OT - unintended consequences?

[David]

As everyone seems to be posting election stuff:

Rents to be capped at inflation, rental contracts to be for three years with no termination by the landlord without a "good reason" (whatever that is).

So all tenants will be both secure for three years and know their rents won't be going up?

My take on this is:

(1) If there seems to be any chance of this happening then rents will be jacked way up immediately to circumvent the cap.

(2) If being tied to a three year agreement seems too binding, then landlords will evict and potentially leave the rental market.

(3) There will be an awful lot of in-fighting over what are "good reasons" to evict.

All this isn't going to help tenants - because they are going to get a steep rent rise or/and eviction.

This isn't going to help the rental market because it makes being a landlord less attractive and will reduce the available rental properties.

It isn't going to help people to buy because although there are likely to be ex-rental properties coming on the market, the cost of rental is going to be rising rapidly so comparisons between rent and buy are going to push house prices up. There are also likely to be a number of ex-tenants looking for somewhere to live because the rental market has just shrunk. So they will be chasing existing properties because not enough new properties are being built.

It is quite likely that large commercial landlords will consider evicting tenants and leaving properties empty if this looks to make economic sense.

So (not pointing a finger at any one political party) the way to reduce rentals and purchase costs is to BUILD MORE HOUSES!!

Trying to artificially restrict market forces does not solve this kind of problem.

Sigh.

Dave R

[Tim Watts]

Whilst I think the motives are good, as you say, this is all wrong and will end up being a massive shitbag of unintended consequences.

Labour need to stop with "landlords are evil" and realise that a great many landlords are just ordinary people with an extra propery rather than the Duke of Westminster.

The "right way" IMHO is to:

1) Have an independent but binding arbitration service that seeks to be fair to both parties and does have a say on rent increases and terminations. 2) Get the carrots out - if you want to get landlords to lower rents and/or be more flexible with terms, add some incentives - eg zero council tax between tenancies upto X months and perhaps a discount on income tax on the rent if the landlord signs up to some tenant friendly schemes.

And it's not all about landlords - it should be possible to encourage good tenants and deal with bad ones (I've been one and I've seen the other).

[Brian Gaff]

Yes I agree, but around these parts there is a great argument with new developments not having enough of what they call affordable homes. The only way forward, in my view is for government to do what they did after the war, and spend money themselves to build council properties for rent at reasonable rates. This would mean no right to buy etc, as I think that idea is what got us into this mess in the first place. Brian

[Andrew Mawson]

So what happens to the good landlords who don't rip people off?

I have one property where I'm only charging 66% of the market rent - tenant has been there many years and we've agreed to slowly raise it year on year - so if Labour get in should I instantly slap in a massive increase to cover myself. How does that help the tenant?

Only good thing is if Labour get in there will be rampant inflation, and they are proposing tying increases to inflation :)

Andrew

[Tim Watts]

It's a good question - and I am not anti landlord as I can see myself being one one day... And I have been a tenant so I like to think I can see fairly from both sides.

And that's why I will never vote Labour because they do stupid stuff like this... I am all for adding a disincentive to fleecing people but it's hard to do without affecting cases like yours. My last landlord never put up our rent over several years and it was below market value by the time we left. We even made it easy and asked him if he was considering changing it (to broach the subject) and he said because we reported problems quickly and didn't cause trouble he was happy to keep it the same.

If there were to be some controls, I cannot think of a less broken way than a tribunal - at least you get to offer evidence that you are under charging a tenant rather than being slapped by a one-size formula.

On the plus side, I don't think Millipede has the balls for another stupid war unlike that bastard Tony B Liar so at least we might not throw a few billion down the pan...

[John Rumm]

4) Landlords will give notice automatically at the end of three years for the good reason they have "decided to stop renting the place". Then give it a quick tart up, have a change of mind, and stick it back into the market at 50% over the previous rent. If queried why its now so much more, explain that it has had "extensive upgrades" since last rented.

