Ironically we just becoming more similar to other European countries albeit slowly, the situation in the UK with AST's was ridiculously lopsided, and LL's got used to that system, now a more balanced system seems whacked to them.
However of course courts need sorting out, as a year is far too long to action a S8.
The problem with S21 its just a over powerful piece of legislation that should never have been a thing. History shows if you add a way for people to abuse something, they will do so. Every year, even a single year of extending S21 will cause misery to too many people.
Agents are a parasite, that only add to costs, get rid of them (and the cut they take) thats one way immediately rent can be reduced without harming landlords. There is landlords who do it by themselves so its possible.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,356
A 1 year contract automatically converts to a rolling one currently anyway, you don't have to renew, getting rid of section 21 would mean you can't kick them out at the end of 1 year anyway.
The renters reform bill that was due to go through, they were adding e.g. landlord or family wants to live in it as a carve out, aswell as needing to sell, but all labour have said so far is getting rid of S21, not whether they plan to continue with the bill that was already debated or what changes they are going to make.
But then they initially said this would happen on "day one" but now they are repeating some of the same from before the election about the courts not being ready this take everything via section 8.
Thing is, a lot of landlords use S21 for rent arrears (giving up the lost rent) because it's quicker. Using section 8 will make more tenants have ccj's which will then prevent them getting new tenancies or loans so have they really thought that through.
Soldato
I've decided to bail on the evil private landlord game. Got one on the market now and waiting on tenant to leave the other and that will be up for sale too. Mild concern as communication has stopped with said tenant and looking increasingly likely I'll be going through the courts.
I'm Wales so the laws are a little different than in England. It's quite telling that the Rent Smart Wales website has pages and pages of what to do as a tenant if you are asked to leave the property and advice regarding what to do if you don't leave the property in the timescale required. If you're a landlord with a tenant that won't leave? Nothing. Just submitting the documents to start the process of a court order is a tricky game as one wrong move on my part and the process could be delayed for months.
Almost everyone I know with private rentals is getting out. People who rent can't find homes, those homes that are available are at ridiculous amounts PCM.
I also disagree with the idea with small landlords with a few properties should be pushed out, why? I've made sure the homes for my tenants are in as best condition as possible and those who are/were landlords have done the same. My daughter is renting in England from a landlord with a large number of homes and getting them to do anything is nigh on impossible. Council properties are even worse. Council has no money so some of their houses are in a terrible state.
I don't disgree with the impositions on landlords to ensure a well maintained home. It's only fair the landlord maintains the property in return for the rent.
Expecting the government to fix it by building more homes is naive at best.
Yeah, there is no assurance this is happening quickly, I think landlords are going to lobby really hard, and I expect there will be some can kicking.
Caporegime
Why? Thats literally the only way that the housing market is going to get any better for buyers and renters. We need more homes. The population increased by something like 600,000 people last year. Fundamentally the government have to home people.
Soldato
We've seen many that have perhaps spent their leaving a large city fee, or Granny died and left a packet, that have invested into a HMO are now selling up, with some of these are being bought by builders and the like, turned back into a house to rent, which they are locally asking too much rent for.
One of the biggest issues the family and other friends with more than one property, has been nightmare tenants, which have been costly, but can be absorbed slightly, but more than likely not so easy for the one of two property owners.
Last edited:
Yup, out of all the landlords on here (that I've seen) all have said that maintaining their rentals and keeping the tenants happy is a priority.
Yes, there's the usual tedious bores on here that make out that we're some sort of angels for doing so, but speaking for myself I do it because it gives everyone a easy hassle free life which is worth more than a small amount of extra money p/m.
I was thinking of renting mine out again, but as soon as my lease extension is completed it's going asap.
Soldato
That suits labour quite nicely as they can work on a way of opening the boarders again and flooding the labour market, which in turn controls what people take home in their wage packet.
Also, commonly seen across a few counties locally is the build build build, with almost none of these builds being affordable, will labour change that....
Soldato
It is with our rents being below local prices and all homes/flats are up to date with any issues attended to as soon as possible.
Soldato
With what money? And once the the homes are built, how are the prospective buyers going to pay for the deposit? Building more houses does not guarantee houses will become more affordable either. Or if it's shared ownership, again, where is the money coming from?
