Plan to guarantee renters three-year tenancies is being killed off by nervous ministers

[Dorkins]

Apologies for the Sun link, but:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7178128/government-scraps-three-year-contracts/

Sounds like Hammond and May are coming down against 3 year tenancies. Credit to James Brokenshire for attempting to improve private tenants' rights. I don't understand the argument that the Bill might be voted down by "rebel Tory MPs" (i.e. pieces of work like Christopher Chope and Philip Davies), surely they could get something through the Commons by working with Labour and the Lib Dems as Cameron did for gay marriage.

Check out the comments section for the thoughts of HPC favourite Dr Rosalind Beck.

[Locke]

Good.

This is not the way to address the systemic problems in the housing market.

[Dorkins]

26 minutes ago, Locke said:

Good.

This is not the way to address the systemic problems in the housing market.

Isn't it? One of the reasons many people are willing to buy at any price is because private renting in England is so insecure.

[Trump Invective]

25 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Apologies for the Sun link, but:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7178128/government-scraps-three-year-contracts/

Sounds like Hammond and May are coming down against 3 year tenancies. Credit to James Brokenshire for attempting to improve private tenants' rights. I don't understand the argument that the Bill might be voted down by "rebel Tory MPs" (i.e. pieces of work like Christopher Chope and Philip Davies), surely they could get something through the Commons by working with Labour and the Lib Dems as Cameron did for gay marriage.

Check out the comments section for the thoughts of HPC favourite Dr Rosalind Beck.

"Dr" haha.

[Aidan Ap Word]

30 minutes ago, Locke said:

Good.

This is not the way to address the systemic problems in the housing market.

 

3 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Isn't it? One of the reasons many people are willing to buy at any price is because private renting in England is so insecure.

Is this not a way to address one of the systemic problems in the housing market?

It's why I had to take the plunge (make the financially-silly choice) to buy a massively overpriced house - and I am sure stability for your family is important for others too.

Also would make BTL less attractive (higher risk of the militant tenant you can't so easily get rid of) which might have a positive effect on the supply of owner-occupier-homes.

I can't see it making hpi worse, either.

[Dorkins]

Personally I doubt 3 year tenancies would do much to affect the cost of renting or buying. The changes would be more to do with power, culture and psychology - not being afraid to ask for repairs, having a stronger sense of belonging to the community, spending more time and money on making your home a nice place to live safe in the knowledge that you won't be gone in 6 months, even feeling secure enough to start a family.

[hpcnnh]

What is really needed to give tenants security of tenure is to abolish the "Section 21" notice (a notice of at least two months which a landlord may serve on a tenant that he requires possession of the property). There is no defence to a correctly served notice and a Court is bound to grant a Possession Order which allows the landlord to have the tenant evicted.

Ah! Just saw a red van outside - I wonder what the postie has brought today. Hopefully not the above mentioned.

[Dorkins]

33 minutes ago, hpcnnh said:

What is really needed to give tenants security of tenure is to abolish the "Section 21" notice (a notice of at least two months which a landlord may serve on a tenant that he requires possession of the property). There is no defence to a correctly served notice and a Court is bound to grant a Possession Order which allows the landlord to have the tenant evicted.

Yes, abolishing Section 21 as was done in Scotland would be great. I doubt it will happen under a Tory government though if they think even 3 years (with an option to be booted if the landlord wants to sell or move in) is too much security for private tenants.

[Locke]

7 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Isn't it? One of the reasons many people are willing to buy at any price is because private renting in England is so insecure.

I think that's a minor reason compared to ultra low interest rates and lack of imagination/competence

27 minutes ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

Also would make BTL less attractive (higher risk of the militant tenant you can't so easily get rid of) which might have a positive effect on the supply of owner-occupier-homes.

Ok, so then there are fewer properties to rent and landlords will charge higher rents to compensate for the additional risk.

 

Look, I agree that tenants should have security, but using the State as an older brother to force others to comply with your demands is bad in the long run. Wherever the government interferes in the housing market, conditions for renters and OO worsen.

[mattyboy1973]

Quote

The Sun Says

 

THE Government must have a death wish if it intends to bin a policy specifically designed to help Generation Rent.

It makes sense to guarantee tenants three-year tenancies to avoid landlords booting them out after a year and raising the price. For young people who cannot ­afford to buy in London and the South-East, it is at least some extra security.

And it’s not just a sensible thing to do. It’s critical to win back Millennial votes.

But Treasury officials fear it will deter property investors. Are they mad?

Whose side does the Government want to be on? Well-heeled landlords with multiple properties?

Or struggling young people?

 

Can't say I often agree with The Sun but..

[Dorkins]

13 minutes ago, Locke said:

I think that's a minor reason compared to ultra low interest rates and lack of imagination/competence

Ok, so then there are fewer properties to rent and landlords will charge higher rents to compensate for the additional risk.

Look, I agree that tenants should have security, but using the State as an older brother to force others to comply with your demands is bad in the long run. Wherever the government interferes in the housing market, conditions for renters and OO worsen.

That's fine, as soon as we undo the historic theft of the Commons by capturing all land rents and distributing them equally to citizens in the form of a basic income, remove all subsidies and tax distortions from land ownership so it can find its true price and completely liberalise planning then we can just let landlords and tenants negotiate freely in a market knowing that the power relationship between them is equal.

