1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Change to renting laws.Will it make things better or worse?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by towncryer, Apr 15, 2019.

  1. towncryer

    towncryer Established commenter

    So I read in the paper today that the government are going to overturn section 21 which allows landlords to evict tenants with short notice. That will no longer happen.

    In one way this is good because it means a more secure home for renters. However, I wonder if it will do anything to alleviate the housing crisis in the long run? I know that in my case I will not make my property available to rent while I am overseas...so that's one already off the market. How many more in similar circumstances to me will do the same?
     
  2. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    The whole system needs turning around. Stop lending for buy-to-let would be a start, and any other change that will make being a landlord less attractive, then the market would get a load of houses, prices would fall and owner occupiers (first time buyers) might be able to afford to buy. Some people would get stung, hard luck serves em right for being greedy. It is a scandal the rents that are charged for often sub-standard hovels. (Guardian article at weekend) Also mortgage lenders have very strict rules about how much they will lend, which works out in monthly payment terms at way less than a landlord can charge in rent. Thus families will never get out of rented accomodation while they are lining the pockets of landlords. (I know there are landlords on here, my attitude is is still the same, even the ones who think they are ethical in some way). Investment rates need to be overhauled to make putting your money (those that have any) into building societies, who have pathetic rates since "quantitative easing" thought they will tell you they are "competitive" (at way less than inflation?!). I object to my savings being lent out to buy-to-let landlords to fleece poor families (kept poor by the policies of this government since 2010).
     
    eljefeb90, vannie, May2 and 4 others like this.
  3. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    I agree re: 'buy to let' mortgages, but the unintended consequences might be to put off some landlords (esp. small ones) from renting out houses, and instead keeping them empty. Which wouldn't help renters much.

    IMHO we need to grow the publicly owned housing sector & remove 'right to buy'.
     
  4. lindenlea

    lindenlea Star commenter

    Apparently if you need the property back to live in, then you can still evict the tenants, which should safe guard small scale landlords.
     
  5. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    I heard the minister say this on R4, but I have to say he was less than convincing!
     
  6. sunshineneeded

    sunshineneeded Lead commenter

    A lot of changes need to be made to the system. A close relative met a new partner several years ago. When they set up home together, it was in his house and they decided to let her house. They chose a tenant carefully - she had one child - and were excellent landlords for four years - no problems on either side. They then decided they wanted to sell the house to fund an extension and many improvements to their own house. They gave the tenant four months notice. Initially, she seemed ok and understanding about it, but as time went on she made no move to look for somewhere else to live. Fast forward to six months later - my relatives had had endless conversations, offered to go with her to talk to the council, offered to pay her moving expenses and deposit on a new place. But she wasn't going to go. After talking to a solicitor, they sent her an eviction notice (which upset both of them very much, but they felt they didn't have a choice). She still refused to go and said the council had told her she had to wait until the bailiffs came, then they would help her. In the end, after just over a year, the case had to be escalated to the high court and this was what had to happen - at a cost to my relatives of £8,500 - and a great deal of stress and heartache.
    Who benefitted from this? Certainly not the landlord, and the tenant must have been under a great strain too. I know that I would never consider renting out a property.
    I think Frank is right - we do need a wider publicly owned housing sector.
     
  7. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    this is true, you cannot be rehoused until the day you are actually evicted. the tenant would have had no choice but to refuse to go
     
    agathamorse likes this.
  8. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    we need far stricter rules to protect tenants. Possibly an end to private renting altogether, and the option of offering your property to the council to be managed. The council would then maintain high standards, charge a low standardised rent, keep a proportion of the profit for their own costs, and pass on other profits and expenses to the owner. The council would also take the court costs of evictions, are getting payment for damages from tenants.

    This does happen, I know landlords who pass on their property to the council to be managed as council housing, and they still make a reasonable profit from the rental income, while the tenants get a property maintained to a high standard, for a low rent, and have a secure home.
     
    agathamorse likes this.
  9. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    I know landlords who have done just this and ended up with a whole lot of hassle after the initial 5 year lease period, a few have practically had to rebuild the properties at that point while having to act as social services and immigration officers... picking up the pieces of benefit cuts while the properties were in tenancy. There is nothing that would entice me or many others to being a landlord these days and if I had the means to be one I'd certainly do something else with the money that involved less hassle.

