Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Rent Controls In The News Again And Petition ( Please Sign! )

Recommended Posts

Do people here really think that it's a good idea to cap the absolute amount of rent? Doesn't that cap the size/quality of the place that you'd be able to rent?

The cap they are suggesting for London is less than 1/3 of what I pay. If implemented, even accounting for the likely drop in rents, there's a good chance that I would have to move into a sh!thole or be forced to buy to get a decent quality place.

I can understand the rationale for capping rent increases for a given tenancy to avoid the problem of tenants being held-up by rent demands after the first year is up (or facing the cost of moving elsewhere). That's what they do in Germany and it sounds pretty sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people here really think that it's a good idea to cap the absolute amount of rent? Doesn't that cap the size/quality of the place that you'd be able to rent?

The cap they are suggesting for London is less than 1/3 of what I pay. If implemented, even accounting for the likely drop in rents, there's a good chance that I would have to move into a sh!thole or be forced to buy to get a decent quality place.

I can understand the rationale for capping rent increases for a given tenancy to avoid the problem of tenants being held-up by rent demands after the first year is up (or facing the cost of moving elsewhere). That's what they do in Germany and it sounds pretty sensible.

It probably isn't a good idea to cap rents and have rent controls but the fact its now hitting the MSM suggests there is a problem somewhere along the line.

Bearing in mind a lot of people are renting because they have been priced out by the competition in the form of property hoarders wanting a pension that someone else pays for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people here really think that it's a good idea to cap the absolute amount of rent? Doesn't that cap the size/quality of the place that you'd be able to rent?

The cap they are suggesting for London is less than 1/3 of what I pay. If implemented, even accounting for the likely drop in rents, there's a good chance that I would have to move into a sh!thole or be forced to buy to get a decent quality place.

I can understand the rationale for capping rent increases for a given tenancy to avoid the problem of tenants being held-up by rent demands after the first year is up (or facing the cost of moving elsewhere). That's what they do in Germany and it sounds pretty sensible.

The housing market is so rigged, that rent caps won't have much of an effect on the size or quality of a place a person can rent. They are already capped with different tools designed to rig the 'market' in property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never sign a petition to intervene in a market, with the intervention anti free market

There would be no land 'market' without state intervention.

A rent cap is just the state rewriting the licenses it has issued to landowners.

In other words, this is the state interfering with itself.

If you were arguing against state enforced land enclosure, then I'd at least respect your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally misread that. Skimmed the page to this bit: "e.g. £350 a week for a three bedroom property." and thought 'Hell Yeah! That would cut my rent in half - I'll sign up for that!"

And then realised that was the price they were complaining about and are hoping to pay £170 a week... Good luck with that,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally misread that. Skimmed the page to this bit: "e.g. £350 a week for a three bedroom property." and thought 'Hell Yeah! That would cut my rent in half - I'll sign up for that!"

And then realised that was the price they were complaining about and are hoping to pay £170 a week... Good luck with that,

My friend pays £80 a week for a 3bed house.

I pay £70 a week for a 1 bed flat.

Both of us are paying over the odds for our housing and have been subject to 12 years of above inflation rent increases.

Not London, but no reason why we couldn't have housing cheaper than that in London - if society allowed it.

Edited by Self Employed Youth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would welcome a rent reduction.

I think I would prefer quality control of rental properties, requiring landlords to be registered and to have an independent body do periodic building inspections.

If you could have a choice of agent for a given property, similar to how the utilities work, would be handy.

Edited by Squeeky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sign anything that draws attention to the housing crisis regardless of the obvious non-action this petition will end with. At least a lot of people are starting to at least act against rent seekers, baby steps.

the odd article here, the odd headline there. it all acts to help reduce speed of the rent seeking ship, and is part of a picture to slowly turn the situation around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jemmy Button

Signed. Anything which points to the evils of BTL private slumlords is good by me. Some posters may consider that their own landlord is a 'good' landlord. Sadly, these posters are deluding themselves. There is no such thing as a 'good' landlord...only a modern day slave owner. And they own YOU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the property market is not a free market, you were not asked to sign to intervene in the property market, the government have done that without being asked and advertised their 5% HtB deposits (sorry your 5% HtB deposits) on prime time TV.

Maybe rent controls could level the playing field ... however removal of all the props would be IMHO better, but this would not suit the rentiers many of whom are MPs.

Indeed and voting to make it even less free market does not improve the situation. it entrenches the notion that intervention is a good thing.

I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed. Anything which points to the evils of BTL private slumlords is good by me. Some posters may consider that their own landlord is a 'good' landlord. Sadly, these posters are deluding themselves. There is no such thing as a 'good' landlord...only a modern day slave owner. And they own YOU.

where does one stop with this argument?

