Tories Bringing In Long Tenancies?

[pjw]

See http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2013/10/eric-pickles-increases-support-for-generation-rent/

The mention of family-friendly tenancies is cryptic - but I would support longer leases - although I'm a bit alarmed that you could only "request" them - and I expect most landlords would still say they only wanted six month ones.

[Liquid Goldfish]

See http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2013/10/eric-pickles-increases-support-for-generation-rent/

The mention of family-friendly tenancies is cryptic - but I would support longer leases - although I'm a bit alarmed that you could only "request" them - and I expect most landlords would still say they only wanted six month ones.

You can already request them - it must mean more than that.

[Wurzel Of Highbridge]

It will be a repeat of the Liberals, we will drop student fees.

The minuite they get into power they will reduce tenancies down to 1 month 'for the good of the renters' - to give them more flexibility (and to help BTL profits)

Edited October 1, 2013 by Gone to Ireland.

[(Blizzard)]

He proposed tax breaks so that employers could offer hard-pressed staff loans to pay for their rental deposits, with the cost off-set against tax.

Link

[okaycuckoo]

See http://blogs.spectat...eneration-rent/

The mention of family-friendly tenancies is cryptic - but I would support longer leases - although I'm a bit alarmed that you could only "request" them - and I expect most landlords would still say they only wanted six month ones.

Her link within the article is about taxing land hoarders. The trail leads to Jake Berry MP, a solicitor who specialised in housing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Berry

That is interesting - looks like Dave sees the issues, can't address them yet. If so, Tory leadership is chasing the Lib Dems on accommodation for young tax-payers, trying to judge the demographic tipping point among their voters. Won't come before 2015.

[davidg]

It will be a repeat of the Liberals, we will drop student fees.

The minuite they get into power they will reduce tenancies down to 1 month 'for the good of the renters' - to give them more flexibility (and to help BTL profits)

They are already in power

[little fish]

The tenancy agreement which will be used is detailed on the BTL application form.

When repossessing BTL's the banks have to stand back until the tenancy agreement is up. Longer agreements equal a longer wait for possession. Legally 6 months is the minimum tenancy agreement at the beginning of a tenancy (unless specified as short term). Lenders treat it as the only agreement because it suits them that way. Rolling month contracts are perfect for them.

That was the original plan anyway, with the lenders granting arrears forbearance now, perhaps they will allow change?

I can see Dave having a few supper chats, uttering some meaningless sound bites but I don't think he will do anything that upsets his friends at the banks. He seems a very loyal friend indeed.

[@contradevian]

It will be a repeat of the Liberals, we will drop student fees.

The minuite they get into power they will reduce tenancies down to 1 month 'for the good of the renters' - to give them more flexibility (and to help BTL profits)

Probably replace all tenancies with licences so the 'tenants' can be thrown out on the street at the whim of the rentier.

Never a dull day with the Blue Rentier Fascists. Strength Through Joy, Arbeit Macht Frei, Schulden macht Arbeit and all that.

Edited October 1, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[okaycuckoo]

Getting tired of this forum.

Please think about what you're saying, do a bit of research, make a suggestion, and stop boring me with your sarcasm.

[(Blizzard)]

Getting tired of this forum.

Please think about what you're saying, do a bit of research, make a suggestion, and stop boring me with your sarcasm.

You mean this:

That is interesting - looks like Dave sees the issues, can't address them yet.

isn't sarcasm?

Or maybe this:

Please think about what you're saying, do a bit of research, make a suggestion, and stop boring me with your sarcasm.

was sarcasm. I'm so confused.

[little fish]

Her link within the article is about taxing land hoarders. The trail leads to Jake Berry MP, a solicitor who specialised in housing: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jake_Berry

That is interesting - looks like Dave sees the issues, can't address them yet. If so, Tory leadership is chasing the Lib Dems on accommodation for young tax-payers, trying to judge the demographic tipping point among their voters. Won't come before 2015.

Berry's idea was a 'New Deal for Generation Rent', and he also wrote about this for us in January. He wanted longer-term tenancies to help families stay in the same home, rather than having to up sticks and even move schools when the landlord raised the rent or decided to end the tenancy. He has been working on the ideas since joining the board, and is now celebrating seeing them move into official government policy. Under a new 'tenants' charter', families will be able to request longer tenancies from their landlords. It's a good example of one of the little things that the Tories need to be making a song and dance about to show that they care about hardworking families, but it's also an example of the policy board starting to do its job.

They would need to look at a few other options too - when did private rental become the only option? Mainly suits the banks, the Tories and the LL's.

I would worry that many LL's are not fit to practice, nor do they have to provide any form of financial guarantee to secure each tenancy. This is rarely addressed by any body in power.

[Si1]

what a load of cobblers responses

longer tenancies means more risk and costs to landlords

this reduces net yields

this pushes house prices down, all other things being equal

how asecuretennant concluded what he concluded beats me given the OP

[Si1]

<br />Probably replace all tenancies with licences so the 'tenants' can be thrown out on the street at the whim of the rentier.<br /><br />Never a dull day with the Blue Rentier Fascists. Strength Through Joy, <i>Arbeit Macht Frei</i>, <i>Schulden macht </i><i>Arbeit</i> and all that.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

are you on drugs?

