Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Property118 Share Issues -- Merged Thread With Portal


Recommended Posts

I'm interested in what you have to say.

Please explain further how you see the notices given by homeowners working and on what basis it is different to section 21. What are the provisions that you think would "come back"? What act of former legislation are you referencing please?

I'm pleased you like the Deed of Assurance concept at least in principle. The beauty of it is that the landlord cannot be judge and jury. In the event of a dispute over whether compensation is due it would be settled by the Small Claims Courts, and as with Deposit Protection disputes the burden of proof rests with the landlord, i.e. proof that compensation is not payable on the basis of an eviction within the assured period being due to breach of tenancy.

My recollection of the alternative notices comes from a very long time ago, shortly after the introduction of the AST. I was kind-of handholding for a friend whose work involved a two-year assignment away when we looked into this. But the URL posted by neverwhere is probably what I had in mind. My recollection is that it looked functionally identical to Section 21, and therefore effectively redundant, but ready to spring back into use if Section 21 were to go (or be changed in the tenant's favour).

The Deed of Assurance is akin to something I've thought of. When a tenant is given the boot, they incur a lot of cost in time and effort, as well as money. And two months can be a real problem if, for example, the tenant is sick, travelling, or just particularly busy. The landlord should at the very least have skin in that game. So as a second-best to abolishing Section 21 altogether, S21 could be amended to require the landlord to refund the tenant (say) two or three months rent, at least if the tenant vacates within the notice period (in other cases it would be for the court to determine). Obviously that wouldn't apply to non-Section-21 evictions of delinquent tenants.

Edited by porca misèria
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was wrong about the cattle comment. I should have said performing dogs that will sit up and beg for treats.

Retaliatory eviction for having the temerity to exercise their statutory right to quiet enjoyment because landlords don't understand their social responsibility? Nice.

And they wonder why they have a bad name? I can't wait till the marks start going after their brokers rather than their lenders.

The relationship between a tenant and landlord should one of a working business relationship. No business relationship can survive if it is one sided and a party refuses to assist in making it work.

A Landlord may have no option but to sell. Why try and stop them from replacing the owner rather than the tenant? Isn't that akin to cutting ones nose off to spite ones face.

Let me put this another way in the form of an analogy; if I stay in a hotel and refuse to allow the maid into the room I can hardly complain when I have no clean towels can I?

The status quo right now is that if a landlord wants/needs to sell, the expectation of the property market is that he/she will serve a section 21 notice in order to make progress towards selling with vacant possession. Surely selling to another landlord makes more sense for all parties?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My recollection of the alternative notices comes from a very long time ago, shortly after the introduction of the AST. I was kind-of handholding for a friend whose work involved a two-year assignment away when we looked into this. But the URL posted by neverwhere is probably what I had in mind. My recollection is that it looked functionally identical to Section 21, and therefore effectively redundant, but ready to spring back into use if Section 21 were to go (or be changed in the tenant's favour).

The Deed of Assurance is akin to something I've thought of. When a tenant is given the boot, they incur a lot of cost in time and effort, as well as money. And two months can be a real problem if, for example, the tenant is sick, travelling, or just particularly busy. The landlord should at the very least have skin in that game. So as a second-best to abolishing Section 21 altogether, S21 could be amended to require the landlord to refund the tenant (say) two or three months rent, at least if the tenant vacates within the notice period (in other cases it would be for the court to determine). Obviously that wouldn't apply to non-Section-21 evictions of delinquent tenants.

The biggest issue that I have in terms of selling the Deed of Assurance concept to landlords is the "why should I attitude". This is far easier to explain in the provinces where it is more difficult to find and replace good tenants, however, in areas such as London where there is a huge queue of tenants for every available property its a major issue.

