Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
plumber999

Fair Rents For Tenants

Recommended Posts

I think it is high time that given the number of people renting in this God awful country, that they should be given more rights than they do at present.

I propose that we should have the return of the fair rents officer, and giving tenants greater security, by allowing them to stay in a property for as long as THEY want to , not the landlord.

I am not a crank, this would be true democracy, there are enough of us out her to put pressure on the powers that be.

If anyone is interested in starting a pressure group with me, please contact me.martin.jones1@blueyonder.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Yeah those were the words I was looking for.

If you were to do that, all these greedy ass holes, buying to let, would suddenly realise that their investment isn't so good after all, hopefully cause a mass sell off, causing a fall in the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose that we should have the return of the fair rents officer,

Why, where have they gone? have they been kidnapped?

The abolition of the AST would see very, very many private landlords withdraw from the market, leaving even less properties avaliable (I wonder what that would do to market rent levels?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is high time that given the number of people renting in this God awful country, that they should be given more rights than they do at present.

I propose that we should have the return of the fair rents officer, and giving tenants greater security, by allowing them to stay in a property for as long as THEY want to , not the landlord.

I am not a crank, this would be true democracy, there are enough of us out her to put pressure on the powers that be.

If anyone is interested in starting a pressure group with me, please contact me.martin.jones1@blueyonder.co.uk

Yes a definite true democracy that prevents property owners doing what they wish with their property :| I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous view....what gives tenants some kind of god given right to remain in someone elses property??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ideal world would be to be able to live somewhere with no chance of being evicted so long as I paid my rent, and be able to move on at short notice, with lots of properties available for rental. I realise these are contradictory requirements, but there's no harm in wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ideal world would be to be able to live somewhere with no chance of being evicted so long as I paid my rent, and be able to move on at short notice, with lots of properties available for rental. I realise these are contradictory requirements, but there's no harm in wishful thinking.

This is the norm in other countries in the EU... :( Britain is a strange place... everyone is scared to be ripped off by somebody... landlord/tenant.. employer/employee... council etc. there is no trust when everyone is encouraged to look after number one at the detriment of everybody else. It does not foster community spirit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes a definite true democracy that prevents property owners doing what they wish with their property :| I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous view....what gives tenants some kind of god given right to remain in someone elses property??

It used to work well enough before the Thatcher government moved the goalposts. And in most of Europe tenants have far more rights than in the UK with no obvious problem. Landlords in this country have a very, very easy ride and that has fed the BTL bubble, as you can let out a flat but also feel very free to put it on the market / sell at short notice etc - but even putting that to one side, the situation where so many are priced out of housing would be far more tolerable if tenants had any kind of rights, as that would give them a better feeling about renting, and more interest in looking after/decorating the property.

You say it's someone else's property - of course that is true, but if you are buying more than one property to let it out you are entering into a business, and there absolutely no reason why such an important business shouldn't be regulated in a different way, with more rights for tenants.

Why, where have they gone? have they been kidnapped?

The abolition of the AST would see very, very many private landlords withdraw from the market, leaving even less properties avaliable (I wonder what that would do to market rent levels?)

I seem to remember that Thatcher used the myth of a shortage of rental property to justify removing rent controls and bring in ASTs. There's no shortage now, there wasn't then. She just enabled landlords to make more money and take less responsibility.

Having said that I don't think you could reasonably make a change like this overnight - it would be unfair on people who have made financial decisions based on the existing framework. But there is a really good case for making slow and steady changes, and for introducing new tenancies to supercede the AST from some point in the near future.

It won't happen though because half the cabinet has their snout in the BTL trough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The abolition of the AST would see very, very many private landlords withdraw from the market, leaving even less properties avaliable (I wonder what that would do to market rent levels?)

You're thinking along the right lines...... it would see a lot of "landlords" withdraw from the market, but why would that necessarily lead to any reduction in rental property? Is it not also possible you'd see bigger portfolios, possibly owned by consortiums/companies/trusts/co-ops, and fewer 1/2/3 property speculators hoping to dump their investment at the top of the market? For a future FTB, it might make more sense to buy into one of these companies with some degree of liquidity, rather than these complicated shared purchase fudges the government is attempting to prop up the market, which are only going to ruin people's lives at the most desperate edges of society.

btp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to work well enough before the Thatcher government moved the goalposts.

Magpie

It didn't work at all - the rental sector was a debacle. Fine if you had a cheap place but these were very hard to come by - the violent and aggressive landlord was a feature of most towns. Anyone who either needed or wanted to move for work had a difficult time finding anywhere to rent - many only bought out of desperation. Not much good if you want to work somewhere for two years to gain experience or as an entry point to a profession.

My belief is we need an additional standard form of contract which allows longer term contracts with certain break clauses. The AST's are a good solution for short term tenants and landlords who want to retain flexibility of their asset, but I'm sure that there is a market amongst both landlords and tenants for longer term contracts of the type I had whilst living in Holland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My belief is we need an additional standard form of contract which allows longer term contracts with certain break clauses. The AST's are a good solution for short term tenants and landlords who want to retain flexibility of their asset, but I'm sure that there is a market amongst both landlords and tenants for longer term contracts of the type I had whilst living in Holland.