Rather than vilify the small landlord, why not encourage them? It's the private sector that has the money to buy the houses. One of the biggest complaints for landlords in Wales is how the system is built round the tenant, it's not equitable in the slightest. Landlords would liekly have no problem with minimum term of say 3/5 years for tenants as long as the law is there it get the tenant out within a very short period of time if they don't pay the rent. Not essentially guiding a tenant to swerve the rules as long as possible.
Soldato
To add to that, we are seeing many of these (Affordable) houses, of which there are not many, being reportedly bought by private landlords and cities boroughs councils, to house there waiting lists and not those of the locals, that are in dire need of housing (Canterbury city council vs Green Jackets barracks as an example)
This imo needs to change as moving the higher rent payer to a usually lower rent paying area is having a knock on effect for the locals.
Caporegime
Does it? How has leaving the EU worked out for us with regards to immigration? This is nothing to do with Labour. Immigration has got worse under the Tories time despite people still being under this weird illusion that they are the party of controlled immigration.
The same way anyone pays for the deposit. Its the government as well. They can run whatever scheme they want to. And yes, more houses does guarantee affordability because its a very simple supply and demand situation. If there is an oversupply, prices go down. House prices haven't shot up over the past 20 years because of reasons, its because people are competing for the housing stock that is available and there isn't enough. Thats quite literally how the market works. Thats the reason people offer over asking. You wouldn't offer over asking if other people weren't going to get the house instead of you if you didn't.
Because the majority of people aren't landlords and a lot of people rent therefore you will tend to get more negative opinions than positive coming through. Also, by all accounts a not insignificant proportion of landlords are quite ****. I don't know why they wouldn't be either. If you consider being a landlord a business then you are rewarded for squeezing money out of your customer. Businesses are generally not rewarded for good behaviour and up to a point, if you are a scummy landlord you can probably make more than if you are a good one. Well, until you come across an equally ****** tenant.
I rented for quite a few years when I was younger and had good and bad landlords. I personally think they are going too far in the direction of favouring tenants but I also think that its a fundamentally impossible thing to fix. Housing should never be a business. Housing should never have become such a lucrative asset class whereby people expected to make money every year on it whilst the value of the house also shot up.
I say this as a landlord as well. My partner bought a property about 15 years ago now and its just become mortgage free. I think that outside of mortgage income we have probably put about £100k directly into paying off the mortgage. It was bought for about £280k with around £100k deposit. So effectively we have put £200k into the property. Obviously we have put a fair chunk into maintenance etc over the years but probably £50k. So £250k. That house is now worth ~£600k and we are getting nearly £2k/month rental income from it. Thats madness.
We certainly couldn't do the same thing today because the mortgage would be prohibitively expensive but if you are lucky and got in at the right time in the right area, BtL is a license to print money.
Soldato
Notice the way I added the word "Work out a way of opening the boarders AGAIN" to help those with very short memories.
Last edited:
Soldato
Borders.
Soldato
Last edited:
Something I havent seen in the news but I know is happening with my council, the HA's which are all shut for new applicants, are selling of their properties to private owners, and these owners in turn have an arrangement with the council for the council to top up the rent, in return for the properties being let out at LHA rates. I assume (as I didnt ask about this bit at the time) that they are being populated by those on the waiting list. So the tenant is still getting social rent levels, but by a backdoor agreement the council is topping it up to the landlord.
Last edited:
Soldato
OH Yeah.
Cheers grammar cop
***Mod edit - pack it in***
But in regards your comments.
Labour, following civil service advice, didn't restrict the people coming from when the EU expanded in 2004 as they predicted only a small increase. Hence not applying an emergency brake as most EU nations did.
However its now recognised that the advice was flawed. It had taken the previous new members as the basis and had failed to include the fact that pretty much all the other westernised Eu members were applying the brake.
The simple truth is that despite the noises from the parties there would likely have been no difference between them in this regard, and the C&UP were all for expansion.
The only way we will get enough new houses built is with some state backed IMO. There are just too many benefits from the commercial building firms to limit supply.
Even though I am right wing I would fully support a large national (state owned) housebuilding expansion.
It benefits the country not only by making housing more affordable for people, but reduces the impact on our cost effectiveness because expensive housing makes up labour costs higher.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fundamentally we need a labour supply, we need population growth for economy growth, and we already have a critical housing shortage, so there is no way round it, we need to build a crap ton of houses and and as MKW said the only viable way this is happening is state backed(owned). Anything else is kicking the can down the road.