Labour government would force landlords to offer indefinite tenancies
Scroll to see replies
Original post by CoolCavy
Exactly. If the house wasn't being rented it would just be empty .
So if it were empty, your mum wouldn't sell the place, she'd continue to pay the standing charge for gas/electricity/water and pay council tax without income from it?
Original post by CoolCavy
x
Not especially on the assertion that her tenants are richer than her, but otherwise yeah.
Original post by Quady
Yes, if they weren't then people wouldn't use their service.
Unless you think without landlords the housing market would be so cheap those on £15k/year and no savings could buy a place?
Unless you think without landlords the housing market would be so cheap those on £15k/year and no savings could buy a place?
It's not a service, that's done by the contractors who fix the boiler etc. It's a domination of the supply. Without protection on who can buy them, who can most afford a new build - someone who's saving everything they can minus the rent they have to pay, or someone who's saving everything they can plus the rent they receive minus the mortgage they pay? Even on the same pay the renter loses out unless the mortgage repayments are double the rent.
I think it would be possible for house prices to be at the national average salary (or lower), if there were the political will, but I don't think that's realistic in the short or medium term.
Original post by Burton Bridge
OK Thomas what is your solution?
I'm a landlord and I think I do provide more than I take from society. So what's you're solution?
I'm a landlord and I think I do provide more than I take from society. So what's you're solution?
What do you think you provide?
My solution - which I have said earlier - would be for the government to build more houses that can only be bought to be lived in.
Original post by ThomH97
It's not a service, that's done by the contractors who fix the boiler etc. It's a domination of the supply. Without protection on who can buy them, who can most afford a new build - someone who's saving everything they can minus the rent they have to pay, or someone who's saving everything they can plus the rent they receive minus the mortgage they pay? Even on the same pay the renter loses out unless the mortgage repayments are double the rent.
I think it would be possible for house prices to be at the national average salary (or lower), if there were the political will, but I don't think that's realistic in the short or medium term.
I think it would be possible for house prices to be at the national average salary (or lower), if there were the political will, but I don't think that's realistic in the short or medium term.
So is car hire not a service either? Just domination of supply?
Sure. Who can most afford a new build - someone who's saving everything they can minus the mortgage they have to pay, or someone who's saving everything they can plus the income they receive in dividends?
To state the obvious, half of people earn less than the average national salary.
Original post by Burton Bridge
Socialists are not dumb at all!
As a landlord myself and a socialist the devil is every much going to be in the detail regarding this policy. I thought the labour policy was 3 year rental contracts? Indefinite contracts one way could be highly damaging to the market.
Personally I'd rather see social housing rebuilt and remove the right to buy, that would work. This just seems a sticking plaster on a damage caused by the failer of right wing capitists
As a landlord myself and a socialist the devil is every much going to be in the detail regarding this policy. I thought the labour policy was 3 year rental contracts? Indefinite contracts one way could be highly damaging to the market.
Personally I'd rather see social housing rebuilt and remove the right to buy, that would work. This just seems a sticking plaster on a damage caused by the failer of right wing capitists
Landlord? Off to the gulag with you mr kulak...
Original post by Libtardian
Landlord? Off to the gulag with you mr kulak...
Brilliant reply, you are doing wonders to show who is really dumb.
Original post by Quady
So is car hire not a service either? Just domination of supply?
Sure. Who can most afford a new build - someone who's saving everything they can minus the mortgage they have to pay, or someone who's saving everything they can plus the income they receive in dividends?
To state the obvious, half of people earn less than the average national salary.
Sure. Who can most afford a new build - someone who's saving everything they can minus the mortgage they have to pay, or someone who's saving everything they can plus the income they receive in dividends?
To state the obvious, half of people earn less than the average national salary.
There doesn't seem to be as much of a problem with cars. Most probably because the need for a home is greater than the need for a personal car. And because you don't need a car to get a job or bank account. And because it's easier to swap cars than swap homes. Poor comparison.
Who are you comparing here, and why haven't you included tenants?
