Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Megan F
    • By MSE Megan F 2nd Jul 18, 3:59 PM
    • 323Posts
    • 164Thanks
    MSE Megan F
    MSE News: Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters
    • #1
    • 2nd Jul 18, 3:59 PM
    MSE News: Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters 2nd Jul 18 at 3:59 PM
    Three-year tenancies could be introduced in a bid to give renters more long-term security, the Government has announced...
    Read the full story:
    'Three-year minimum tenancies could be introduced for renters'

    Click reply below to discuss. If you havenít already, join the forum to reply.
    Read the latest MSE News
    Flag up a news story: news@moneysavingexpert.com
    Get the Free Martin's Money Tips E-mail
Page 5
    • rachpid
    • By rachpid 5th Jul 18, 11:09 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    rachpid
    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
    Originally posted by Morglin
    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.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 5th Jul 18, 11:27 AM
    • 6,259 Posts
    • 2,381 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    The branch we lived above!
    Originally posted by rachpid

    Good way to make sure you keep the noise down?
    • buggy_boy
    • By buggy_boy 5th Jul 18, 11:55 AM
    • 505 Posts
    • 375 Thanks
    buggy_boy
    Bulk buying should give you a discount, apart from when it is in the public sector, if you even have to deal with any part of the public sector you will know they are awful at knowing what they want and with policy and process changes... My experience is private companies give no discount to the public sector and milk them so it actually costs a lot more.

    The huge advantage for giving social tenants to the PRS is the risk is also passed on.. If rent is not paid or the property is wrecked the landlord foots the bill rather than the tax payer...

    The biggest issue for building more social houses is the right to buy. Lets look at the rough figures... (potentially worst case figures I agree but not out of the question).

    Build a house for £200k, so have to borrow the money at a rate of 2% (interest rate arguably high although interest rates likely to rise eventually so still conservative long term)

    so £4000 pa interest
    £1500 pa maintenance/insurance etc
    TOTAL = £5500 pa

    A house that would get £650pcm would go for about £450 pcm so income of £5400 pa

    So the property makes a loss of £100 pa, and that does not include rent arrears, the place being destroyed, management fees etc. Then to add to it all after just 5yrs the house could be bought via right to buy at a 35% discount...

    So over 5 yrs it could cost £70,500 with risks, compared to paying a private landlord the market rent for 5 yrs of £39,000 with all the risks put on the landlord.

    If they change or get rid of right to buy then it might make more sense but that would be very difficult politically.
    • westernpromise
    • By westernpromise 5th Jul 18, 12:50 PM
    • 4,115 Posts
    • 5,348 Thanks
    westernpromise
    The branch we lived above!
    Originally posted by rachpid
    They were afraid if they bought more than one that they'd never be able to sell it so they rented for 22 years.
    Buying a house, if you believe the market has a way to fall, or if you are paying sill asking prices ( like some sheeple ) or if you are buying in London, is now a massive financial gamble!!!!! - June 8, 2012 by TheCountOfNowhere
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 5th Jul 18, 10:18 PM
    • 4,567 Posts
    • 6,586 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    As a tenant, all I want to know is that my tenancy is secure and I will be able to make my rental property my home for as long as I want it to be.

    In our last property, we were told that the landlord would be happy to extend once the 6-month contract was up, as it was we found out a month in that he wanted to sell and would be happy for us to leave early (which we did but only because we were found a new, better property by the letting agent and had some fees deducted for the inconvenience).

    We're now on a 12-month contract at our new place, but due to our recent experience can't help but have a nagging doubt that for whatever reason not in our hands maybe we won't be able to stay for as long as we'd like. That's no way to live! We can't afford to buy, and won't be able to for a good while yet. A longer contract would at least give us the security, even if it was 18 or 24 months rather than 36.
    Originally posted by rachpid

    How many properties does your landlord own? The ones who only have one that is let are the ones who are more likely to end the tenancy. Landlords who own several properties are running a business and they don't evict good tenants. Sometimes you can find out by word of mouth who the bigger landlords are in each area.
    • Querty
    • By Querty 5th Jul 18, 11:41 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    Politicians are just hell bent on ridding the market of the scourge of buy-to-lets without thinking it through at all. This might succeed in driving out a lot of smaller landlords who can't carry the hugely increased risk but it will end up backfiring on tenants anyway, if it is left to market forces to sort it all out.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 6th Jul 18, 1:04 AM
    • 4,567 Posts
    • 6,586 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    Politicians are just hell bent on ridding the market of the scourge of buy-to-lets without thinking it through at all. This might succeed in driving out a lot of smaller landlords who can't carry the hugely increased risk but it will end up backfiring on tenants anyway, if it is left to market forces to sort it all out.
    Originally posted by Querty

    The trouble is that the people who will lose out by a reduction of private rentals are the people who can't afford to buy and the people who need social housing but can't get it. Anyone renting from choice will not have a problem.



