Labour government would force landlords to offer indefinite tenancies

With some additional militancy era ideas.

Moreover, once you regulate, you can't deregulate quickly because that just favours the men with baseball bats as was proved with Peter Rachman from 1957 onwards. It took 16 years from 1980 to 1996 to deregulate the lettings market in a stable manner to create what we have at the moment.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 4

It doesn't really address the issue of it being increasingly difficult to own your own home, instead being locked in to paying off random rich people's mortgages on something they just see as a 'property' or 'investment'.

To get this through would use political capital that would be far better spent elsewhere. I do agree with the intention of giving people security in 'their' own home, and I don't think landlords needed the financial help they received in the bailouts, but the superior solution is to actually build homes that can only be bought to be lived in - not buy to let and certainly not buy to leave.

Reply 5

username1148663

Original post by Andrew97

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/09/labour-would-force-uk-landlords-to-offer-indefinite-tenancies

What do you think?

It’s a stupid idea simply because it’s not practical to do so for a multitude of reasons I am sure have been highlighted since the thread has been opened (haven’t read it yet)

Reply 6

Original post by ThomH97

It doesn't really address the issue of it being increasingly difficult to own your own home, instead being locked in to paying off random rich people's mortgages on something they just see as a 'property' or 'investment'.

To get this through would use political capital that would be far better spent elsewhere. I do agree with the intention of giving people security in 'their' own home, and I don't think landlords needed the financial help they received in the bailouts, but the superior solution is to actually build homes that can only be bought to be lived in - not buy to let and certainly not buy to leave.

Buy to Leave is a London specific problem that can and should be addressed through the planning system.

The government is in the course of phasing out higher rate tax relief on mortgage costs for buy to let properties. Basic rate tax relief should also be phased out. It distorts the market by making ownership of residential properties cheaper for landlords compared with owner occupiers.

Reply 7

Original post by CoolCavy

Not every landlord is some rich fat cat. My parent's mum died and she inherited the ex-council house so rents it off as she has no other income due to my abusive father.

You've painted her sympathetically, but do realise you've still just given an example of a landlord not needing to work because she can charge so much rent.

Original post by nulli tertius

Buy to Leave is a London specific problem that can and should be addressed through the planning system.

The government is in the course of phasing out higher rate tax relief on mortgage costs for buy to let properties. Basic rate tax relief should also be phased out. It distorts the market by making ownership of residential properties cheaper for landlords compared with owner occupiers.

That would probably help in the short term, but it doesn't discourage those who are rich enough to afford the mortgage themselves (or can buy outright), and potentially raises rents to get the same profit. We would still have a problem of people contributing nothing to society but profiting from deliberately increasing the cost of living, and with that problem still growing in the long term as they seek to build a 'portfolio'.

People need somewhere to live, and while being a producer of this is good for society, being an exploitative gatekeeper is bad. I'd like to see the government do/incentivise the former, and simultaneously preventing the latter from undoing their efforts.

Reply 8

Original post by CoolCavy

Excuse me ? How judgmental
She has tried to get back into work ever since her mum died but because of the massive employment gap (because she was full time carer for her mum) people are reluctant to hire her.
The money she gets isn't enough to sustain her at all it's a small bonus that is all. She still has to rely on my abusive father's money because shock horror she doesn't charge exorbitant prices.
Maybe think before you say such things.

Perhaps you should not have claimed the rent was her only income in your initial attempt to garner pity.

In the case that you are telling the truth this time, hopefully you realise her situation is in the minority.

Reply 9

Original post by CoolCavy

She doesn't have any other income. My father's money (the littlel that he gives her since he gaslights her) it not her 'income' it's you who deliberately misinterpreted that and I did not say her situation to 'garner pity's i said it because it's true and I'm fed up of the vilification of landlords by people such as yourself.
I don't care if you think I'm telling the truth or not. I don't have to prove myself to you or expose family details to win you over.
Maybe come back more sensitive of other people's family situations next time and don't make such sweeping comments of things you know nothing about.

It would be good if you could see the harm landlords cause as a whole - perhaps you will if you ever try to own your own home - but for now you seem too emotionally involved in an anecdotal, atypical exception.

Reply 10

Original post by CoolCavy

There will be **** greedy landlords. My initial point is that not all are like this so you cannot generalise. My parent is not and my landlord at uni has been great so I'm sorry if you have had a bad experience but that has not been mine and just because these stories are 'anecdotal' does not invalidate them as they are real experiences just like yours are

The issue is bigger than the individual relationships between landlord and tenant.

Landlords contribute nothing to society, particularly after the government guaranteed their 'investments' by bailing out the banks. Their net effect is to increase the difficulty of owning your own home (as you say, a tenant can be kicked out on the street by your mother with 3 months' notice, which you somehow think is too long) by hogging properties, inflating prices by buying even more and draining potential savings someone might have for a deposit. Sure, they'll pay someone to fix your boiler or washing machine every now and again, but that's a tiny proportion of what they charge in rent. Having indefinite tenancies is not a good solution as it does not address the underlying issues, but it does at least try to give people a secure place to live.

Reply 11

ajj2000

20

Original post by Andrew97

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/09/labour-would-force-uk-landlords-to-offer-indefinite-tenancies

What do you think?