Indeed, that is obvious. What should also be obvious is that somebody need not blow their whole salary at once to buy a house only to die of starvation/cold/dehydration soon after. What is your point, would you have it even lower (as it has been)?
Original post by ThomH97
What do you think you provide?
My solution - which I have said earlier - would be for the government to build more houses that can only be bought to be lived in.
My solution - which I have said earlier - would be for the government to build more houses that can only be bought to be lived in.
I provide a safe clean well decorated home with all the mod con's, and a service to repair any defeats within days. I also provide short term safe accommodation for people should they wish, I have had Tennants whom are working on 6 months contracts at a nearby work station. I also work in manufacturing and pay into the system via taxes.
Regards rent I change slightly under market value so I don't suffer so much with periods of unoccupancy. Now you have said I dont provide a service for repair, why is this?
BTW government building houses to sell is exactly why we are in this mess. The consequences directly of the diastorious Margaret Thatcher policy - the right to buy, which you seem to want to keep?
I think you're heart is in the right place but you are missing large proportions of society and the rental market and are neither a capitalist or a socialist.
Original post by Good bloke
There are many millions of people in the country who do not need to work because they own assets that give them an income. Why is it so unreasonable? I'd be surprised if you do not, yourself, aspire to join them.
I got so angry reading this post that I tried to neg forgetting there was no neg button now and gave you a positive rep by accident but you really can't be serious here? One of the reasons I utterly despise most landlords is this idea that you should get money for nothing and at the expense of the poor renting the house who are working hard to give money to rich landlords.
Original post by Dalek1099
I got so angry reading this post that I tried to neg forgetting there was no neg button now and gave you a positive rep by accident but you really can't be serious here? One of the reasons I utterly despise most landlords is this idea that you should get money for nothing and at the expense of the poor renting the house who are working hard to give money to rich landlords.
Why do you hate landlords? All we are doing is living in the world we are in. I never voted for any of this, I never asked for final salary pension schemes to be scrapped or the right to buy to he introduced.
And what makes you think private landlords whom have several properties do nothing?
There is an old saying don't hate the player, hate the game. I suggest you think about it
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Correct.
What there seems to be outrage about in some of the sillier parts of the left is, roughly, this.
(1) Homeowner decides to let his home
(2) Homeowner finds tenant who wants to rent homeowner's home, and the parties agree a term for the rental. During this agreed term, the homeowner is only able to remove the tenant for specific reasons, including non-payment of rent (with the law giving the tenant a lot of leeway even in that regard).
(3) When the term is coming to an end, the parties (should) consider what they want to do. In the present example, both parties are content for the tenant to stay.
(4) In our example, neither goes to the effort of executing a new fixed term tenancy. As such the law deems a rolling tenancy, usually on a monthly basis (because most people pay rent monthly).
(5) In these circumstances, the landlord can give notice to the tenant that the deemed tenancy will end (iirc) at the end of the next rolling cycle.
... Okay? Seems perfectly fair to me. If you wanted a longer term you should have agreed it in the first place. If you wanted another term of guaranteed occupancy, you should have agreed it at the end of your initial tenancy.
The alternative position suggested means that the homeowner is faced with a stark choice of either renting it out for all eternity or not renting it out at all. Obviously, this will cause a lot of people to opt for the latter. For example, a lot of people have properties that they may want access to at some undefined point in the future, but don't need now. It's to everyone's benefit that such people are able to fill their properties in the meanwhile.
It's also just the proper position. As a property owner, you ought to be able to alienate your interest in your property for a limited time. You should be able to provide yourself with certainty as to how/when the asset will be available to you in the future. These proposals make letting a complete gamble: how long your property remains unavailable to you is placed entirely in someone else's hands. I cannot see what is fair or right about that.
What there seems to be outrage about in some of the sillier parts of the left is, roughly, this.
(1) Homeowner decides to let his home
(2) Homeowner finds tenant who wants to rent homeowner's home, and the parties agree a term for the rental. During this agreed term, the homeowner is only able to remove the tenant for specific reasons, including non-payment of rent (with the law giving the tenant a lot of leeway even in that regard).