IMHO it would be far better to increase the supply of property. This is because it is the supply/demand issues that fires the capitalism causing the problems. Imagine if there were more rental properties available than tenants. The cost of renting would fall dramatically because tenants would have choices and be in a far better position to negotiate and the worst or most over-priced properties would be the ones left vacant. This is the position in many of the areas that I have invested into, hence the need for me to offer a Deed of Assurance to persuade tenants that my words are contractual and not just hollow promises. Tougher regulations, such as those you have suggested, would only serve to reduce investment incentive into property, and hence reduce the incentive for developers to build new homes for sale to the PRS. The knock on effect would be less building, higher compliance related costs and even higher demand for tenanted property .... all of which would serve to make the problem worse, not better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tougher regulations, such as those you have suggested, would only serve to reduce investment incentive into property, and hence reduce the incentive for developers to build new homes for sale to the PRS. The knock on effect would be less building, higher compliance related costs and even higher demand for tenanted property .... all of which would serve to make the problem worse, not better.

That's the flip side of the argument used by successive governments pouring ever more money into housing (currently funding-for-lending, help-to-buy, and the perennial housing benefit). Boost the market, boost demand, more get built, everyone benefits, right? Except, after a year or two, rising land prices absorb all the extra money. Back to square one, except that prices are higher, and a sensible market solution all the more distant.

We've had generations of short-term sugar-rushes (or perhaps that's heroin-rushes), which is precisely why we have a long-term problem. We need an adjustment the other way. Trouble is, the short-term pain you describe is not politically palatable.

I'm old enough to remember a time before ASTs, when the disastrous Rent Acts had killed off the rentals market. Today's rental market (and not least the fact that landlord-to-landlord sales are now normal) is robust enough to allow for some improvements in tenants' rights without returning to that. I've made some suggestions in this thread. Another is to tighten up on agent abuses, such as springing unwelcome surprises on a tenant only after he is committed (like the septic tank you learn of only when an extra schedule to the tenancy forbids using bleach because that would kill the bacteria).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is some merit in landlords selling with tenants in situ. I wonder how many properties are vacant given that the landlord needs to issue a s.21 before they market the property. If that property then takes 3/4 months to find a buyer and another month for completion that is a lot of time empty. Multiply this across all sales of BTL properties and you have a significant number of rental months being taken out of the market. That reduction of supply must have some impact on price?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the flip side of the argument used by successive governments pouring ever more money into housing (currently funding-for-lending, help-to-buy, and the perennial housing benefit). Boost the market, boost demand, more get built, everyone benefits, right? Except, after a year or two, rising land prices absorb all the extra money. Back to square one, except that prices are higher, and a sensible market solution all the more distant.

We've had generations of short-term sugar-rushes (or perhaps that's heroin-rushes), which is precisely why we have a long-term problem. We need an adjustment the other way. Trouble is, the short-term pain you describe is not politically palatable.

I'm old enough to remember a time before ASTs, when the disastrous Rent Acts had killed off the rentals market. Today's rental market (and not least the fact that landlord-to-landlord sales are now normal) is robust enough to allow for some improvements in tenants' rights without returning to that. I've made some suggestions in this thread. Another is to tighten up on agent abuses, such as springing unwelcome surprises on a tenant only after he is committed (like the septic tank you learn of only when an extra schedule to the tenancy forbids using bleach because that would kill the bacteria).

So what's to stop governments from compulsory purchasing land and developing new affordable housing stock?

Just look at the speed that Dubia emerged from the desert, and even the sea. The UK housing crisis could be completed in less than one generation.

The problem of successive governments relying too heavily on the private sector and I agree that this only serves to drive up prices. I also agree that the current incentives you have listed are pointless. They are designed to win votes, not to solve real housing issues.

Post war, the population was re-housed very quickly. Coventry was flattened for instance but was very quickly rebuilt. There were also hundreds of provincial developments created. I accept that many of these developments were disgusting pre-fabs and high rises but lessons have been learned from that and construction technology has moved on significantly too. When more homes are built the need for discussions like the one we are having, as well as the resentful comments directed at me by some members on this forum, will no longer be considered necessary by any of us.

