contract would not be so bad if there was a break clause at 6 months for the landlord as well because the sort of problems not effectively covered by s.8 would be seen very quickly after tenant moves in. Then if tenant wants a 3 year contract they should be held to it and lose the freedom to move out should a neighbour from hell move in next door to them unless they want to take it through the courts themselves.

westernpromise wrote: »

The irritating thing about all this to me is that we have a government that purports to believe in markets, but has not absorbed the fact that the price is sending a complete signal.

Typical tenant bid for a 3-year tenancy in my property: £550 a week.
Typical tenant bid for a 1-year tenancy in my property: £550 a week.

If the bid is the same whether the offer is 3 years or 1, that means 3 years are not worth more than one, so why does the big stupid state think it might be?

Yes it all seems a bit like a Labour policy...how long is it now to the general election?

I was looking to rent in London in the mid 90's and the rental market seemed to consist mainly of people renting out their houses to sharers, as they couldn't sell because they were in negative equity due to the house price crash. There were few professional landlords around. The situation is different now because house prices are out of reach in London but I don't understand why suddenly rental laws are the problem.

Smodlet wrote: »

To what end, Cakeguts? No, just no. We have suffered more than enough already. The lowlifes she inevitably attracts need no more encouragement. She has already broken a very expensive pane of frosted glass only months after it was installed. We are not prepared to elicit any further violation or violence from her or her clients/guests/pimp/whoever!

No I meant from your point of view and your neighbours as living in street with a neighbour from hell and the council and police and anyone else who should be helping you is doing nothing to help you. You could also mention that the landlord is useless. Sometimes local newspapers do stories that make the council or other interested parties who are being called useless get their fingers out and do something especially if it is written in such a way that makes you and your neighbours look like victims of this evil woman. You have to get the rest of the community on your side.

Querty wrote: »

Yes it all seems a bit like a Labour policy...how long is it now to the general election?

I was looking to rent in London in the mid 90's and the rental market seemed to consist mainly of people renting out their houses to sharers, as they couldn't sell because they were in negative equity due to the house price crash. There were few professional landlords around. The situation is different now because house prices are out of reach in London but I don't understand why suddenly rental laws are the problem.

If you had been looking to rent in the 1970s you would have had a problem. What is known as the rent acts decimated the privately rented property market. Tenants had security of tenure at controlled rents so there were people living in very nice area of London and paying peanuts in rent. Of course they were not going to move. If a tenant died and a property became vacant the landlords sold them. There were properties that needed repairs that would cost more than the entire year's rent so landlords of unregistered properties just disappeared. Properties with these rent act tenants sold for much much less than ones with vacant possession so no one was going to buy a property to let. The amount of rented property was reducing and reducing People who couldn't afford to buy had to live with their parents or other relatives or get a council house. If you got a council house you couldn't move to change jobs unless you could find someone to exchange with.



So slowly the amount of rental property available reduced and reduced and of course what was left was all the dumps.



If you have rented recently in England and would like to continue to have that option you need to oppose the 3 year tenancies and the end of no fault S21 because any landlord who remembers the rent acts will get out of property rental. In anyone area the number of rental houses coming to the market will not be as many as a new housing development so anyone hoping that it will reduce prices may get a bit of a shock. So not only will people still not be able to afford to buy but they also won't be able to rent anywhere either. Be careful what you wish for.

Smodlet wrote: »

"The rest of the community", with one notable exception, have no intention of getting involved. They have had 2 years in which to do so. We are on our own. I am sure it would be a different story if they had to live the other side of a wall from her. We have done all we can. It is up to the LL now. Thank you for your support but we will leave it there.

You could get Environmental Health involved and there is legal action you can take by this route but if you are the homeowner it can be more sensible to sell than get into an actual neighbour dispute.