Unfortunately in the actual UK in 2018 the land market is completely distorted, and it's not distorted in favour of private tenants. Strengthening tenants' rights through legislation may not be the optimal solution to this distortion but it is a possible solution that could be done soon while the bigger mess is gradually sorted out over decades/centuries.

Idealism is great but sometimes a suboptimal solution is all you can do for now.

[winkie]

Any BTL that still has debt OS is restricted to offering AST by the owners who hold the security the lenders... They make the rules... So an unencumbered owner can do as they please give a good tenant a good deal and a longer tenancy..... Check with land registry. ?

[Nabby81]

1 hour ago, mattyboy1973 said:

 

Can't say I often agree with The Sun but..

Agreed and its something like this Labour /Corbyn will sieze on the grab a large share of younger voters !! 

[Kosmin]

4 hours ago, Locke said:

Good.

This is not the way to address the systemic problems in the housing market.

I think it would be fine to make no changes to tenancies as long as dramatic changes are introduced immediately which cause prices to fall to a reasonable level. But as there does not seem to be political will to allow this, changing tenancies might be the best that can be hoped for.

[Si1]

Tory landlord scum. It's like an episode of Poldark.

[BorrowToLeech]

Nervous?

Corrupt. 

[Aidan Ap Word]

7 hours ago, Locke said:

Ok, so then there are fewer properties to rent and landlords will charge higher rents to compensate for the additional risk.

The properties that are not rented out will just evaporate?

[mrtickle]

So no-one else watched Prime Minister's Questions here?

 

Quote

Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)

Q13. It has been reported this morning that the Treasury and No. 10 are blocking plans for legally binding three-year tenancies for private renters. This is of great concern to private renters in my constituency, including many families sending their children back to school this week who do not know where they will be living this time next year. Will the Prime Minister make a clear promise to private tenants that they will be entitled to three-year tenancies in law?[906693]

 

The Prime Minister

We are keen to support tenants to access longer, more secure tenancies, while also obviously ensuring that landlords are able to recover their property when needed. The consultation on overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector closed on 26 August. It considered the various barriers to longer tenancies and how to overcome them, and it did propose a new three-year tenancy model with a six-month break clause. We asked for views on the viability of that and how it could be implemented. We are now analysing those responses, and we will provide information on the next steps once we have done that.

 

[adarmo]

18 hours ago, Dorkins said:

That's fine, as soon as we undo the historic theft of the Commons by capturing all land rents and distributing them equally to citizens in the form of a basic income, remove all subsidies and tax distortions from land ownership so it can find its true price and completely liberalise planning then we can just let landlords and tenants negotiate freely in a market knowing that the power relationship between them is equal.

Unfortunately in the actual UK in 2018 the land market is completely distorted, and it's not distorted in favour of private tenants. Strengthening tenants' rights through legislation may not be the optimal solution to this distortion but it is a possible solution that could be done soon while the bigger mess is gradually sorted out over decades/centuries.

Idealism is great but sometimes a suboptimal solution is all you can do for now.

+1

[guest_northshore]

Hammond: Landlord and property developer
May: Landlord
Javid: Landord
Hunt: Landlord
Fox: Landlord
Grayling: Landlord
Cairns: Landlord
Lewis: Landord
Mundell: Donations from a property company
Johnson: Landlord

[BorrowToLeech]

20 hours ago, Locke said:

Look, I agree that tenants should have security, but using the State as an older brother to force others to comply with your demands is bad in the long run. Wherever the government interferes in the housing market, conditions for renters and OO worsen.

Except that’s exactly the wrong way around. It’s landlords that use the state to force people off land that existed for millions of years before they came along and started making their threats.

This is about reducing, slightly, the ability of the state to evict people from their homes. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by BorrowToLeech

[dougless]

12 minutes ago, BorrowToLeech said:

Except that’s exactly the wrong way around. It’s landlords that use the state to force people off land that existed for millions of years before they came along and started making their threats.

This is about reducing, slightly, the ability of the state to evict people from their homes. 

I think you have this the right way round.  Landowners have had too much power and too much influence for far too long.

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Locke said:

Good.

This is not the way to address the systemic problems in the housing market.

Well if their plan is to have a huge publicly owned housing rental market then 3 year tenancies should be just the start. I am amazed we are still living in a country where a families life can be turned upside with just 2 months notice, it's highly immoral and no way to live.

[Exiled Canadian]

32 minutes ago, inbruges said:

Well if their plan is to have a huge publicly owned housing rental market then 3 year tenancies should be just the start. I am amazed we are still living in a country where a families life can be turned upside with just 2 months notice, it's highly immoral and no way to live.

+1

I've rented in the UK, Canada and Germany.  In Germany and Canada as long as you paid the rent on time and respected the property and your neighbours you had effectively indefinite security of tenure - rental property was not difficult to find and was of a good standard.  I don't see why the UK needs to be any different.

[Aidan Ap Word]

38 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said:

+1

I've rented in the UK, Canada and Germany.  In Germany and Canada as long as you paid the rent on time and respected the property and your neighbours you had effectively indefinite security of tenure - rental property was not difficult to find and was of a good standard.  I don't see why the UK needs to be any different.

+1