Now I don't want to get political and please don't think I support UKIP or the Chinese methods of population control (because I don't), however, there does need to much more consideration towards population growth and providing infrastructure to support it. Housing should clearly be high in that agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is some merit in landlords selling with tenants in situ. I wonder how many properties are vacant given that the landlord needs to issue a s.21 before they market the property. If that property then takes 3/4 months to find a buyer and another month for completion that is a lot of time empty. Multiply this across all sales of BTL properties and you have a significant number of rental months being taken out of the market. That reduction of supply must have some impact on price?

That is a very good point. I agree that the vacant period is realistically 4 months based on selling a rented property to a homeowner as opposed to selling it tenanted to another landlord. However, I think it is more likely that the period between offer and completion is closer to three months and that properties generally vacated at least one month prior to the buyer being found.

I accept that it usually takes a few months to find a buyer but properties can still be advertised whilst a tenant is in situ. Whether their tenancy provides for access for viewings and whether tenants respect such conditions even if they exists are a different matter though.

I read an article on the Empty Homes website recently which claims that a vacant property typically devalues neighbouring properties by 18%. I'm also aware that there are issues in terms of insuring vacant properties, either the premium shoots up or in some cases they are not insurable.

Perhaps when the new portal is more established, homeowners will feel more confident to obtain consent to let from their mortgage lenders and sell their properties tenanted? If they appoint good agents who do the property referencing and also buy quality Rent Guarantee Insurance their risks will be minimised and their cashflow will substantially improve.

Historically tenanted properties have rarely changed hands and when they have done so it has been at a discount against open market value with vacant possession. However, I think that could all change due to the new pension freedoms whereby many more over 55's will be looking to invest into well managed property for immediate cashflow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All

snip

We also advise landlords to provide an incentive to tenants, e.g. "if you can help me to sell the property by conducting viewings and making sure the property is neat and tidy I will give you £X when the sale goes through". Where tenants are uncooperative (want to maintain their right to quiet enjoyment) then sadly the landlord will need to consider providing notice to the tenant and selling conventionally with vacant possession. This rarely suits anybody, the tenant has to fund his own costs of relocating and suffer the inconvenience of being up-rooted. Meanwhile the landlord has to suffer the potential of rental voids, a disgruntled tenant and agency fees associated with marketing the property via conventional means by appointing an agent to sell with vacant possession.

I am happy to return to answer more questions if they are polite.

Yours truly

Mark Alexander

Welcome to the Forum.

This is a bit like the God argument...believe in me and you get all the benefits...however, dont beleive in me and you are going to burn in Hell.

Offer carrot...here is some cash, or else, Im going to turf you out and label you to the agency and everyone else as "uncooperative". Of course, nobody wants this, but we can avoid this if you take out my own Deed of Assurance, where again, you can stay as long as you like, until I decide.

Clever spin?

Link to post
Share on other sites

New to the forum so please be gentle!

I can see a benefit to me in this. My landlord is not as financially secure as I would like - but I want to stay where I am for the next few years at least. I have actually been sniffing around trying to find someone to buy him out if everything goes t*ts up - the last thing I want is for him to need to sell and kick me out because of this. I did even think about some kind of 'tenant seeks landlord - must have a pocketful of dosh and believe in HPI' website at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New to the forum so please be gentle!

I can see a benefit to me in this. My landlord is not as financially secure as I would like - but I want to stay where I am for the next few years at least. I have actually been sniffing around trying to find someone to buy him out if everything goes t*ts up - the last thing I want is for him to need to sell and kick me out because of this. I did even think about some kind of 'tenant seeks landlord - must have a pocketful of dosh and believe in HPI' website at some point.

How about a right to buy for private tenants...60% discount...after all, tenants are "paying my mortgage" with their "dead money"...a good and just Government would ensure that private tenants "dead money" was as useful as a Social tenants "dead money"...and if the Government sees their tenants "paying the deficit", why would they want to get out and sell off?

If your landlord is unstable in any way, best bite the bullet and move on. Or you could sit there and let it all happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

""The Good Landlords Campaign"

:D:D:D

You're taking the p**s.