I think the AST is fairly flexible in that you can negotiate fixed terms of one year (or I think greater), with break clauses etc.

The problem is that your typical landlord is not willing to offer what the typical tenant wants, ie long term protection from eviction with the opportunity to surrender the property every 6 months. Your typical landlord wants his tennants tied in for a long time with the option to evict (& sell up) at short notice.

I don't think the problem lies with the form of the contract. I think the problem lies with the fact that the negotiating power remains with the landlord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're thinking along the right lines...... it would see a lot of "landlords" withdraw from the market, but why would that necessarily lead to any reduction in rental property?

Because it would remove a large section of landlords.

Is it not also possible you'd see bigger portfolios, possibly owned by consortiums/companies/trusts/co-ops, and fewer 1/2/3 property speculators hoping to dump their investment at the top of the market? For a future FTB,

How would a more highly regulated enviroment encourage this sort of investment?

it might make more sense to buy into one of these companies with some degree of liquidity, rather than these complicated shared purchase fudges the government is attempting to prop up the market, which are only going to ruin people's lives at the most desperate edges of society.

btp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it would remove a large section of landlords.

So there´s a 1-to-1 relationship between property and landlords? Or what other fixed ratio do you know about that I don't?

btp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very interesting hearing comments from tenants saying they would like the security of a longer term contract. As a landlord, I would like my tenants to sign up to more than a 6 month commitment. (i.e. year plus with no breaks *either* side) Financially, this is more beneficial to me as it avoids void periods and the costs of re-letting. I have only managed this once – people always seem to want to only sign-up to a 6 month commitment. Maybe tenants value flexibility over security - I did when I was renting.

I don't agree with Young Goat's comment - I think at the moment the supply of property favours the tenant and you should be able to negotiate a long term deal. You should always remember that a "good" contract (in any setting) is one that is balanced between both parties - i.e. long contract in return for lower rent/capped rent.

Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magpie

It didn't work at all - the rental sector was a debacle. Fine if you had a cheap place but these were very hard to come by - the violent and aggressive landlord was a feature of most towns. Anyone who either needed or wanted to move for work had a difficult time finding anywhere to rent - many only bought out of desperation. Not much good if you want to work somewhere for two years to gain experience or as an entry point to a profession.

My belief is we need an additional standard form of contract which allows longer term contracts with certain break clauses. The AST's are a good solution for short term tenants and landlords who want to retain flexibility of their asset, but I'm sure that there is a market amongst both landlords and tenants for longer term contracts of the type I had whilst living in Holland.

Fair enough, I was oversimplifying and forgetting some of the real problems. Maybe a bit of loosening up was in order, but the total deregulation they went for shifted things too much in favour of landlords in my opinion.

Your suggestion sounds like the sort of thing that would at least be a step towards reinstating some kind of security - after all there are plenty of landlords who actually want the security of long-term tenants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there´s a 1-to-1 relationship between property and landlords? Or what other fixed ratio do you know about that I don't?

btp

Would you like to translate that into a coherent response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose that we should have the return of the fair rents officer, and giving tenants greater security, by allowing them to stay in a property for as long as THEY want to , not the landlord.

martin.jones1@blueyonder.co.uk

The simple answer for someone who wishes to remain in a property for as long as they choose is for them to buy a property.

It's difficult to understand the argument that an individual should be given lifetime rights over someone else's property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple answer for someone who wishes to remain in a property for as long as they choose is for them to buy a property.

It's difficult to understand the argument that an individual should be given lifetime rights over someone else's property.

Richard's Dad,

If we could just go out and buy a home, we would do. The problem is those people with land of their own and the government are restricting the land available to build on. If I could buy land at the going rate for agricultural land and build on it then I would, I would end up with an affordable house. The same thing that gives land owners the right to a good view could give tennants the rights to security i.e. the law.

If you looked at what we are requesting above, we are not after a right to someone else's property without any responsibility. The reasons for eviction for all tennancies are clearly laid out in law. The problem we have is the AST agreement gives the landlord additional rights not available in the assured tennancy.

The law works in mysterious ways. It can give people the right to walk across your property, or can stop you cutting down your trees or many other things which are to the benefit or detriment of the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard's Dad,

If we could just go out and buy a home, we would do. The problem is those people with land of their own and the government are restricting the land available to build on. If I could buy land at the going rate for agricultural land and build on it then I would, I would end up with an affordable house. The same thing that gives land owners the right to a good view could give tennants the rights to security i.e. the law.

If you looked at what we are requesting above, we are not after a right to someone else's property without any responsibility. The reasons for eviction for all tennancies are clearly laid out in law. The problem we have is the AST agreement gives the landlord additional rights not available in the assured tennancy.

The law works in mysterious ways. It can give people the right to walk across your property, or can stop you cutting down your trees or many other things which are to the benefit or detriment of the general public.

I can take on board the principle behind much of what you say, without necessarily accepting the points.

