Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
R K

Schaps Extends Tenancy Limit From 2 To 5 Years

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14327691

Controversial plans to end "council houses for life" in England look set to be watered down after concerns about their impact on vulnerable tenants. Under laws passing through Parliament, social tenants could face eviction after just two years in their home.

But Housing Minister Grant Shapps has instructed regulators to ensure that the minimum period is five years in all but the most extreme circumstances.

Tenants are currently guaranteed tenure for life.

But Mr Shapps believes that can lead to families being trapped in cramped accommodation, while others live in homes that are too large for their needs.

He also believes it acts as a disincentive to social tenants to seek work and improve their income.

Market rates Under the government's Localism Bill, due to become law later this year, social landlords will be able to evict tenants after two years.

The planned law says eviction should only be considered in exceptional circumstances - but did not state what such circumstances would be or what the alternative time limit should be.

In a letter to homeless charities and other interested parties, Mr Shapps confirms that five years will be the standard minimum time.

"We are now proposing that this expectation that tenancies of this length should only be used exceptionally should become a requirement with the Tenure Standard itself.

"If social landlords decide that there are exceptional circumstances where tenancies of less than five years may be appropriate, then they will be required to set out in their tenancy policy what those circumstances will be."

The change of policy comes as the government launches a consultation exercise on its planned shake-up of social housing, which also includes allowing landlords to charge rent at close to market rates and making it easier for tenants to swap homes.

Anyone surprised?

Avoids anyone being evicted this parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the equivalent protection for private tenants? :angry:

Why would any MP want equivalent protection for private tenants? They only make up 10% of the electorate, are too busy working to make trouble and are a nice little earner for the rentier class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not black and white is it?

Some of the wealthiest people I know live in a very 'nice' Council estate in Swansea West within 5 mins of beaches.

Some of them have made an absolute killing from buying their houses in the 80s for peanuts and selling them in recent years. Others have no intention of selling due to the location. Many others have never bought - fools - as they felt that the home was theirs and their families forever.

On the other hand, you can have situations where a carer, such as the adult child of someone, gives up their work in order to care for a sick or disabled parent/relative. For that carer to then lose his or her family home when the parent dies is just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not, its a case of thinking what are the implications with so many people being kicked out in such a short space of time and the problems that will cause.

Put another way, if house prices continue to fall over the next two years, would someone in a private tenancy want to be competing with social tenants looking for property to buy or rent? Private tenants who want to buy are better off as the competition wont be so extreme.

Just to be clear, I don't begrudge social tenants some security of tenure, and 5 years is probably fair enough. It would be nice if they would take a look at AST's some time though. Dreaming I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not, its a case of thinking what are the implications with so many people being kicked out in such a short space of time and the problems that will cause.

Put another way, if house prices continue to fall over the next two years, would someone in a private tenancy want to be competing with social tenants looking for property to buy or rent? Private tenants who want to buy are better off as the competition wont be so extreme.

good point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has taken 15 years and a lot of genuine hard graft to EARN my assured lifetime tenancy, and I am pleased that another social tenant will take my place in the flat we have renovated when I am gone ( the work is HA spec and designed to last fifty years).

Take that from me and I will go postal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would any MP want equivalent protection for private tenants? They only make up 10% of the electorate, are too busy working to make trouble and are a nice little earner for the rentier class.

Perhaps because we are a productive 10% likely to emigrate if things don't get any better? I know I have started thinking about that seriously for the first time recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not black and white is it?

Some of the wealthiest people I know live in a very 'nice' Council estate in Swansea West within 5 mins of beaches.

Some of them have made an absolute killing from buying their houses in the 80s for peanuts and selling them in recent years. Others have no intention of selling due to the location. Many others have never bought - fools - as they felt that the home was theirs and their families forever.

This is why I find it hard to indulge in the chorus of condemnation when someone who is doing well is found to be living in subsidised council housing

If they had bought it under "Right to Buy" at a discount they would have made a huge capital gain and we (the taxpayers), wouldn't get it back

At least if they still lease it we get it when they die

On the other hand, you can have situations where a carer, such as the adult child of someone, gives up their work in order to care for a sick or disabled parent/relative. For that carer to then lose his or her family home when the parent dies is just wrong.

Dunno, not so sure about this, call me heartless but there is little enough council housing to go round and the occupier doesn't own it

I don't see why a single person should keep a 3 bed council house just because it was given to his/her parents - even if it would otherwise go to Wayne and Waynetta Slob or Mr Aziz, his three wives and seven children...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I find it hard to indulge in the chorus of condemnation when someone who is doing well is found to be living in subsidised council housing

If they had bought it under "Right to Buy" at a discount they would have made a huge capital gain and we (the taxpayers), wouldn't get it back

At least if they still lease it we get it when they die

Dunno, not so sure about this, call me heartless but there is little enough council housing to go round and the occupier doesn't own it

I don't see why a single person should keep a 3 bed council house just because it was given to his/her parents - even if it would otherwise go to Wayne and Waynetta Slob or Mr Aziz, his three wives and seven children...

Yes, but as things stand those who rent or lease it basically hand it onto their kids when they die - how do you differentiate between a child who gives up work to look after a disabled or sick parent and a child who lives the life of riley and who then gets to 'inherit' a perfectly good property with cheap rent?