    I can't imagine where you think councils will get the funds to maintain a large housing stock at the moment.
     
  10. lindenlea

    lindenlea Star commenter

    I think that's the point. Change is needed. Hitting out at landlords is not the answer.
     
  11. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    There are a couple of TV programmes which highlight the issues associated with this.
    Bad Tenants, Rogue Landlords
    Can't Pay
    ? We'll Take It Away

    Both Channel 5 based. They show the two sides of the issue. Landlords who rent out filthy hovels for skyhigh rent (in one case there were 48 people in a 3 bed house) and tenants who game the system.

    The problem of councils only helping when tenants are finally thrown out is highlighted in the second of the series quite often with the agents actually phoning up the council sometimes to help trigger the help.

    In Scotland, a few years ago, they changed the system. Landlords had a series of grounds which they could evict a tenant with and the process was made much faster but, if they didn't have one of these grounds the tenant had security.

    S21 needed to go because it gave the landlords too much power but there does need to be a balancing effect and that hasn't been done. Good landlords and good tenants need protecting but bad landlords and bad tenants need to feel the force of the law much more quickly.

    The issue of high rents needs addressing urgently especially as UC (or Housing Benefit as was) doesn't pay the full rent. It is actually a crazy piece of logic. HB (as was) was means tested at a level that you could just survive (no extra) and yet the Government thought that you could afford some spare cash to make up the shortfall. UC seems to have made that much worse.

    The housing supply issue is at the heart of this and has been made worse by the actions of the Government but also by the actions of, at least, some of the builders. Both the taxpayer and the house-buying public have been monumentally ripped off by some of the major builders who have gone for greed at every turn. The result is new housing that is unaffordable as well as very poor quality with a guarantee that is practically worthless.
     
    eljefeb90, agathamorse and towncryer like this.
  12. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    I doubt they would keep them empty, the councils can put big charges on empty property (at least in Wales where I am). I got a sort of "warning letter" about this as I am trying to move house. And the law could be changed to compulsory purchase empty properties at less than market rate, if there was a will. In this country it seems "greed" is a virtue.
     
    agathamorse likes this.
  13. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    its got to be more cost effective than the way they are spending money right now.
     
    agathamorse likes this.
  14. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter


    This is a pretty slippery slope - prepare for a lot of adverse publicity if you (Or any political party) advocates compulsory purchase of holiday/second homes etc.

    What next - compulsary purchase of 2nd cars? Of second laptops?o_O
     
  15. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Much depends on the authority but to be fair I'm not sure they want to take on any more responsibility given that they are already dealing with limited funds, the ones I know of are busy trying to palm off housing responsibility to private landlords by trying to entice them to buy and let smaller one bed properties... but that is just a snapshot of a limited area and one would hope others are not doing the same although many are farming out their residents in need of housing to other areas, Luton I believe is one and there may be others.
     
  16. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Quite. The career landlords that people speak of will just sell up and invest in something less troublesome with higher returns, in the longer term that may reduce property prices (which incidentally will hit those who already have mortgages since they may end up in negative equity... not something anyone who lived through the 80's would want to see again), while in the short term it does nothing to alleviate housing need.
     
    towncryer likes this.
  17. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Yes, definitely, compulsory purchasing of all wealth then redistribute to those in greater need... that's a fairer society for all isn't it? I can see that working... no wait...
     
  18. towncryer

    towncryer Established commenter

    I would need to know much more about this before I put my property on the market again I think the change will just spawn more air b and b and rooms to let. In my case leaving the property empty is not an option because then it can't be Insured...so I'm more likely to rent a room to someone responsible who can keep me informed of any problems.
     
  19. towncryer

    towncryer Established commenter

    I think the govt is anticipating a general electric hence this change in the law to make a whole lot of people happier. However as usual it is Ill thought out and smaller and accidental kandlorla will bear the brunt of it
     
    needabreak likes this.
  20. towncryer

    towncryer Established commenter

    General election...not general electric.
     

Share This Page