As someone who rented in 4 different countries over a period of 15yrs...from 1 bed skunk holes to posh parts of Paris , my experience tells me that the tenant will always get shafted by the LL. The only way for to protect tenants is to pass laws. Maybe if you and other thoughtful LL's campaigned for laws to be changed , then the image of LL's might take a turn for the better.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The relationship between a tenant and landlord should one of a working business relationship. No business relationship can survive if it is one sided and a party refuses to assist in making it work.

So you fundamentally disagree that people should be entitled to a quiet enjoyment of a stable home life? You think that a tenant should only have access to this right if they are able to buy it from a landlord, a member of a group who have decided that they own the exclusive right to house people on the land?

Even the most extreme rentiers tend to recognise that some minimal level of rights for the disenfranchised is beneficial in staving off bloody revolution.

Landlordism isn't a business proposition between two willing and equal parties; it's extortion of the productive labour of others, backed up by the force of the state in the form of property laws and planning permissions.

(****** me, if you told me fifteen years ago that I'd be writing this stuff, I'd have laughed in your face! How did we let things get so unbalanced and niggling but tolerable inequalities turn into open social division?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...There are several reasons that I have yet to raise in terms of why I don't like the stable rental contract but I can assure you that getting rid of good tenants isn't one of them. What everybody need to accept is that circumstances can and often do change for both landlords and tenants. I agree that money isn't everything but when it comes to resolving the most difficult of issues then it is they only thing that matters in many cases. Let me give you a few examples:-

1) Landlord falls into financial difficulty and needs to sell up

2) Landlord dies and mortgage company want their loan to be repaid (landlords should be forced to buy life insurance to protect their mortgages IMHO)

3) Landlords get divorced

4) Landlords get disillusioned

5) Landlords fall ill and need to sell up

Is it really right that a tenant should be able to remain in occupation for up to 5 years in these circumstances but can leave the property with just 2 months notice without reason?...

100% it would be absolutely right that the landlord's poor financial planning and personal life should in no way impinge on their tenant, to suggest otherwise is simply amateurish.

Equally amateurish is the implication that the tenant in some way owe the landlord something beyond rent. Landlords provide a service for money. Tenants are customers that can choose to use or not use the services of a particular landlord as they see fit. This is how professional businesses work.

...Most things come down to monetary compensation when a contract is frustrated/broken and that is what the Deed of Assurance provides for. When more landlords start offering them and when the supply/demand ratio reverses it will be tenants who will be in the driving seat in terms of negotiations, i.e. length of assurance period and amount of compensation in the event of no fault displacement. For that to happen though the government (whoever they are) have either got to find a way control population growth and/or increase housing stock. Regulation is not the answer because all it will do is remove investment incentive from the most compliant of society and leave property in the hands of rogue operators. House prices are not the answer to the housing crisis either. Even if properties were all worth £1 each there still isn't enough of them to go around. Whilst supply of property remains below demand levels then the poorest in society will have little to no choices and be left with the very worst options in terms of hoping to find a decent place to live, either as an owner or a tenant. Nobody would choose to live in a mouldy unsafe property with an abusive landlord if they really had a choice would they? It's the lack of choice due to the lack of available property which is the problem. If everybody had choices nobody would choose a bad property. The likes of review websites such as Trip advisor would take care of that...

The amount of nonsense on display in this paragraph is palpable.

Firstly, you seem to be trying to frame current rental contracts in a manner whereby it is impossible to solve the non-monetary impacts of unwarranted evictions (i.e. where the tenant is not at fault), when in fact you are clearly offering monetary compensation precisely because the non-monetary impacts could be solved by using better contracts which prevent unwarranted evictions in the first place and you are seeking to avoid this option.

Secondly, there is no shortage of housing stock: the vast majority of housing stock is underutilised, a fact which is very easily confirmed with the Office of National Statistics.* Alternatively one might simply walk around London and note all of the empty properties and new builds, it's really quite striking. To claim that there aren't enough properties is to either be ignorant of the facts or to be motivated by an agenda which would be undermined by acknowledging them. It's also quite illogical as if it were true we would ipso facto be experiencing a significant increase in out-and-out homelessness and yet there are only 742 rough sleepers in the whole of London.