[(Blizzard)]

what a load of cobblers responses

longer tenancies means more risk and costs to landlords

this reduces net yields

this pushes house prices down, all other things being equal

how asecuretennant concluded what he concluded beats me given the OP

Under a new 'tenants' charter', families will be able to request longer tenancies from their landlords.

[okaycuckoo]

You mean this:

isn't sarcasm?

Or maybe this:

was sarcasm. I'm so confused.

No, you plonker - not sarcasm. Your response makes the forum pointless.

These people are not cartoons - they stand for something. Help figure it out, instead of wasting time.

[okaycuckoo]

They would need to look at a few other options too - when did private rental become the only option? Mainly suits the banks, the Tories and the LL's.

I would worry that many LL's are not fit to practice, nor do they have to provide any form of financial guarantee to secure each tenancy. This is rarely addressed by any body in power.

Worth looking at the background of both the journalist and the MP.

I've never heard of either of them.

Her link shows form in bigging him up. Oops. And Dave has promoted him.

[(Blizzard)]

No, you plonker - not sarcasm. Your response makes the forum pointless.

These people are not cartoons - they stand for something. Help figure it out, instead of wasting time.

I know exactly what they stand for and it's pretty disgusting. Since anger isn't very healthy, I think sarcasm and mockery are really the only response left.

If you want to discuss what they might to do that's fair enough, but I think the main point has already been raised:

You can already request them - it must mean more than that.

Also, my first post was relevant, I think, and it got ignored:

He proposed tax breaks so that employers could offer hard-pressed staff loans to pay for their rental deposits, with the cost off-set against tax.

Link

Edited October 1, 2013 by (Blizzard)

[pjw]

This early article on the Spectator talks about the Jake Berry proposals: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/10/ministerial-aide-tells-number-10-to-penalise-reluctant-developers/

It would involve long-term leases of seven years where the rent was reviewed every three years, and tenants could negotiate a discount on their rent by taking over the maintenance of the property from the landlord.

I would strongly welcome this if this is not watered down.

[Liquid Goldfish]

This early article on the Spectator talks about the Jake Berry proposals: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/10/ministerial-aide-tells-number-10-to-penalise-reluctant-developers/

I would strongly welcome this if this is not watered down.

It would involve long-term leases of seven years where the rent was reviewed every three years, and tenants could negotiate a discount on their rent by taking over the maintenance of the property from the landlord.

The choice of a 7 year tenancy is interesting because that's the exact point where the repairing obligations transfers from the landlord to the tenant - 7 years or more then repairs become the responsibility of the tenant, not the landlord - so it's almost as if they want to create a tenancy of the shortest possible duration where the landlord is not responsible for repairs - never trust the Tories!

EDIT - This is how it will work - there will be a fixed term tenancy of 7 years so the tenant has to do the repairs - but after 3 years the landlord will do a rent review and jack the rent up to such an extent that the tenant can no longer pay and so will decide to leave - so win win for the landlord.

Edited October 2, 2013 by oldsport

[The Knimbies who say No]

I wonder how this works in practice. LL/ tenants alike will be presumably very happy for a tenant to be in for 7 years, but maintenance obligations being transferred alter the dynamic somewhat.

1. How big a discount should be offered to assume maintenance responsibilities?

2. How will the state of the property be assessed to begin with? If the boiler dies or windows pop within a few months of a tenancy, will it be possible to argue that the condition was poor to start with, as you would with eg a car.

3. Given many LLs are apparently making no money at present, what position are they in to offer a discount for maintenance, and what would a 7 year tenancy mean for a tenant whose LL is going to default in any case? Does the LL have an incentive to get a tenant in regardless, spend the rent money safe in the knowledge that the bank will honour the tenancy and he has a 7 year mwal ticket- perhaps the rent must be applied to any mortgage account first.

4. How will a tenant be protected from unreasonable requests for repairs?

[Wurzel Of Highbridge]

The choice of a 7 year tenancy is interesting because that's the exact point where the repairing obligations transfers from the landlord to the tenant - 7 years or more then repairs become the responsibility of the tenant, not the landlord - so it's almost as if they want to create a tenancy of the shortest possible duration where the landlord is not responsible for repairs - never trust the Tories!

EDIT - This is how it will work - there will be a fixed term tenancy of 7 years so the tenant has to do the repairs - but after 3 years the landlord will do a rent review and jack the rent up to such an extent that the tenant can no longer pay and so will decide to leave - so win win for the landlord.

Exactly, nothing good will be done for renters by the fascists in government.

I wonder how this works in practice. LL/ tenants alike will be presumably very happy for a tenant to be in for 7 years, but maintenance obligations being transferred alter the dynamic somewhat.