    Unless there is an increase in social housing for each private rental lost there is going to be a problem. Many councils rely on private rentals to provide housing.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 6th Jul 18, 7:09 AM
    • 16,816 Posts
    • 41,509 Thanks
    FBaby
    As a Landlord running a business, you have to look at the best value for money, so you want to get the tenants who will look after the property in such a way that things won't need replacing as quickly as a tenant who live like a pig, even though it is their choice to do so in their house.

    What it will mean is that those LL who won't have sold their property will do even more strident checks before renting and only those with perfect credit scores, secured job, who don't have pets, or kids, or whatever will get the property.

    I am fortunate to have a type of property in a location where demand far exceeds supply. Last time, I had the choice of 3 families within the first day of it being advertised. All 3 families met the criteria or appeared to be good tenants, but I went for the one where both were professionals and who upon meeting appeared to be the most house proud. The bigger risk was that they were moving from another area and would most likely look to buy within a year, but I rather have a family going quicker than a family causing me trouble. As it is, there are still there 2 years on and are the perfect tenants. If they wanted to stay for 10 years, I'd be delighted.

    At the moment, I might prioritise finding a tenant as soon as possible as long as they are 'ok', but if that 3 years business comes into play, I will opt to keep the property empty for longer to find the 'perfect in my eye' tenant.

    I really don't believe this is benefiting tenants as much as it pretends to do.
    • need an answer
    • By need an answer 6th Jul 18, 9:43 AM
    • 786 Posts
    • 943 Thanks
    need an answer
    So as a tenant and indeed a LL you both sign a fixed 3 year tenancy with a fixed price for that period.


    It all becomes a bit of a finger in the air moment when the price for that property is fixed.Rising rent is happening in a lot of areas now but does anyone want to really predict rent in 2 or 3 years time?
    in S 34 T 40 F 47
    out S 50 T 43 F 48
    2017 -32
    • parkrunner
    • By parkrunner 6th Jul 18, 11:51 AM
    • 1,251 Posts
    • 1,922 Thanks
    parkrunner
    Politicians are just hell bent on ridding the market of the scourge of buy-to-lets without thinking it through at all. This might succeed in driving out a lot of smaller landlords who can't carry the hugely increased risk but it will end up backfiring on tenants anyway, if it is left to market forces to sort it all out.
    Originally posted by Querty

    What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 6th Jul 18, 12:21 PM
    • 6,259 Posts
    • 2,381 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    Politicians are just hell bent on ridding the market of the scourge of buy-to-lets without thinking it through at all. This might succeed in driving out a lot of smaller landlords who can't carry the hugely increased risk but it will end up backfiring on tenants anyway, if it is left to market forces to sort it all out.
    Originally posted by Querty

    After a hard Brexit and Trump`s tariffs there are going to be a lot less workers/tenants in the UK, it will all balance out IMO.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 6th Jul 18, 1:02 PM
    • 4,567 Posts
    • 6,586 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.
    Originally posted by parkrunner

    The increased risk is getting a tenant that alters the property or damages it more than can be reclaimed through the deposit and they have 3 years to do it in.
    • Querty
    • By Querty 6th Jul 18, 2:35 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.
    Originally posted by parkrunner
    You could have a tenant causing antisocial behaviour which is very difficult as grounds for eviction. This could cause serious problems with neighbouring flats which you may or may not own.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 6th Jul 18, 3:00 PM
    • 4,567 Posts
    • 6,586 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.
    Originally posted by parkrunner

    We had a tenant who wired in some extra lights in such a way that when the tenant ended the tenancy and moved out and the inventory was done we had to get an electrician out to take it out because the DIY wiring was dangerous. There was a clause in the tenancy agreement to not make any alterations to the house without the permission of the landlord. That clause is there for just those sorts of occasions. The house is a semi so if the tenant had caused a fire it would have impacted on the next door neighbour.



    Who decides if rewiring a house without the landlord's permission is a fault or not and liable to eviction? The tenant has nothing to lose by doing this. They don't care about damage to the house because they don't own it. They also don't care about the person who owns the house next door.



    What worries me about this whole situation is who decides what faults lead to eviction?
    • parkrunner
    • By parkrunner 7th Jul 18, 1:45 PM
    • 1,251 Posts
    • 1,922 Thanks
    parkrunner
    What is the increased risk, I guess the LL can still evict through non payment of rent.
    Originally posted by parkrunner
    We had a tenant who wired in some extra lights in such a way that when the tenant ended the tenancy and moved out and the inventory was done we had to get an electrician out to take it out because the DIY wiring was dangerous. There was a clause in the tenancy agreement to not make any alterations to the house without the permission of the landlord. That clause is there for just those sorts of occasions. The house is a semi so if the tenant had caused a fire it would have impacted on the next door neighbour.



    Who decides if rewiring a house without the landlord's permission is a fault or not and liable to eviction? The tenant has nothing to lose by doing this. They don't care about damage to the house because they don't own it. They also don't care about the person who owns the house next door.