(3) When the term is coming to an end, the parties (should) consider what they want to do. In the present example, both parties are content for the tenant to stay.
(4) In our example, neither goes to the effort of executing a new fixed term tenancy. As such the law deems a rolling tenancy, usually on a monthly basis (because most people pay rent monthly).
(5) In these circumstances, the landlord can give notice to the tenant that the deemed tenancy will end (iirc) at the end of the next rolling cycle.
... Okay? Seems perfectly fair to me. If you wanted a longer term you should have agreed it in the first place. If you wanted another term of guaranteed occupancy, you should have agreed it at the end of your initial tenancy.
The alternative position suggested means that the homeowner is faced with a stark choice of either renting it out for all eternity or not renting it out at all. Obviously, this will cause a lot of people to opt for the latter. For example, a lot of people have properties that they may want access to at some undefined point in the future, but don't need now. It's to everyone's benefit that such people are able to fill their properties in the meanwhile.
It's also just the proper position. As a property owner, you ought to be able to alienate your interest in your property for a limited time. You should be able to provide yourself with certainty as to how/when the asset will be available to you in the future. These proposals make letting a complete gamble: how long your property remains unavailable to you is placed entirely in someone else's hands. I cannot see what is fair or right about that.
I don't think you are making sense here many tenants will want longer tenancies but landlords won't give them that.
You are making yourself clear here you only care about your asset and not the poor tenant who you will evict from their home.
Original post by Dalek1099
I don't think you are making sense here many tenants will want longer tenancies but landlords won't give them that.
You are making yourself clear here you only care about your asset and not the poor tenant who you will evict from their home.
You are making yourself clear here you only care about your asset and not the poor tenant who you will evict from their home.
In which case it isn't agreed, and the tenant is free to look elsewhere for a longer tenancy. Or, as I said, sign a new fixed term tenancy at the end of the original one. You may still not get the long term agreement you want, but you'll at least have certainty as to when you may or may not be required to leave.
It's not about what the landlord will 'give' the tenant, either. It's a two-sided relationship, and not only in a theoretical sense. It's in landlords' interests to keep good, prompt-paying tenants who will take care of their properties in them, and they'll often make concessions to such tenants to keep them there.
You can't continue to occupy on a rolling tenancy after the period you agreed has ended and then complain that you don't have certainty. Of course you don't. Sign a new tenancy.
The tenant isn't necessarily poor, and it's only their home for the period we've agreed -- after which either of us can bring the arrangement to an end with reasonable notice.
(I talk from the perspective of a landlord because you adopted that language. I'm actually not one.)
Original post by Dalek1099
I don't think you are making sense here many tenants will want longer tenancies but landlords won't give them that.
You are making yourself clear here you only care about your asset and not the poor tenant who you will evict from their home.
You are making yourself clear here you only care about your asset and not the poor tenant who you will evict from their home.
Most residential private tenants employed on short term contracts prefer short term tenancies with no obligation to extend and a fixed date to vacate the property. That's why 6 month ASTs are the most popular form of tenancy agreements in England.
Many university students prefer short term tenancies too.
Personally I'm quite suspicious of residential landlords below pension age living in the UK who encourage tenants to agree to fixed term tenancies longer than 18 months.
From what I've seen, it can be a tactic for locking an unsuspecting tenant into a long term commitment to rent in an area with high criminality/ antisocial behaviour/ nightmare neighbours.
Or a problem property where a coat of paint and attractive furniture distract from a lot of problems.
Original post by londonmyst
Most residential private tenants employed on short term contracts prefer short term tenancies with no obligation to extend and a fixed date to vacate the property. That's why 6 month ASTs are the most popular form of tenancy agreements in England.
Many university students prefer short term tenancies too.
Personally I'm quite suspicious of residential landlords below pension age living in the UK who encourage tenants to agree to fixed term tenancies longer than 18 months.
From what I've seen, it can be a tactic for locking an unsuspecting tenant into a long term commitment to rent in an area with high criminality/ antisocial behaviour/ nightmare neighbours.
Or a problem property where a coat of paint and attractive furniture distract from a lot of problems.
Many university students prefer short term tenancies too.