Of course, it is best to be in total control and ownership of everything you perceive.

but who lives in a vaccuum?...Even Robinson Crusoe needed an ally.

So you own your house, but need to buy food?..are you in slavery to Tescos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jemmy Button

Indeed and voting to make it even less free market does not improve the situation. it entrenches the notion that intervention is a good thing.

I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.

You, my friend, are living in cloud cuckoo-land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or Germany?

Edit I ought to add I've not signed it myself(38 degrees rings alarm bells for me from the past, have not had time to explore why yet) but it is not quite so clear cut to me as it is to KB. There are people being royally shafted by an unscrupulous PRS who have essentially no means of exercising their disgust other than to exercise their free market powers and go elsewhere. I think we can do a bit better than that. Other decent economies seem to manage to accommodate some regulatory protection from the worst excesses of greedy individuals.

The Venezuela line is the one trotted out repeatedly by the Tories in response to Labour's proposal. They perhaps ought to have set out their objections from an idealogical standpoint. They did not do so because(imo) it would involve admitting that their long-time 'brand' of stable homes and the sanctity of family life come a poor second to rentierism by the parliamentary party.

Edited by Joan of The Tower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely there are other factors in rent levels? Just because people are able and more or less forced to pay rents doesn't mean they want to. So as mechanisms go, why can't voting be part of the market mechanism to decide rent levels?

surprises me quite how high rents have been for so long, why can't democracy create an ultimate cap on rent seekers?

Always seemed a strange strategy to base your own future prosperity by leaching off the majority? our democracy must be in a seriously bad shape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm happy to sign. After seeing the carnage that unregulated financial markets unleashed I'm all for a balanced economy, free markets where they work best, but kept in check with some sensible government intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, let's intervene till the cows come home. Persoanlly I wish I lived in Venezuela

Without intervention there is no land market.

'Keep Out' is not an invitation to tender, it's an order you have to obey.

I wouldn't let it worry you, just keep tugging at that forelock...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Price controls usually don't work because they make it unprofitable to make/ provide a product or service causing supply destruction and "empty shelves".

In the case of the housing market there is not a lot of "creation" going on, we mainly just have a stock. If price controls were introduced some landlords would become distressed sellers, others would just decide it is no longer profitable.

I would predict the short term result would be a short shock to the housing market as distressed assets are liquidated, followed by an interesting evaluation of the recent bank stress tests.

In the medium term house prices would rise back to where they are now because ultimately there is the same amount of money chasing the same supply of housing, combined with the BoE's track record of propping up asset prices at any cost.

You would see a drop in the number of properties to rent, and those that remained would probably be small HMOs as someone else pointed out as these could still be profitable under the new restrictions.

I am going to agree with Killer Bunny and would suggest price controls are the wrong answer to the question.

If the desire is lower cost of housing generally I think it would be better to look at the fundamental variables of supply and demand (comprising total population and their purchasing power).

The only way to have a meaningful effect on house prices would be to increase the size of the supply (accepting this has negative impacts on standard of living but doing it anyway), or managing migration/population (with the problematic social implications that involves). Anything else is simply rearranging the deck chairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free mkts are ok unless I'm detrimentally affected...

Yes, we'd already figured that out, but at least you're honest.

And two wrongs make a right.

Zzzzzz....

Wrong, right? That's debatable. Intervention in a free-market? That's just hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Price controls usually don't work because they make it unprofitable to make/ provide a product or service causing supply destruction and "empty shelves".

In the case of the housing market there is not a lot of "creation" going on, we mainly just have a stock. If price controls were introduced some landlords would become distressed sellers, others would just decide it is no longer profitable.

I would predict the short term result would be a short shock to the housing market as distressed assets are liquidated, followed by an interesting evaluation of the recent bank stress tests.

In the medium term house prices would rise back to where they are now because ultimately there is the same amount of money chasing the same supply of housing, combined with the BoE's track record of propping up asset prices at any cost.

You would see a drop in the number of properties to rent, and those that remained would probably be small HMOs as someone else pointed out as these could still be profitable under the new restrictions.

I am going to agree with Killer Bunny and would suggest price controls are the wrong answer to the question.

If the desire is lower cost of housing generally I think it would be better to look at the fundamental variables of supply and demand (comprising total population and their purchasing power).

The only way to have a meaningful effect on house prices would be to increase the size of the supply (accepting this has negative impacts on standard of living but doing it anyway), or managing migration/population (with the problematic social implications that involves). Anything else is simply rearranging the deck chairs.

If landlords sell-up that reduces demand, so prices fall (all else being equal). Landlords became landlords by outbidding the next highest bidder. In their absence there is less money chasing the same number of houses.

That's not to say I think that price controls are the right answer, but short-term, given where we are, they are probably better than the status quo. It would be hard to be worse than the status-quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.