Thirdly, making blanket statements against regulation is incredibly disingenuous when you are in fact arguing to keep regulation that currently favours landlords (namely section 21) whilst I am arguing for its abolition. Implying that a regulatory environment does not already exist is a hollow tactic for preserving a regulatory environment that favours your vested interests.

Fourthly, you suggest that it would be a bad thing to remove investment incentive from landlords but this is really only true from a landlord's perspective. Landlords don't build houses, they don't add additional stock to the housing supply: they remove housing stock from owner occupation. What's more they do so by arbitraging the difference between what they can can borrow against their tenant's income (via the medium of rent) in the unregulated buy-to-let mortgage market and what their tenant can borrow against their income in the regulated residential mortgage market; thereby using a favourable regulatory environment and their tenant's own income to help price said tenant out of owning their own home. Your implication - that current landlords are not rogue operators, that they provide useful investment, and that they would necessarily be replaced by rogue operators - is entirely false and alarmist.

Fifthly, you appear to dismiss house prices as either solution or cause. However, excessively high house prices are a significant problem for numerous reasons, not least of which being that they force people who do not want to rent to have to rent. Regardless of the quality of landlord - and I would place any landlord who felt that their own personal life or poor financial planning was a reasonable reason for evicting a tenant as exceptionally poor - being forced to rent against one's will has a negative impact on quality of life, especially in a regulatory environment that places tenants at an active disadvantage. Additionally, high housing costs in general produce a negative burden on the economy by increasing living costs and thereby reducing the ability of our labour force to effectively compete on an international level. What's more lending against excessively high house prices creates an unnecessary level of financial instability - as demonstrated by the global financial crisis caused by subprime lending into a US property bubble - that ultimately places the entire economy at risk of a further recession. I could go on but as we have an entire site dedicated to these problems I will leave you to do your own research.

Sixthly, in propagating the erroneous lack-of-housing meme you apparently conflate speculative demand with direct demand. The former represents demand for ownership of an appreciating or yield-generating asset, whereas the latter represents demand for direct use of said asset. As is evident from the empirical data provided by the Office of National Statistics* direct demand is not currently outstripping supply: there is adequate housing stock to meet direct demand from people who simply wish to be housed. Speculative demand as represented by landlords and investors, on the other hand, is completely capable of outstripping supply regardless of whether or not direct demand is satiated. It is therefore meaningless to describe such demand as outstripping supply: increasing the housing stock cannot reduce speculative demand as it cannot be satiated by increased opportunities for speculation, it can only be dissuaded by falling yields and asset prices. More to the point if left unchecked speculative demand displaces direct demand and creates the illusion of a supply problem where no such problem exists.

Finally, you imply that where a landlord is able to be abusive and where rental properties are not kept in a habitable condition it is ultimately lack of choice in the market which carries the fault. This totally misrepresents the actual market failure which has taken place precisely because regulation is substantially rigged in the landlord's favour - from guaranteeing minimum incomes with housing benefit, to creating an atmosphere of fear around legitimate complaints via the ever-present threat of unwarranted evictions, to significantly looser lending standards for landlords versus prospective owner occupiers in the competition for acquiring properties, to the prevention of price discovery via government housing market props - and actively prevents the operation of a free market. This regulatory environment is rife with moral hazard, stripping tenants of their choices whilst actively protecting landlord's from the negative repercussions of their own. This is the market failure which needs addressing, not an imagined but unsubstantiated physical shortage in housing.

