Rental housing market 'completely unsustainable'

[rollover]

Scotland's rental housing market is "completely unsustainable" in light of the cost of living crisis, MSPs have been told.

The warning came before emergency legislation, which would freeze most rents until the end of March 2023, passed its first stage on Tuesday.

A Holyrood committee heard some rents had soared by as much as 30%.

But landlord representatives said the government's plans would force many of its members to quit the sector.

BBC

[rollover]

The Scottish Conservatives had voiced their opposition to the move.

[Maghull Mike]

Yo, Rollover.................

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/High-Energy-Prices-Push-UK-Construction-Industry-To-The-Brink.html

[Quicken]

Good. I can hear the squeals of Edinburgh landlords now. Bear food.

[Glental]

Had a good laugh reading the comments: https://www.property118.com/scottish-government-unveils-its-rent-freeze-legislation/

Apparently landlords need protection from inflation too 

[Quicken]

Though sadly we still have this shit going on:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/04/king-charles-allowed-to-vet-proposed-scottish-rent-freeze-law

"King Charles has been allowed to vet and potentially lobby for changes to emergency legislation to freeze rents in Scotland because the measures could affect tenants on his private Highland estate at Balmoral.

A bill to stop landlords unjustifiably raising rents for the next six months because of the cost of living crisis is being rushed through the Scottish parliament this week.

The King’s involvement, under rules known in Scotland as crown consent, can be revealed after the rules at Holyrood were changed following a Guardian investigation into the monarch’s power to influence and amend the UK’s laws."

[Freki]

Does Scotland have some legislation preventing the construction of social housing? 

Does right to buy apply to the country?

[A.steve]

5 minutes ago, Quicken said:

A bill to stop landlords unjustifiably raising rents for the next six months because of the cost of living crisis is being rushed through the Scottish parliament this week.

A temporary freeze on rent increases is a great way to synchronise rent rises - avoiding the risk that tenants will move to better value accommodation when rises are permitted again and ensuring rents rise maximally in a few months' time.

As for banning raising rents, while this may make sense for a recently negotiated rent... what if the rent was negotiated years ago and is currently substantially below market rates?   In any case, what does it mean to 'unjustifiably' raise rents?  Wouldn't inflation not be a sufficient justification?  If not - and the contract has explicit inflation-linked rent increases in it... then, do we find ourselves in a position where private sector contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on?  If that's the case, what happens when no-one has confidence in any private arrangement... because they believe the government will undermine anything that is agreed?  Should government intervene to veto (without any specific understanding) other contractual agreements?  Could they veto the right of telecoms companies to issue bills at the rates agreed with customers?  What about vetoing the end of PCP deals on cars - either obliging the owner to let the lessor continue to use the car free of charge... or requiring the lessor to pay a government mandated monthly cost indefinitely?

If the government want to set rents, they should own the rental stock.  They should start building some... pronto... if that's the case.  If the government were to provide adequate rental options, the private sector prices would be affordable for any who chose to agree to them.

[Maghull Mike]

37 minutes ago, Quicken said:

Though sadly we still have this shit going on:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/04/king-charles-allowed-to-vet-proposed-scottish-rent-freeze-law

"King Charles has been allowed to vet and potentially lobby for changes to emergency legislation to freeze rents in Scotland because the measures could affect tenants on his private Highland estate at Balmoral.

A bill to stop landlords unjustifiably raising rents for the next six months because of the cost of living crisis is being rushed through the Scottish parliament this week.

 

The King’s involvement, under rules known in Scotland as crown consent, can be revealed after the rules at Holyrood were changed following a Guardian investigation into the monarch’s power to influence and amend the UK’s laws."

He going to get himself into DEEP trouble.............i can see it now.

Neither of his bros are any good.................all Hail "Queen Ann" ?

Mike

[24gray24]

Rentals only collapse if a) government stops paying landlord benefits or b) tenants income drops or c) population of renters drops. 

Which unlikely event is being predicted?

[Former postman]

1 hour ago, rollover said:

 But landlord representatives said the government's plans would force many of its members to quit the sector.

BBC

Oh no,the houses will just poof and disappear if they quit the sector....

[TheCountOfNowhere]

1 hour ago, rollover said:

Scotland's rental housing market is "completely unsustainable" in light of the cost of living crisis, MSPs have been told.

The warning came before emergency legislation, which would freeze most rents until the end of March 2023, passed its first stage on Tuesday.

A Holyrood committee heard some rents had soared by as much as 30%.

But landlord representatives said the government's plans would force many of its members to quit the sector.

BBC

Booo ####ing hoo

[A.steve]

12 minutes ago, 24gray24 said:

Rentals only collapse if a) government stops paying landlord benefits or b) tenants income drops or c) population of renters drops. 

Which unlikely event is being predicted?

What about

"(d) government intervenes to absolve all tenants of any obligation under any tenancy agreement and imposes a stiff (say £20K/anm) annual tax on every property."

"(e) government compulsorily purchases all property at 1981 valuations and charges occupants a tax at 2001 rental valuations thereafter?"

Either of those would do it... They sound stupid - but... this is Scotland... so anything is possible and, maybe, it is the plan?