Since when has any bit of daft legislation that sets out to "protect" some segment of the market ever done what it is supposed to?

[Adrian]

Don't most ASTs contain a clause capping rent rises to RPI annually anyway...?

Hopefully, it'll include "the tenant is a freeloading scrote with no respect for neighbours or property".

It's "supposed to" get those living in the private rental sector to vote for the Labour party. No more, no less.

[Huge]

It will destroy the rental market, which will make a bunch of ignorant intolerant bigots very happy, create a lot of homeless people and end up having the opposite effect to that desired, as is usual with State programmes in general and Socialist ones in particular.

[Tim Watts]

+1.

Again, Labour propaganda is: "Landlords are evil".

But there are an awful lot of people who need or want to rent and that fundamentally requires landlords!

Personally, I *suspect* a buy-to-let landlord is likely on average to care a bit more about looking after the property as it may represent his pension or necessary additional income and he does not want (a) moaning tenants, (b) capital depreciation or more difficultly than necessary letting to the next tenant because the place looks like a dump.

I also suspect that a casual landlord is less likely to be a hard arsed fiddling bastards who knows how to cut every corner and is more likely to be scared of the law and do the gas/PAT and right-to-live (immigration) checks.

I could be horribly wrong of course, so if anyone knows different?

[David]

AFAIK there is already a rent tribunal - and a tenant can appeal if he/she feels that the rent is too high (but not within 6 months of signing a new agreement).

However the kicker is that it should be a "market rent" - nothing is said about a "fair rent".

So if most landlords jack up their prices by the same amount then that is the market rent.

The courts already arbitrate on rental terminations.

help us all if someone tries to bring in controlled rent with a permanent right to rent.

I say again, the only problem is too few properties. It doesn't even matter if all new properties are "executive" instead of "affordable". Build enough and supply and demand will blur the boundaries.

The traditional '30s three bedroom semi must have been classed as "affordable" a few decades back - prices are just rising and rising because there aren't enough houses to go round.

As a home owner I like the high prices.

However I would still support the mass building of council houses to provide affordable rental property for all.

Never happen though whilst all the major parties are funded by business.

To the barricades brothers and sisters! [As long as they are painted in suitable heritage colours, of course.]

Cheers

Dave R

[Tim Lamb]

I hope you have got estate duty sorted.

As a landowner, I'll support your support.

Umm.. is that the issue? I live in the metropolitan greenbelt and planning refusals are two a penny. However, there is a large element of current residents pulling up the ladder against further development. They call it resisting encroachment or some such.

[Tim Streater]

I thought the South Cambs Local Plan was infill only for the villages. Has that changed?

[john james]

That will end up being just another government bureaucracy.

That will encourage landlords to kick tenants out and hike the rent when your government bureaucracy has no say on the rent.

and perhaps a discount on

Impossibly complicated on the last bit.

No one has been able to come up with one in millennia now.

[Brian Gaff]

If you were going to do as suggested, it should be immediate andnot announced beforehand. Brian

[Tim Lamb]

In message , Tim Streater writes

I haven't really bothered to keep up. I tentatively put forward an area (20 acres) of arable land with existing housing on two sides for their earlier strategic land review. This was rejected as *rising land* ie. visible and linked in some obscure way to wildlife of the Ouse washes!

For the current SLAA review, I didn't get involved although many other landowners did try. The results should be accessible on the S.Cambs site.

Nearer home, Hatfield wants to expand South West, St. Albans South East, Hemel North east, Harpenden West...... to say nothing of Luton Airport expansion:-)

>

[John Rumm]

If you don't mind driving a coach and horses through contract law...

[whisky-dave]

When I rented a room in the 80s the then DHSS came around asking who owned the bed linen, was teh renter allowed in the frontroom and lots of other details to make sure the rent was resonable. Why can't this sort oif thing be done. It could be done in a similar way to AA car test reports. In that a prospective tennant can pay for this service to be carried out.