...Getting back to the core of this thread though, I agree that if it can be established that a landlord to landlord market can exist then that may well provide ammunition to campaigners who want to get rid of section 21. The success of my wife's new business is highly dependent upon awareness. The plan is to raise £250,000 of crowd funding to kickstart a £500,000 a year ITV awareness campaign. This will buy around 8 million live views of a 10 second adverts every month. It's a simple proposition so 10 second adverts are enough "i.e. Looking to buy to sell a tenanted property? Free advertising, No Commission, see Property118.com. I wonder whether the anti s21 campaigners will buy the shares made available via the Crowd Funding platform when they are released? Somehow I doubt it but I sincerely hope I'm wrong...

Many who disagree with section 21 evictions would also disagree in principle with the idea of actively excluding prospective owner occupiers from the housing market, even if it is a shrinkingly small portion of it. There is certainly nothing morally inconsistent - as you seem to be implying - in supporting the abolition of section 21 and not funding your/your wife's business proposition. Whilst it might be useful for an adversary to shoot themselves in the foot, it would be foolhardy to buy them the gun.

* Homeownership and renting in England and Wales - detailed characteristics

figure3_tcm77-316383.png

figure4_tcm77-316386.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

100% it would be absolutely right that the landlord's poor financial planning and personal life should in no way impinge on their tenant, to suggest otherwise is simply amateurish.

Equally amateurish is the implication that the tenant in some way owe the landlord something beyond rent. Landlords provide a service for money. Tenants are customers that can choose to use or not use the services of a particular landlord as they see fit. This is how professional businesses work.

The amount of nonsense on display in this paragraph is palpable.

Firstly, you seem to be trying to frame current rental contracts in a manner whereby it is impossible to solve the non-monetary impacts of unwarranted evictions (i.e. where the tenant is not at fault), when in fact you are clearly offering monetary compensation precisely because the non-monetary impacts could be solved by using better contracts which prevent unwarranted evictions in the first place and you are seeking to avoid this option.

Secondly, there is no shortage of housing stock: the vast majority of housing stock is underutilised, a fact which is very easily confirmed with the Office of National Statistics.* Alternatively one might simply walk around London and note all of the empty properties and new builds, it's really quite striking. To claim that there aren't enough properties is to either be ignorant of the facts or to be motivated by an agenda which would be undermined by acknowledging them. It's also quite illogical as if it were true we would ipso facto be experiencing a significant increase in out-and-out homelessness and yet there are only 742 rough sleepers in the whole of London.

Thirdly, making blanket statements against regulation is incredibly disingenuous when you are in fact arguing to keep regulation that currently favours landlords (namely section 21) whilst I am arguing for its abolition. Implying that a regulatory environment does not already exist is a hollow tactic for preserving a regulatory environment that favours your vested interests.

Fourthly, you suggest that it would be a bad thing to remove investment incentive from landlords but this is really only true from a landlord's perspective. Landlords don't build houses, they don't add additional stock to the housing supply: they remove housing stock from owner occupation. What's more they do so by arbitraging the difference between what they can can borrow against their tenant's income (via the medium of rent) in the unregulated buy-to-let mortgage market and what their tenant can borrow against their income in the regulated residential mortgage market; thereby using a favourable regulatory environment and their tenant's own income to help price said tenant out of owning their own home. Your implication - that current landlords are not rogue operators, that they provide useful investment, and that they would necessarily be replaced by rogue operators - is entirely false and alarmist.

Fifthly, you appear to dismiss house prices as either solution or cause. However, excessively high house prices are a significant problem for numerous reasons, not least of which being that they force people who do not want to rent to have to rent. Regardless of the quality of landlord - and I would place any landlord who felt that their own personal life or poor financial planning was a reasonable reason for evicting a tenant as exceptionally poor - being forced to rent against one's will has a negative impact on quality of life, especially in a regulatory environment that places tenants at an active disadvantage. Additionally, high housing costs in general produce a negative burden on the economy by increasing living costs and thereby reducing the ability of our labour force to effectively compete on an international level. What's more lending against excessively high house prices creates an unnecessary level of financial instability - as demonstrated by the global financial crisis caused by subprime lending into a US property bubble - that ultimately places the entire economy at risk of a further recession. I could go on but as we have an entire site dedicated to these problems I will leave you to do your own research.