 

Edited October 4, 2022 by A.steve

[24gray24]

1 minute ago, A.steve said:

What about

"(d) government intervenes to absolve all tenants of any obligation under any tenancy agreement and imposes a stiff (say £30K/anm) tax on empty property."

"(e) government compulsorily purchases all property at 1981 valuations and charges occupants a tax at 2001 rental valuations thereafter?"

Either of those would do it... They sound stupid - but... this is Scotland... so anything is possible and, maybe, it is the plan?

 

E) is illegal. D) would go on the government debt. 

But if you say something simple like ...increasing tax on landlords to 70%, that would just reduce house prices, not rents. 

Rents equal every penny you have spare. That isn't going to change unless you have rent controls. 

Then you have to pay key money instead. Eg £300 a month, but 10k for the key. 

[A.steve]

6 minutes ago, 24gray24 said:

E) is illegal. D) would go on the government debt.

I think you'll find that governments make the laws - so any perceived illegality is only a minor hurdle.  As for things being put on the government's debt... there have been plenty of idiotic purchases made that way in recent years.  At least, by enslaving the population and depriving them all of the security of an owned home, an argument could be made that the debt incurred to make the purchases would be easily repaid by the government from future tax revenue.

[Bob8]

10 minutes ago, 24gray24 said:

E) is illegal. D) would go on the government debt. 

But if you say something simple like ...increasing tax on landlords to 70%, that would just reduce house prices, not rents. 

Rents equal every penny you have spare. That isn't going to change unless you have rent controls. 

Then you have to pay key money instead. Eg £300 a month, but 10k for the key. 

Ultimately, the problem is not enough good quality homes in the right place.

The speculative aspect only works because of shortage for the most part. Renting out for profit with no added service only really works because of shortage.

Spread out the economy rather than deliberately concentrating it and have enough good quality homes built and it all solves itself.

[Quicken]

14 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I think you'll find that governments make the laws - so any perceived illegality is only a minor hurdle.  As for things being put on the government's debt... there have been plenty of idiotic purchases made that way in recent years.  At least, by enslaving the population and depriving them all of the security of an owned home, an argument could be made that the debt incurred to make the purchases would be easily repaid by the government from future tax revenue.

Actually no on two counts. First, primary legislation is made by parliament not Government (although the UK electoral system does not create a proper separation of executive and legislative branches). Second, unlike the UK parliament, the Scottish parliament is not sovereign so it's powers are limited by the Scotland Act 1998.

[Quicken]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

A temporary freeze on rent increases is a great way to synchronise rent rises - avoiding the risk that tenants will move to better value accommodation when rises are permitted again and ensuring rents rise maximally in a few months' time.

This is more about letting more people survive this winter. It does get colder in Scotland.

[A.steve]

Just now, Quicken said:

Actually no on two counts. First, primary legislation is made by parliament not Government (although the UK electoral system does not create a proper separation of executive and legislative branches). Second, unlike the UK parliament, the Scottish parliament is not sovereign so it's powers are limited by the Scotland Act 1998.

All that would be required is for a a state of war to be declared... then such constraints would go out the window in the blink of an eyelid. 

[A.steve]

1 minute ago, Quicken said:

This is more about letting more people survive this winter. It does get colder in Scotland.

And, one presumes, Scottish people are exclusively concerned by 'surviving this winter' - even if doing so means selling themselves into eternal (rent) slavery?  I don't believe that this move is going to benefit anyone who rents over the next 12 months.

[Casual-observer]

A Scottish govt coming up with a cr@p idea to absolve their own failures 

Are refugees still welcome in this glut of available accommodation?

[24gray24]

32 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I think you'll find that governments make the laws - so any perceived illegality is only a minor hurdle.  As for things being put on the government's debt... there have been plenty of idiotic purchases made that way in recent years.  At least, by enslaving the population and depriving them all of the security of an owned home, an argument could be made that the debt incurred to make the purchases would be easily repaid by the government from future tax revenue.

And you think a flick of a pen can sign away 50 years of wanting to screw workers?

Wakey wakey. They like it that way. 

They're not going to stop because the penniless half have their hand out. 

It'll be court case after court case for 5 years. And then hey presto, new broom. 

[A.steve]

2 hours ago, 24gray24 said:

And you think a flick of a pen can sign away 50 years of wanting to screw workers?

Wakey wakey. They like it that way. 

They're not going to stop because the penniless half have their hand out. 

It'll be court case after court case for 5 years. And then hey presto, new broom. 

LOL

Why did you presume that, in the dystopia I outlined, the "workers" (I detest the use of that word - especially in that context) would fare any better?  The wild possibility is feasible because it involves a minority taking advantage of the majority... and that's a model that has been proven effective over and over again.  Your mistake is that you've assumed that the same minority will enjoy the exact same privileges using the exact same mechanisms. I think it more likely that an updated minority will enjoy slightly different privileges through an updated mechanism.  Don't fret - "your kind" will still be pegged to be losers in any planning.

[Locke]

14 hours ago, 24gray24 said:

Rents equal every penny you have spare.

I assume you would adamantly argue that post-tax income has increased by 30% in Scotland.