Personally I'm quite suspicious of residential landlords below pension age living in the UK who encourage tenants to agree to fixed term tenancies longer than 18 months.
From what I've seen, it can be a tactic for locking an unsuspecting tenant into a long term commitment to rent in an area with high criminality/ antisocial behaviour/ nightmare neighbours.
Or a problem property where a coat of paint and attractive furniture distract from a lot of problems.
Most tenants would want the right to leave a reasonable notice - as you've noted the risk of a change of circumstances, bad area, poor repairs, high heating bills etc. From what I can see of the proposals they do get an acceptable notice period (3 months I think) - its the landlord who cant cancel the contract easily.
The law is already absurdly anti-landlord in this country, evicting scummy tenants that don't pay rent, destroy the property and act like they own the place is a nightmare.
Any proposal that makes this problem worse is a further step in the wrong direction.
Any proposal that makes this problem worse is a further step in the wrong direction.
Original post by ThomH97
There doesn't seem to be as much of a problem with cars. Most probably because the need for a home is greater than the need for a personal car. And because you don't need a car to get a job or bank account. And because it's easier to swap cars than swap homes. Poor comparison.
Who are you comparing here, and why haven't you included tenants?
Indeed, that is obvious. What should also be obvious is that somebody need not blow their whole salary at once to buy a house only to die of starvation/cold/dehydration soon after. What is your point, would you have it even lower (as it has been)?
Who are you comparing here, and why haven't you included tenants?
Indeed, that is obvious. What should also be obvious is that somebody need not blow their whole salary at once to buy a house only to die of starvation/cold/dehydration soon after. What is your point, would you have it even lower (as it has been)?
Doesn't there? What would be a good comparison then?
I'm comparing someone with their assets in buy to let compared to someone with their assets in any other income generating assets. Share for example. Tenants are in both scenarios.
When have average house prices been lower than average salaries?
Original post by Dalek1099
I don't think you are making sense here many tenants will want longer tenancies but landlords won't give them that.
You are making yourself clear here you only care about your asset and not the poor tenant who you will evict from their home.
You are making yourself clear here you only care about your asset and not the poor tenant who you will evict from their home.
Of course landlords will. For higher rent.
Just as when money is hired out for interest the cost of borrowing is more for a longer repayment period.
Do tenants rather lower rent or longer security of tenure? The market follows the money.
Original post by Palmyra
The law is already absurdly anti-landlord in this country, evicting scummy tenants that don't pay rent, destroy the property and act like they own the place is a nightmare.
Any proposal that makes this problem worse is a further step in the wrong direction.
Any proposal that makes this problem worse is a further step in the wrong direction.
You must be kidding mate. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-vote-down-law-requiring-landlords-make-their-homes-fit-for-human-habitation-a6809691.html
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Toxic flatmates
- Need opinion on bills in a Shared rental agreement
- Question about breaches of tenancy agreement by landlord
- Am I simply thinking too much?
- Rent
- Bills problem with previous tenancy
- My landlord is refusing to repair my washing machine. What should I do?
- Tenancy agreement
- Moving out at 16
- How difficult is it to get a landlord to agree to pets
- renting after graduation help
- Tenancy take over advertisement for accommodation in Liverpool
- Can I lie to a landlord that I’m not a student
- tenancy + boyfriend
- dropping out of uni? Rent payments?
- No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targets
- Early surrender of Tenancy
- Getting out of student accommodation contract
- [CLOSED] Need someone to takeover my tenancy (Studio in Greenwich)
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1292
Last reply 1 minute ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
OCR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 3 (H567/03) - 3rd June [Exam Chat]Last reply 7 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 9 minutes ago
OCR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 2 (H567/02) - 22nd May [Exam Chat]Last reply 10 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 16 minutes ago
Are there any good sixth forms/sixth form colleges with applications still open?Last reply 17 minutes ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 17 minutes ago
Telecommunications engineer job with "Provisional" licence?Last reply 18 minutes ago
Edexcel A-level French Paper 3, IRP/Speaking (9FR0 03) - 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 24 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2867
Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