Sixthly, in propagating the erroneous lack-of-housing meme you apparently conflate speculative demand with direct demand. The former represents demand for ownership of an appreciating or yield-generating asset, whereas the latter represents demand for direct use of said asset. As is evident from the empirical data provided by the Office of National Statistics* direct demand is not currently outstripping supply: there is adequate housing stock to meet direct demand from people who simply wish to be housed. Speculative demand as represented by landlords and investors, on the other hand, is completely capable of outstripping supply regardless of whether or not direct demand is satiated. It is therefore meaningless to describe such demand as outstripping supply: increasing the housing stock cannot reduce speculative demand as it cannot be satiated by increased opportunities for speculation, it can only be dissuaded by falling yields and asset prices. More to the point if left unchecked speculative demand displaces direct demand and creates the illusion of a supply problem where no such problem exists.

Finally, you imply that where a landlord is able to be abusive and where rental properties are not kept in a habitable condition it is ultimately lack of choice in the market which carries the fault. This totally misrepresents the actual market failure which has taken place precisely because regulation is substantially rigged in the landlord's favour - from guaranteeing minimum incomes with housing benefit, to creating an atmosphere of fear around legitimate complaints via the ever-present threat of unwarranted evictions, to significantly looser lending standards for landlords versus prospective owner occupiers in the competition for acquiring properties, to the prevention of price discovery via government housing market props - and actively prevents the operation of a free market. This regulatory environment is rife with moral hazard, stripping tenants of their choices whilst actively protecting landlord's from the negative repercussions of their own. This is the market failure which needs addressing, not an imagined but unsubstantiated physical shortage in housing.

Many who disagree with section 21 evictions would also disagree in principle with the idea of actively excluding prospective owner occupiers from the housing market, even if it is a shrinkingly small portion of it. There is certainly nothing morally inconsistent - as you seem to be implying - in supporting the abolition of section 21 and not funding your/your wife's business proposition. Whilst it might be useful for an adversary to shoot themselves in the foot, it would be foolhardy to buy them the gun.

* Homeownership and renting in England and Wales - detailed characteristics

figure3_tcm77-316383.png

figure4_tcm77-316386.png

:wub:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Equally amateurish is the implication that the tenant in some way owe the landlord something beyond rent. Landlords provide a service for money. Tenants are customers that can choose to use or not use the services of a particular landlord as they see fit. This is how professional businesses work.

No, this isn't how landlording works at all. Landlords don't provide a service, they don't provide anything.

Landlords threaten eviction and then charge money to stop.

If the landlord vanished the land would remain. The rent would not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's to stop governments from compulsory purchasing land and developing new affordable housing stock?

Just look at the speed that Dubia emerged from the desert, and even the sea. The UK housing crisis could be completed in less than one generation.

The problem of successive governments relying too heavily on the private sector and I agree that this only serves to drive up prices. I also agree that the current incentives you have listed are pointless. They are designed to win votes, not to solve real housing issues.

Post war, the population was re-housed very quickly. Coventry was flattened for instance but was very quickly rebuilt. There were also hundreds of provincial developments created. I accept that many of these developments were disgusting pre-fabs and high rises but lessons have been learned from that and construction technology has moved on significantly too. When more homes are built the need for discussions like the one we are having, as well as the resentful comments directed at me by some members on this forum, will no longer be considered necessary by any of us.

Now I don't want to get political and please don't think I support UKIP or the Chinese methods of population control (because I don't), however, there does need to much more consideration towards population growth and providing infrastructure to support it. Housing should clearly be high in that agenda.

You are the UK housing crisis.

The main reason people can't afford homes, is the extra demand from 5 million landlords who occupy something like 1 in 5 houses.

Demand for rental accommodation is created by landlords when they outbid owner occupiers, because every time a landlord buys a house they create a tenant.

You can possibly think that a shortage of housing is what forces people to rent houses, can you!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the UK housing crisis.

The main reason people can't afford homes, is the extra demand from 5 million landlords who occupy something like 1 in 5 houses.

