Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Government survey (consultation) - "Overcoming Barriers to Longer Tenancies" PLEASE COMPLETE!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, fru-gal said:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/9ZG8ZRZ

This is the consultation to make tenancies longer (3 years) so please complete if you are a tenant and want longer and more secure tenancies!

That's the right link, but just for the reassurance of the certifiably suspicious if you want to get to that surveymonkey page via the .gov page, the .gov page, with a link to the survey is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/overcoming-the-barriers-to-longer-tenancies-in-the-private-rented-sector

My tuppence worth is that a fixed term contract that the landlord can end at any time should they want to sell or move in is not a fixed term contract. Not too impressed that the options on this question spoke fairly clearly to the government's position going into this - no ability to sell during the fixed term is not even one of the options :rolleyes:

image.png.84e7b8e342dd85bd1bedfb7a0e897485.png

There was a text box on question 20 where you can set out that it's not a fixed term if the landlord can end it on a whim by selling the property. I think a bit of ambition is in order here, for example should a landlord suffer some personal disaster or just end up in arrears on the mortgage then the property could go into some kind of receivership until the end of the fixed term tenancy.

If these sainted buy-to-let investors want to provide homes and take risks then they can damn well provide homes and take risks and if that means that their beloved equity is at arms length for three years then that's all well and good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Failed at question 1:

’if you were offered a tenancy longer than 12 months would you take it?’

What do you mean by that?  Am I committed to more than 12 months?  Are they?  

How can I answer this when it’s missing the most important detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Jurassic Bland said:

My tuppence worth is that a fixed term contract that the landlord can end at any time should they want to sell or move in is not a fixed term contract.

Completely agree, fixed should mean fixed. Huge potential for landlords to abuse these two options by saying they are going to sell/move in, kicking the tenant out and then not actually doing it and just renting it out to somebody else. Once the former tenant is out they won't pursue it as their interest in the property is now zero.

I think the Tories can't imagine a world in which a tenant could say 'no' to a landlord, or even 'you want me to move out? make it worth my while and I'll consider it'

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done. Got a few mentions in for land value tax, lower house prices and higher home ownership rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposal that all ASTs would have a mandatory 6 month break clause is appalling. This would make so many tenants less secure than they are now. Imagine moving into a new place and not knowing whether you were going to be packing your stuff up and trapsing round letting agents again in 4 months' time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

The proposal that all ASTs would have a mandatory 6 month break clause is appalling. This would make so many tenants less secure than they are now. Imagine moving into a new place and not knowing whether you were going to be packing your stuff up and trapsing round letting agents again in 4 months' time.

That depends on how it's implemented. If it's just a 6 month tenancy by another name then yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Si1 said:

That depends on how it's implemented. If it's just a 6 month tenancy by another name then yes.

It's a 3 year tenancy which could be terminated 6 months after the start by either party without giving a reason. I don't see how else this could be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

The proposal that all ASTs would have a mandatory 6 month break clause is appalling. This would make so many tenants less secure than they are now. Imagine moving into a new place and not knowing whether you were going to be packing your stuff up and trapsing round letting agents again in 4 months' time.

Even worse, same landlords/Estate Agents who are happy to renew and charge new set of fees every 12 months will be worried that they will lose that ability once the clock passes 6 months and start kicking everyone out twice a year.

Obviously, in a long term (and in a market which is not being rapidly inflated in a speculative bubble), they will lose out due to inevitable voids but they could cause inconvenience to at least some tenants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done.  But my, what a pain in the behind of a survey.  Should take 15 minutes?  Certainly aimed at those who have time (ie. retired landlords with no full time employment).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Done. Got a few mentions in for land value tax, lower house prices and higher home ownership rates.

Social benefits too, tenants more likely to participate in the local community etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned stability for children/families and better communities as transient households aren't as likely to lay down roots and partake in community cohesion etc - cleaner streets as longer tenancies more likely to mean tenants take pride in "their" homes/don't shit where they live longterm, less crimes etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BuyToLeech said:

Failed at question 1:

’if you were offered a tenancy longer than 12 months would you take it?’

What do you mean by that?  Am I committed to more than 12 months?  Are they?  

How can I answer this when it’s missing the most important detail?

It doesn't matter. Choose the answer that would most likely to result in longer term tenancy. No financial incentives. 

Edited by hi5lo5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completed! Still feeling like they are treating symptoms, not the cause.

If being a landlord and speculating on property wasn't so profitable, there would have been more owner occupiers, lower demand for rental properties and therefore better terms offered to renters by landlords competing for their customers.

I know this is stating the obvious but it must be so hard to get your head around these things when vested interests own so much property themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jurassic Bland said:

That's the right link, but just for the reassurance of the certifiably suspicious if you want to get to that surveymonkey page via the .gov page, the .gov page, with a link to the survey is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/overcoming-the-barriers-to-longer-tenancies-in-the-private-rented-sector

My tuppence worth is that a fixed term contract that the landlord can end at any time should they want to sell or move in is not a fixed term contract. Not too impressed that the options on this question spoke fairly clearly to the government's position going into this - no ability to sell during the fixed term is not even one of the options :rolleyes:

image.png.84e7b8e342dd85bd1bedfb7a0e897485.png

There was a text box on question 20 where you can set out that it's not a fixed term if the landlord can end it on a whim by selling the property. I think a bit of ambition is in order here, for example should a landlord suffer some personal disaster or just end up in arrears on the mortgage then the property could go into some kind of receivership until the end of the fixed term tenancy.

If these sainted buy-to-let investors want to provide homes and take risks then they can damn well provide homes and take risks and if that means that their beloved equity is at arms length for three years then that's all well and good.

Perhaps a sort of landlords deposit (held in escrow) where if they have to evict the tenant early because they want to sell or move back in, they have to compensate the tenant financially for loss of stability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

Perhaps a sort of landlords deposit (held in escrow) where if they have to evict the tenant early because they want to sell or move back in, they have to compensate the tenant financially for loss of stability?

This is similar to some comments I have left.  I have no problem with landlords asking tenants to move out as long as there is sufficient financial compensation for any inconvenience caused to the tenants. 

Do you want me to move out?  How about 3 months living rent free so I can save for moving costs and my next deposit.

Edited by Bear Hug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done. One of the questions said "check up to two" but only allowed for checking one. Not sure if that was a browser-specific bug or what 😐. There are many more tenants than landlords, so if this got spread far and wide enough it would definitely be in tenants' favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Horseradish said:

Done. One of the questions said "check up to two" but only allowed for checking one. Not sure if that was a browser-specific bug or what 😐. There are many more tenants than landlords, so if this got spread far and wide enough it would definitely be in tenants' favour.

I noticed that "check up to two" problem as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

Perhaps a sort of landlords deposit (held in escrow) where if they have to evict the tenant early because they want to sell or move back in, they have to compensate the tenant financially for loss of stability?

Really good idea. You could even combine the two ideas.

If you want to have the option to sell you need to put down a landlord's deposit. If you aren't prepared to do that you must, as landlord,  accept that and if it transpires later that you can't keep up your end of the tenancy then the house  passes into a kind of receivership/escrow until the tenancy ends.

You could even include the idea of a 'penalty arrangement'. If you didn't put down the landlord's deposit (say 3 months rent) on day one, thus stumping up for the option to sell, and later wanted to break the contract so you could sell you'd have to stump up 6 months rent and hand that over to the tenant as a penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done. I mentioned at every opportunity that there must be NO financial incentives for landlords and mentioned their tax relief (not available to OO). I don't see why professional landlords would need an incentive to offer decent tenancies (and a 6 month AST is not a decent tenancy). 

 

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 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.