That might get them a lot of votes. Hate Corbyn but hate moving every year? People will vote Labour out of frustration. You get far more security for tenants and make property investment a lot less attractive - which reduces the cost of buying for owner occupation.

Reply 12

Original post by CoolCavy

Ok then. I disagree.
She's also not 'kicking them out' it's her house and she may well need it back once she initiated divorce proceedings.
I don't see the point in having this discussion with you, you seem intent on blaming landlords for everything . Bear in mind that some people actually want to rent as it gives them fluidity to move quickly .
But whatever .

I think the example of your mum is too personal to you, you can't empathise with the people that would be homeless after 3 months. In what way do you disagree with how landlords make it more difficult to own your own home?

You are correct that some people do want to rent for the flexibility, but even they will generally want to settle down somewhere, and have the security of knowing they won't get kicked out. Do you oppose people having that security and stability?

Reply 13

Original post by ThomH97

Landlords contribute nothing to society

Actually yes they do. The capital invested by landlords like the capital invested by owner occupiers drives the construction industry. Without private landlords there would be much less housebuilding.

What has gone wrong is that markets have become distorted by taxation and lending terms so that rents are higher than mortgages. If you think about it, that is economic nonsense. The benefits of renting are (a) the ability to move on 1-6 months notice and (b) no responsibility for "heavy" property maintenance but those benefits do not justify the price differential between renting and interest only mortgage borrowing.

Reply 14

ajj2000

20

Original post by nulli tertius

Actually yes they do. The capital invested by landlords like the capital invested by owner occupiers drives the construction industry. Without private landlords there would be much less housebuilding.

Any evidence that there would be notably less housebuilding with fewer landlords?

Reply 15

Original post by ajj2000

Any evidence that there would be notably less housebuilding with fewer landlords?

There would be more housebuilding with fewer landlords investing the same amount of money into rented accommodation. Private renting in Britain is mostly in the hands of small landlords. Large commercial property investors would invest in private housing in a much more efficient way. The fact small landlords do and big landlords don't invest in residential property is a function of the housing finance market.

Reply 16

Original post by nulli tertius

Actually yes they do. The capital invested by landlords like the capital invested by owner occupiers drives the construction industry. Without private landlords there would be much less housebuilding.

Note that I said in particular after the bailouts. Landlords effectively got a subsidy and guarantee from future taxpayers. If their 'investments' had been allowed to fall through to result in cheap houses that people would only bother to buy to live in, then sure.

What has gone wrong is that markets have become distorted by taxation and lending terms so that rents are higher than mortgages. If you think about it, that is economic nonsense. The benefits of renting are (a) the ability to move on 1-6 months notice and (b) no responsibility for "heavy" property maintenance but those benefits do not justify the price differential between renting and interest only mortgage borrowing.

I agree, though I think we're past the point where mortgage taxation changes alone will fix the problem. Apart from appropriating properties (which I could see happening under Corbyn/McDonnell), the solution is to build more and ensure the buyer lives there.

Reply 17

ajj2000

20

Original post by nulli tertius

There would be more housebuilding with fewer landlords investing the same amount of money into rented accommodation. Private renting in Britain is mostly in the hands of small landlords. Large commercial property investors would invest in private housing in a much more efficient way. The fact small landlords do and big landlords don't invest in residential property is a function of the housing finance market.

Not really what I was asking. Why do you believe that there would be a notably reduction in house building if there are fewer landlords investing? Wouldn't prices fall somewhat and the shortfall be made up by owner occupiers?

Reply 18

username4003948

17

Original post by Andrew97

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/09/labour-would-force-uk-landlords-to-offer-indefinite-tenancies

What do you think?

I worked in a council housing department for two and a half years: checking social housing forms (applications/changes to living situations), checking applications for disability adaptations to homes and managing B&B bookings for homeless people. Having recently (and extremely unexpectedly) inherited some money from the abrupt death of my uncle (whom had no partner or children), I'll be buying a flat/house on the Kent coast sometime this year, which I'll be letting to tenants whilst I'm studying for my degree.

Having scanned that article, it sounds as though the aim is to curb evictions using s21 of the Housing Act, whereby landlords don't have to give any reason for eviction. They serve the tenants 2 months notice (2 full rental months, at least that was the law in September 2016, when I left that hell job behind) in writing, then after that period has elapsed, apply through a magistrates' court for a possession order. My memory is a b it vague now but I think that once the possession order is granted to the landlord, then if the tenants don't vacate the property, police can be called in to remove them.

So everybody bleating about landlords having no recourse to evict problem tenants.... This proposed change probably has no impact on that. There are other grounds in the Housing Act which landlords can use to evict problem tenants, e.g. s8 for accelerated possession. The reason that most landlords use section 21 evictions by default is that they don't have to give reason and therefore don't have to prove to a court that tenants have withheld rent or damaged the property. In cases where those things happen, it should be quite easy for landlords to make a case; they just don't want to spend their time and effort on such things.

Anyhow, I suppose this proposed measure would have some positive impact on the private rental sector, albeit rather a minor one. The elephants in the room - which all governments have been too scared to address for decades - are the nonsense of the 'right to buy' the council house you've lived in, guaranteed 5+ year council tenancies, the planning system, developers who do nothing with vacant land for years and prioritise profit over construction standards.

Reply 19