Demand for rental accommodation is created by landlords when they outbid owner occupiers, because every time a landlord buys a house they create a tenant.

You can possibly think that a shortage of housing is what forces people to rent houses, can you!?!

+1000

If more people understood this, this idiotic BTL industry would be shut down chop-chop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum.

Of course, nobody wants this, but we can avoid this if you take out my own Deed of Assurance, where again, you can stay as long as you like, until I decide.

Clever spin?

Thanks for the welcome

What do you mean when you say "take out a Deed of Assurance"?

Do you think this is some sort of insurance policy perhaps? If so you have misunderstood. It is a legal document which states a landlords intention to allow a tenant to occupy a property for a longer period than the tenancy says (subject to the tenancy conditions being met of course) combined with a legally binding promise from landlord to tenant that is possession is sought for any reason other than breach of tenancy on the part of the tenant then the landlord will pay a pre-agreed level of compensation.

If landlord and tenant cannot agree terms up front (i.e. before the tenancy begins) then the tenant finds an alternative landlord and the landlord finds an alternative tenant.

If a tenant can't find the property and/or a tenant that he/she is happy with doesn't this support my point that the problem is due to lack of supply of good rental property/landlords?

Something I have noticed is that landlords and tenants do seem to eventually settle at their own level, e.g. stubborn tenants who resent landlords tend to end up with stubborn landlords who resent tenants. Clearly there are mis-matches on both sides from time to time but the level is always found eventually. When problems occur they appear to me to stem from a lack of understanding on both sides. Of course, very few get to hear about great landlord/tenant relationships, only the bad ones. Running a landlords forum I get to hear thousands of stories about scum of the earth tenants and very little about scum landlords. Having said that, we do have tenants posting occasionally and they are generally well treated because good landlords want to rid off and expose bad landlords as much as their tenants do. Have a look around Property118 and you will find quite a few examples of landlords advising tenants how to screw over their bad landlord. When I venture into forums such as HPC I expect to find just the opposite, i,e. a lot more tales of woe from tenants and landlord bashing. I learn from this in many ways, i.e. how people think and communicate, signs to look out for that credit checks would not show up, questions to ask etc. I'm not hear because I enjoy the insults, I am here for many reasons. Those of you who are renting may well want to live in one of my properties one day. The more I can learn about the mindset of a tenant, the more likely I am to be able to cherry pick the best of the bunch. Maybe some of your members who do rent could also learn how to find the best landlords by communicating in the way that I do. Those who enjoy hating us will probably continue to experience issues to fuel that hatred. We all have choices.

Having said all of that, I think I've learned enough from being here for now. I may pop back some time.

Thanks and goodbye for now :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parting thoughts .....

If your landlord decides to sell up would you rather they serve you notice and sell their property with vacant possession or would you rather they look to sell the property to another landlord?

When you or somebody you know next rent a property would you recommend signing a six month tenancy or try to find a landlord who offers you a Deed of Assurance?

This is a very simple list of what good landlords want from their tenants:-

1) rent on time

2) respect the neighbours

3) respect the property

4) mutual respect and cooperation between landlord and tenant

5) a long term relationship

Please accept that both landlords and tenants are a representation of society as a whole, there are good and bad people in all walks of society.

If you or people close to you want/need to rent a property, what will you do to ensure that you end up in a relationship that both landlord and tenant deserve?

If you focus on what you do want then in my experience you are far more likely to find it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you are more likely to find what you focus on the most. My advice, therefore, is that you focus on what you really want a lot more than you focus on what you really don't want.

If you really do want a House Price Crash then by all means focus on that. Be careful what you wish for those. I accept that there will be further house price crashes in my lifetime, my focus on on surviving them. So far I have survived two.

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this isn't how landlording works at all. Landlords don't provide a service, they don't provide anything.

Landlords threaten eviction and then charge money to stop.

If the landlord vanished the land would remain. The rent would not.

You're right of course, I should have said disservice...

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 429 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.