It is complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but as things stand those who rent or lease it basically hand it onto their kids when they die - how do you differentiate between a child who gives up work to look after a disabled or sick parent and a child who lives the life of riley and who then gets to 'inherit' a perfectly good property with cheap rent?

It is complicated.

Trial by combat was perfectly acceptable in the middle ages....

Perhaps one great big total wipeout / its a knock out / gladiators type competition for council houses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Applies to new tenants only according to the guy from shelter so no evictions in this parliament and an even stronger cases for existing tenants not to move as they may then become subject to the five year rule.

Yep. Another ladder pulling exercise - same as higher education and pensions. F**k the young basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every agrees the taxpayer funding them are both unsustainable, and whilst there are not the jobs to go with the degrees, the number of drop outs of degree courses is at an all time high and is crippling the taxpayer.

Not so. University education is easily affordable with current participation rates. According to this site, the total tertiary education budget for 2011 is 13 billion

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/classic#ukgs302

Drop in the Ocean. Fees are all about debt slavery starting young. :ph34r:

Edit: Here's a spending table on higher education specifically: 0.9%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8491729.stm

Edited by Quicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think the teachers dont earn too much then and we arent wasting too much on pensions?

Yet we know education could do with more equipment hence schemes exist like Sainsburys and Tesco doing their schemes to help supply equipment for schools.

I dont think the country gets the ROI from education at the moment simply becuase the exams have been dumbed down during labours terms making on the surface students appear to be better educated when in fact they are not. Biggest complaint from business is that school leavers are under educated.

Teachers need to stop being so greedy afterall if they were so good they would be in the private sector proving a point.

We're going off topic here but I was talking specifically about higher education and tuition fees as a ladder pulling exercise. I got my cheap University education and I pity the youngsters facing enslavement. It's not as if we are facing a demographic time-bomb on University funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the costs started to go up though?

Which costs are those then?

Most are LHA, whose costs are generally insulated from the vagaries of the market (if they are sensibly run). Public housing is cheaper than private, and large amounts of the £20bn HB or whatever it is these days goes straight to private landlords.

There is no chance they will change policy in the negative, they have backed down in the positive. If they try to ditch pensioners out of the council homes they have occupied for 30+ years inside this term they will be unelectable forever. Regardless of circumstance.

Edited by Chesnor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think AST's are as bad as portrayed but I agree not like European rental agreements, but one needs to do due diliegence ie select your rental property and landlord carefully. It costs £4 to find out if there are any charges on the property and a mortgage someone is looking at renting. £4 is not alot for some more insights into the finances of the landlord plus theres other info you can find out like are they a forced to let landlord or not.

Forced To Let landlords are somewhat risky imo but there is nothing stopping anyone from agreeing a 12month or longer AST with or without break terms and perhaps even having some clauses of your own added for penalities if the LL doesnt keep their side of the bargain like getting repossed or what have you. People are prepared to spend money on lawyers when buying why not a long term rent agreement for piece of mind? IMO its something many renters dont consider so in this case are their own enemy then.

No, they are, really...

It all comes down to the age old question of security. 6 months (+one month rolling) is the standard and I do not know anyone who has any other arragement, this mythical 12 month contract simply does not exist for the majority. LL's and agents have no desire to restrict themselves to not being able to turf folk out when ever they fancy - one friend and her partner had to move three times in two years as sucessive LL's were cashing in their 'investment'.

This is all one thing for single folk like myself but when family/kids and schools are involved then the situation is hopeless. Private tennants should be given the same rights as the council ones - that would concentrate the minds of the 'I will just rent it out' and get rich quick idiots we have been flooded with.

A close friend of mine could not sell a flat recently, she looked into renting it out but decided not to. Her reason was that under the AST tennancy she would have to rent it for at least 6 months - a time during which she would not be able to hold viewings to sell the place and the inconvenience this would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Applies to new tenants only according to the guy from shelter so no evictions in this parliament and an even stronger cases for existing tenants not to move as they may then become subject to the five year rule.

Exactly; moving to take up a new job offer would be seriously dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-14327691

Anyone surprised?

Avoids anyone being evicted this parliament.

I'm subscribed to Nearly Legal. Friday's update was about the Localism Bill being rushed through and concerns about all the wide scoping changes within it. The author didn't seem impressed with Shapps.

Then there are what can only be described as the meanderings of the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps (who, if my sources are right, is not the brightest smartie in the box). Let me pick two such meanderings: he goes to Harrogate and announces that private rented properties will have to meet minimum standards before being used for homeless households, an announcement which pretty much unpicks the coalition’s policy to private renting and makes it seem, at best, incoherent; second, he says at one point that the minimum period for the flexible tenure should be five years, goes back on that, gets criticised for going back on that (not unreasonably), and then re-issues a draft direction (links to Inside Housing story) saying that they should be for five years and the minimum period of two years should only be used in exceptional circumstances.

What are we to make of all this? Not being in charitable mood this morning for various reasons, my view is that the coalition’s housing policy is pretty woefully thought-through; even that suggestion of thought may be too charitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 334 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.