Labour government would force landlords to offer indefinite tenancies

Original post by TimmonaPortella

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.)

Exactly the landlord loves tenants to pay to take care of their properties! Something I have been thinking is if a landlord can't find any tenants they still have to take care of their property and they would have to pay for this but they want tenants to do it for free!

The law should be on the tenant's side because the landlord is making money for free why should it be on the rich landlord's side?
Tenants should be able to stay as long as they want and leave when they want because landlords are making free money.

Reply 62

Original post by TimmonaPortella

This reminds me of when the Independent declared that the 'Tories voted that animals can't feel pain'.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-government-vote-animal-sentience-cant-feel-pain-eu-withdrawal-bill-anti-science-tory-mps-a8065161.html

:laugh:

The idea is to focus very closely on a particular piece of proposed legislation, without bothering to investigate what impact it would actually have if passed, how it would have that impact, how it generally fits into the wider picture, or any reasons why it might not have passed other than that the Tories are evil.

It really is the worst kind of gutter journalism.

I don't understand why you'd move into a property that is 'unfit for human habitation' anyway? Don't you view places before you move in? You agree a price on the basis of what you're getting. If you rent somewhere shabbier, you'll generally get it cheaper. Why should you be allowed to turn around and complain about that?

People can't afford to pay more for rent so they have to live in these unfit for human habitation properties and they are also sometimes caused by landlords not paying for repairs. Would you like to live in a house not fit for human habitation? If no you are being hypocritical here.

Reply 63

Quady

Original post by Dalek1099

Exactly the landlord loves tenants to pay to take care of their properties! Something I have been thinking is if a landlord can't find any tenants they still have to take care of their property and they would have to pay for this but they want tenants to do it for free!

The law should be on the tenant's side because the landlord is making money for free why should it be on the rich landlord's side?
Tenants should be able to stay as long as they want and leave when they want because landlords are making free money.

How do landlords not use any capital?

Reply 64

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Dalek1099

Tenants should be able to stay as long as they want and leave when they want because landlords are making free money.

Original post by Dalek1099

Would you like to live in a house not fit for human habitation? If no you are being hypocritical here.

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to continue this tbh.

Reply 65

Original post by Quady

How do landlords not use any capital?

Not much compared to what they receive from rent. The property value after renting is usually much higher so buying the property doesn't count either.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 66

username2950448

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Original post by Dalek1099

Not much compared to what they receive from rent.

Most rental yields are rarely above 10%, so that's just not true.

The property value after renting is usually much higher so buying the property doesn't count either.

The possibility of a fluctuation in asset value is the risk any investor takes, whether that be in stocks or in real estate.

If the landlord is tied into a permanent tenancy agreement then the property becomes inalienable, thus the potential increased value is of no relevance.

Reply 67

Andrew97

OP

I see the old “landlords are evil” mob is starting to mobilise.

Reply 68

Quady

Original post by Dalek1099

Not much compared to what they receive from rent. The property value after renting is usually much higher so buying the property doesn't count either.

Same as shares then.

Free money for everyone!

Reply 69

DSilva

12

Original post by TimmonaPortella

This reminds me of when the Independent declared that the 'Tories voted that animals can't feel pain'.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-government-vote-animal-sentience-cant-feel-pain-eu-withdrawal-bill-anti-science-tory-mps-a8065161.html

:laugh:

The idea is to focus very closely on a particular piece of proposed legislation, without bothering to investigate what impact it would actually have if passed, how it would have that impact, how it generally fits into the wider picture, or any reasons why it might not have passed other than that the Tories are evil.

It really is the worst kind of gutter journalism.

I don't understand why you'd move into a property that is 'unfit for human habitation' anyway? Don't you view places before you move in? You agree a price on the basis of what you're getting. If you rent somewhere shabbier, you'll generally get it cheaper. Why should you be allowed to turn around and complain about that?

Generally I agree with your comments in the thread but your point here is rather silly. It's simply a matter of health and safety. If you are going to offer your property out for people to live in, the responsibility is and should be on you as a landlord to ensure it is safe and fit for human habitation. There's clearly a difference between something being of a lesser quality and something being dangerous and unsafe.

It's the same as if you're making and selling a car, you have a responsibility to ensure it won't just randomly set on fire etc. Or the same as a hotel has a responsibility to make sure their property isn't riddled with mice.

Indefinite tenancies are clearly contentious. Making sure the property you're renting out is fit for human habitation and isn't a death or disease trap really isn't.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 70

username4454836

Indefinite terms have already been implemented on ASTs in Scotland so to say it is impossible is bull****.

Personally I see a move like this positively since it gives tenants a few more security. Landlords still have plenty of legitimate avenues to evict tenants on so they aren't losing out.

I believe there should be some exceptions to the rule such as student lets.

Reply 71

TimmonaPortella

Original post by DSilva

Generally I agree with your comments in the thread but your point here is rather silly. It's simply a matter of health and safety. If you are going to offer your property out for people to live in, the responsibility is and should be on you as a landlord to ensure it is safe and fit for human habitation. There's clearly a difference between something being of a lesser quality and something being dangerous and unsafe.

It's the same as if you're making and selling a car, you have a responsibility to ensure it won't just randomly set on fire etc. Or the same as a hotel has a responsibility to make sure their property isn't riddled with mice.

Indefinite tenancies are clearly contentious. Making sure the property you're renting out is fit for human habitation and isn't a death or disease trap really isn't.

Well it depends how widely 'fit for human habitation' is defined, doesn't it? That phrase alone could mean anything. I assume it already has a particular meaning. Does it have a fixed, appropriately constrained meaning, or is it an uncertain, wide meaning?