However, I do have to say that my view of the landlord/tenant relationship has been greatly influenced by a couple of hours' experience of this board, by reading so many messages from individuals inciting tenants to vandalise their landlords' property, and commit other malicious acts.

Many aspects of the landlord/tenant relationship are prescribed by law, and others are presumably open to negotiation between the landlord and tenant.

I've been browsing this board, and similar ones, for a while because I'm about to take possession of my first BTL, complete with a sitting tenant, and the content of the boards has been an education to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can take on board the principle behind much of what you say, without necessarily accepting the points.

However, I do have to say that my view of the landlord/tenant relationship has been greatly influenced by a couple of hours' experience of this board, by reading so many messages from individuals inciting tenants to vandalise their landlords' property, and commit other malicious acts.

Many aspects of the landlord/tenant relationship are prescribed by law, and others are presumably open to negotiation between the landlord and tenant.

I've been browsing this board, and similar ones, for a while because I'm about to take possession of my first BTL, complete with a sitting tenant, and the content of the boards has been an education to me.

Hi,

If you're about to become a landlord, this might be an interesting forum to read. Though of course a lot of tenants here are especially unhappy about their situation, so may come across as slightly bitter.

My experience (as a tenant) is that if you're a decent landlord there's a reasonable chance that the tenant will reciprocate with reasonable behaviour. The law in this country is mostly on the landlord's side anyway - fair enough, you think it's unreasonable for a tenant to be given lifetime rights over someone else's property. But also one can wonder why the condition of tenancy is quite so precarious in this country - tenants can be chucked out for no reason with very little notice. On top of that many landlords are pretty bad at bothering to look after their properties or respect their obligations. Tenants are often charged rip-off fees by agencies. And landlords often fail to give deposits back at the end of the rental term.

Basically it cuts both ways - I hope you'll be a decent landlord. If so, you have some chance of your tenants being OK back to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I cannot see the issue. Why should owners of property be tied in to long terms, or very restrictive caveats when letting their property??? It is their property to let, they should have the freedom, within reason, to do what they wish with it. And saying that the law is mainly in the landlords favour is a rather blinkered view....the ONLY thing that is in the landlords favour is that they can evict after the fixed term. Everything else is in favour of the tenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I cannot see the issue. Why should owners of property be tied in to long terms, or very restrictive caveats when letting their property??? It is their property to let, they should have the freedom, within reason, to do what they wish with it. And saying that the law is mainly in the landlords favour is a rather blinkered view....the ONLY thing that is in the landlords favour is that they can evict after the fixed term. Everything else is in favour of the tenant.

I think MrMash and a j's comments above are pretty reasonable - making the point that landlords themselves might sometimes like the option of longer term contracts with break clauses, more security in return for the commitment on both sides.

I don't think the old system of secure tenancies was perfect. But being a landlord is something that should be treated with responsibility. Yes, you can make some money by letting out your property and over-regulation of this might be the wrong approach. But taking advantage of that financial opportunity brings some duties as well. People's lives are greatly affected by the conditions, emotional and physical, of their accomodation. It's a problem in this country that people currently feel very insecure both in rented property and in over-priced mortgaged property. If landlords in general treated their tenants with decency and respect I don't think there would be any problem with the law, but sadly landlords too often see their tenants as useful idiots or lowlifes, and don't treat them very well. This forum has plenty of examples of tenants who have had grief from their landlords in one way or another. When I read posts from landlords on Singing Pig, I find a complete disregard and contempt for tenants - maybe that reflects the people who post there, but it's not very impressive.

What else is in the landlord's favour in the law? Complete lack of rent control? Unregulated deposit system (though thankfully that is being changed) which is persistently abused. An often lax regime of regulation of landlord's obligations. Weak regulation of rental agencies. You're right there are some presumptions in favour of the tenant in the law, but there is a difference between the law and how the law is put into practise, and I think tenants tend to suffer more than landlords.

Having said that I'm sure landlords suffer from some pain-in-the-neck tenants as well, so it would be foolish to think that it is always landlords that are in the wrong. But when I talk here I am representing an (ex-)tenant's point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magpie I must admit you make some good points in your post. And yes you are certainly correct about Singing Pig forums. However, there are many other examples.....if you go to the LandlordZone forums, which I often quote from, you will see many excellent and concerned landlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magpie I must admit you make some good points in your post. And yes you are certainly correct about Singing Pig forums. However, there are many other examples.....if you go to the LandlordZone forums, which I often quote from, you will see many excellent and concerned landlords.

Yes, maybe Singing Pig isn't the best place to start - I'll try to bear in mind there are two sides to the coin.

I worry a bit about some of the recent BTL landlords though - there was a comment in a recent Rosie Millard article where her BTLing friend was effectively saying "I'd really like to be a decent landlord and fix things when they break, but it just costs too much..." When yields are borderline in the first place, it may mean that landlords find basic maintenance etc too much of a burden.

When I was renting I had two or three lovely landlords, who took their responsibilities entirely seriously. And I had a few dreadful ones too. I suppose, as with tenants, it takes all sorts. I'll take a look at LandlordZone sometime.

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.