1. How big a discount should be offered to assume maintenance responsibilities?

2. How will the state of the property be assessed to begin with? If the boiler dies or windows pop within a few months of a tenancy, will it be possible to argue that the condition was poor to start with, as you would with eg a car.

3. Given many LLs are apparently making no money at present, what position are they in to offer a discount for maintenance, and what would a 7 year tenancy mean for a tenant whose LL is going to default in any case? Does the LL have an incentive to get a tenant in regardless, spend the rent money safe in the knowledge that the bank will honour the tenancy and he has a 7 year mwal ticket- perhaps the rent must be applied to any mortgage account first.

4. How will a tenant be protected from unreasonable requests for repairs?

Hmm, now let me think what would benefit the banks at the expense of renters? Ooohh, I know compulsory insurance paid for by the tenant to maintain the Landlords property.

Nice, well its win win for the landlord and rentiers.

[Bloo Loo]

You dont need to ask for a discount for maintenance. In other words, you wouldnt rent a property that had clear and obvious signs of deterioration at all if you could get a small discount on the rent but have to cover the leaky roof, the boiler, the windows, the fences etc. indeed, you wouldnt rent one of these places today either...the rent will be set to attract a renter...

The market rent for a property will remain the same...specially for older properties.

I have new front of house double glazing coming in Friday...is this Maintenance or general renewals?...how will these things be defined?

Currently, a landlord is not entitled to betterment...and some charge for stains on 10 year old carpets....poor legislation COULD leave tenants providing new kit for the next tenant every time they move on.

It is likely not to work.

Today, you can ask for any tenancy you like, length, terms, payments, repairs.

As for banks collecting from bust landlords, they already have the Law of Property Acts to collect rents direct from tenants....if lent properly according to the lending criteria, the rent SHOULD be more than the mortgage.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Bloo Loo

[The Knimbies who say No]

snip...

Hmm, now let me think what would benefit the banks at the expense of renters? Ooohh, I know compulsory insurance paid for by the tenant to maintain the Landlords property.

Nice, well its win win for the landlord and rentiers.

I dunno. Rents are set by what the market can bear, right? Taking over maintenance responsibilities directly od via an insurance premium means less rent, possibly considerably less.

I am pretty sceptical about this idea but that's not to say that it is all bad.

The biggest stumbling block to my mind is that plenty of landlords are subsidising the mortgage payments as it is, and dropping rent to account for maintenance obligations they currently may shirk at ~zero cost may be impossible. What fraction of private rented this is is open to question.

What this does to the rental market for leasehold flats is worth musing on if the maintenance is partly rolled up in the management fee.

[davidg]

In some European countries maintenance is the responsibility of the tenant. In Germany it may be closely specified in the contract. You may have to repaint the apartment every 3 years and perhaps do works on the bathroom every year. However you wouldn't be expected to take over maintenance of the fabric of the building. The idea is the apartment is given back in exactly the state it was rented. German landlords (a lot are private btw, and a lot are old and a royal PITA) are very very fussy and will charge for all manner of stuff from a spot of mould on the grouting to dust on top of door frames - the charges are often unreasonable. Swiss rental agreements are similar.

I don't recall such specific terms in French rental agreements but again the apartment has to be given back in the state it was rented with no wear and tear.

[@contradevian]

I dunno. Rents are set by what the market can bear, right? Taking over maintenance responsibilities directly od via an insurance premium means less rent, possibly considerably less.

I am pretty sceptical about this idea but that's not to say that it is all bad.

The biggest stumbling block to my mind is that plenty of landlords are subsidising the mortgage payments as it is, and dropping rent to account for maintenance obligations they currently may shirk at ~zero cost may be impossible. What fraction of private rented this is is open to question.

What this does to the rental market for leasehold flats is worth musing on if the maintenance is partly rolled up in the management fee.

My own view of renting is that to do it properly as a business, it offers a very poor return, and to change the terms only slightly towards the tenants makes it totally unviable. This is why Councils ended up having to provide it.

Even with HPI more security could result in devaluing a tenanted property, whereas at the moment an AST tenanted property has no difference in value to a tenanted one.

Sadly I found another article on the Inside Housing site, where yesterday the Tories were attacking Housing Associations for not acting errr more like private landlords, selling off high value 'assets" in order to fund new building.

And the reason HA's have these high value assets is because they have housing in in former slum area's like Notting Hill and IMO too many Housing Associations are acting like wannabee private landlords as it is, offering less secure tenancies, overpaying senior staff and so on.

Update: forgot to post the link

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/sleepy-housing-associations-must-become-more-efficient-says-boles/6528820.article

‘I am a supporter of the social housing sector, but I do think it needs to be a bit more responsive,’ he said. ‘It has to stop thinking of itself accessing a tube of money coming out of the state and no questioned asked. That has got to stop. It has got to be a landlord as opposed to a financing function.’

Of course the 'tube of money' will continue to pass unquestioned to private rentiers in the form of housing benefits.

Edited October 2, 2013 by aSecureTenant