The point about the article is that they don't bother to look into that, or otherwise into what practical difference, if any, the proposed provision might make. But you have to look into it if you're going to make any sensible criticism of the decision not to pass that provision*. That's why I compared that Independent article to the 'Tories hate animals!' rubbish -- it's a completely opportunistic and superficial attack.

On the other point, again, it depends exactly what you're complaining about. However, re complaints that the place you're renting is just generally in a poor state, you did get to look at it before you agreed to rent it, right?

There's nothing necessarily or obviously right about the landlord taking all the responsibility for keeping a let property in a good (or any other particular) condition. All that has to be agreed for the arrangement to be described as a tenancy is that the tenant gets possession of the property for the duration. As it happens the legislation currently in place puts particular repair obligations on the landlord, but it would be perfectly coherent to have an agreement whereby a landlord said, 'okay, I'm not doing anything with this property, so you take it as is for £x appropriately small sum per period, and you deal with it'. I personally wouldn't see anything inherently wrong with that. It's up to both parties to either agree to it, or not.

*edit: a decision which, on a very quick google, looks to have been abandoned. Not sure what differences if any there are between this law and the one that was rejected earlier.

https://landlords.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/homes-fitness-human-habitation-act-2018-becomes-law

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 72

username4454836

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.

Are you joking?

Reply 73

Original post by Palmyra

Most rental yields are rarely above 10%, so that's just not true.

The possibility of a fluctuation in asset value is the risk any investor takes, whether that be in stocks or in real estate.

If the landlord is tied into a permanent tenancy agreement then the property becomes inalienable, thus the potential increased value is of no relevance.

Thats for one year not 25 years? Its not the percentage that matters it is the amount the landlords have earned. The money is for free as landlords have to do little work for this money.

Landlords are usually richer than tenants. Landlords despite often having far too much money hope to gain more money by extracting it from the poor with no real gain for them, if the poor were rich enough to have a mortgage their rent would go towards their mortgage and they would get to stay in the propety.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 74

ThomH97

Original post by Burton Bridge

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.

You use the money from tenants to pay for services they would be able to find (or do) themselves. As a 'big' landlord, you can perhaps claim your service is getting lower prices and more reliable repairs as you can build relationships with the contractors. Then again, you might just outsource that to a property management company as many do.

But the main point is, do you think any of your tenants want to own their own home? And do you see that your (and other landlords') actions of buying properties make it more difficult for tenants in a way that is profoundly unequal (details earlier)?

The right to buy is fine as long as there's a requirement on the property that it be lived in by the owner, a requirement that continues no matter who it's sold to (obviously make them aware of this). The problem came more specifically from landlords buying the right to buy homes to let them.

Reply 75

ThomH97

Original post by Quady

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?

You're the one trying to come up with a comparison for whatever point you're trying to make. Make your point yourself rather than asking questions that don't relate to mine.

Reply 76

Good bloke

19

Original post by Dalek1099

Thats for one year not 25 years? Its not the percentage that matters it is the amount the landlords have earned. The money is for free as landlords have to do little work for this money.

Landlords are usually richer than tenants. Landlords despite often having far too much money hope to gain more money by extracting it from the poor with no real gain for them, if the poor were rich enough to have a mortgage their rent would go towards their mortgage and they would get to stay in the propety.

Many landlords are pension funds, representing ordinary people, or those ordinary people themselves. Your fixed idea that landlords are rich people who get money for nothing from the poor is both wrong and risible.

How do you think the asset has been acquired? Someone has worked for it in some way. Interest has been paid on a loan, other investments have been foregone. Do you automatically label as rich someone who has worked to acquire enough money to buy a house, and who chooses to do so (with or without a mortgage) and lets it to tenants so that they can have an income to live off when their working days are over?

The money you claim to have fallen off a tree is no such thing. The capital has been acquired, by hard work, luck or judgement. That has involved both costs and risks. The asset requires continuing maintenance, which requires more money, taken from the rents. An individual tenant might see no work but they benefit during their time in the house from the work that has been undertaken before.

A typical kitchen might last ten or twenty years and could cost 7% of the value of the house. A boiler might cost £1,500 and last for ten years. A drive moight last twenty years and cost £15,000 to renew. A roof, many thousands or even tens of thousands. Even the drains need work periodically. Decoration is needed every few years and this costs hundreds per room. The major appliances might last five years. Then you have to factor in the occasional tenant who disappears owing rent and the costs of all that involves.

Reply 77

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Original post by Good bloke

Many landlords are pension funds, representing ordinary people, or those ordinary people themselves. Your fixed idea that landlords are rich people who get money for nothing from the poor is both wrong and risible.

How do you think the asset has been acquired? Someone has worked for it in some way. Interest has been paid on a loan, other investments have been foregone. Do you automatically label as rich someone who has worked to acquire enough money to buy a house, and who chooses to do so (with or without a mortgage) and lets it to tenants so that they can have an income to live off when their working days are over?

The money you claim to have fallen off a tree is no such thing. The capital has been acquired, by hard work, luck or judgement. That has involved both costs and risks. The asset requires continuing maintenance, which requires more money, taken from the rents. An individual tenant might see no work but they benefit during their time in the house from the work that has been undertaken before.

A typical kitchen might last ten or twenty years and could cost 7% of the value of the house. A boiler might cost £1,500 and last for ten years. A drive moight last twenty years and cost £15,000 to renew. A roof, many thousands or even tens of thousands. Even the drains need work periodically. Decoration is needed every few years and this costs hundreds per room. The major appliances might last five years. Then you have to factor in the occasional tenant who disappears owing rent and the costs of all that involves.

Ever heard of (state/workplace) pensions mate?

Reply 78

Andrew97

OP