    What worries me about this whole situation is who decides what faults lead to eviction?
    Originally posted by Cakeguts

    Wouldn't that be found out during inspections? Maybe any changes to legislation should also include more reasons for eviction such as in your case and I speak as a tenant.
    • tlc678910
    • By tlc678910 7th Jul 18, 5:23 PM
    • 590 Posts
    • 978 Thanks
    tlc678910
    Rather than a 3 year tenancy I would support a longer notice period from landlord to tenant say somewhere between 3 and six months with tenants still able to give one months notice including after the landlord has served notice - perhaps even dropping to a couple of weeks if they had been served notice by the landlord to reduce overlap.

    However I think a second stream of fast track evictions would be needed alongside this longer notice period - rather like the fast track dismissal route for gross misconduct in a job, for gross misconduct in the tenancy. Grounds for fast track eviction including wilful and substantial damage to property, wilful non payment of rent (e.g. receiving the housing benefit or still in work but not paying), subletting/air b&b while not resident. This fast track eviction route would need a short court hearing where evidence is submitted and a much reduced notice period (or none e.g. if the person wasn't residing there). Perhaps the judge could decide notice up to a month.
    Tlc
    • Querty
    • By Querty 8th Jul 18, 7:55 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    Querty
    Maybe any changes to legislation should also include more reasons for eviction such as in your case and I speak as a tenant.
    Originally posted by parkrunner
    The trouble is that although a tenant may break the Tenancy Agreement, the law provides for Mandatory and Discretionary grounds for eviction. Non-payment of rent is now Mandatory under certain conditions and is relatively clear cut but most things are Discretionary and have to go to court. You can't legislate for everything anyway so that is one reason for decisions to be taken individually perhaps although they involve grey areas which can only be regarded as a matter of opinion. Then some matters are deemed to require human judgement and depend entirely on the whim of a judge on the day (and varies wildly between judges, a solicitor told me), and based on the presentation of evidence, with all parties involved required to turn up in court etc. Landlord insurance probably won't cover it (they would know how potty it is of course) and if you lose you have to pay winners costs on top of everything else.

    The s.21 along with the 6 month AST is so widely used because it's the only thing that reliably works in a legal system that is already hopelessly over complicated and not fit for purpose.

    Landlords can be a pain but they do not evict for no reason even if it is just that the relationship has broken down, it is their property. However, the only rationale I can think of for bringing in 3 year contracts is to drive as many people as possible out of the BTL market so that would certainly change things but perhaps not with the desired results.
    Last edited by Querty; 08-07-2018 at 2:42 PM.
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 8th Jul 18, 4:39 PM
    • 4,567 Posts
    • 6,586 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    This is essentially what we did in the house before last. We signed a 6-month contract, which then moved onto a rolling contract, and we were there just over 7 years in total. BUT the landlords there were Nationwide Bank, so there was very little chance of them kicking us out so they could sell or move in themselves. Our only worry was if they closed the branch.
    Originally posted by rachpid

    So who ended this tenancy. Nationwide or you?
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 8th Jul 18, 4:40 PM
    • 4,567 Posts
    • 6,586 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    I don't think anyone has spotted the obvious benefit to tenants - Letting agents unable to put pressure on them to sign another 12 month contract (with a renewal fee of course) Whilst we all know that tenants can go onto a rolling contract, tenant are often put under pressure especially in big cities like London.
    Originally posted by Soundgirlrocks

    This it the whole problem. London. The whole country has to have new letting laws in order for a few problems in London to be solved. Why?
    • Crashy Time
    • By Crashy Time 9th Jul 18, 9:49 AM
    • 6,259 Posts
    • 2,381 Thanks
    Crashy Time
    Rather than a 3 year tenancy I would support a longer notice period from landlord to tenant say somewhere between 3 and six months with tenants still able to give one months notice including after the landlord has served notice - perhaps even dropping to a couple of weeks if they had been served notice by the landlord to reduce overlap.

    However I think a second stream of fast track evictions would be needed alongside this longer notice period - rather like the fast track dismissal route for gross misconduct in a job, for gross misconduct in the tenancy. Grounds for fast track eviction including wilful and substantial damage to property, wilful non payment of rent (e.g. receiving the housing benefit or still in work but not paying), subletting/air b&b while not resident. This fast track eviction route would need a short court hearing where evidence is submitted and a much reduced notice period (or none e.g. if the person wasn't residing there). Perhaps the judge could decide notice up to a month.
    Tlc
    Originally posted by tlc678910

    Tenant should have to give landlord 2-3 months notice IMO, especially if landlord is locked into 2-3 year contracts, but IMO this will be watered down eventually, it is just political noise, they need to get agents fees banned though, these should be priced into what the landlord gets charged for the agents service.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,435Posts Today

8,540Users online

Martin's Twitter