Labour’s proposals could well backfire on tenants | Discuss

Welcome to the Property Forum where we can share our knowledge & experiences together to become better at what we do.

 Forum Terms & Conditions


Enlarge/Change font size here

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —





 

— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Related Related Topics sp_TopicIcon
Labour’s proposals could well backfire on tenants
03/06/2014
1:53 pm
silvia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
27/05/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I was reading RPI and I came across this article about What Labour are offering and how it may screw over tenants written by Rosalind Renshaw.

Ed Miliband’s targeting of the private tenant vote in front of the general election wasn’t apparently surprising at all. In the end 9,000,000 prospective voters have their homes in the PRS – more than the SRS. No doubt his premise is that if a Labour Proclamation can pledge private tenants something, it will obtain rewards in the polling booths.

But will it?

Labour wants to bring back discredited rent controls. Despite the fact the party denies that will be the situation and that it will at most propose a ‘mechanism’ to cap rent, that looks a lot like rent controls.

“Some Landlords will not like this, but millions of tenants will” said Milliband.

Labour will also contribute by adding 3-year tenancies as the omission pattern. These lengthy tenancies would give the tenant more security, and make the evictions harder. Upfront fees to be charged to tenants would be made illegal by a Labour government. Credit checks would be a limited exception; anyhow, the tenant would have to be refunded if the checks were passed and the tenancy went ahead.

What are landlords supposed to think? Rents have hardly risen, and by much less than expansion – and that is on the Government’s figures. So, Labour appear to be organizing policy on a colossal misinterpretation.

As for rent caps, the past shows they don’t work. Brought out in WW1 in 1915 as a ‘temporary’ measure, they weren’t stamped out until the 1980s when the authority was Margaret Thatcher. Throughout those years Britain’s stock – and quality – of private rented housing declined, because landlords saw no potential of a return on their investment. But it is maybe the 3-year default tenancy and the larger predicament in repossession that brings up the most concern for landlords.

Why would a home owner, for example, posted abroad to be employed for a few years, want to rent out his house? Previously, he would have leaped at the chance of becoming an ‘accidental landlord’, but under Labour’s plans, really?

Labour’s proposals are thought to be very intentional by some. We view them as merely contemptuous. However, we also think they’ll backfire badly, discouraging landlords and discharging generous amounts of stock from the market.

Labour says confidently that they’re helping to solve Britain’s housing crisis, where as we can all agree that these proposals would merely remove more roofs over people’s heads.

I'd be interested to hear people's opinions...

03/06/2014
3:35 pm
David Price
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1700
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Government interference with commercial organisations rarely works.  Perhaps the government shoud first attack the cause of the present crisis, itself and the banks.

03/06/2014
5:51 pm
Guest
Guests

It will never work.  Labour seem to forget that to house all of these tenants, they need the housing stock in the first place, via the PRS.  If its not attractive, or worth their while, landlords will sell up.  

Back to square one.

Leave it alone Millibland.

03/06/2014
10:45 pm
Patricia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1054
Member Since:
12/06/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Idon't know the small print but i assume the tenant can leave when he likes but the LL is handcuffed? 

03/06/2014
11:09 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2902
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If silly Ed gets in I will just ignore any rent controls;they can try and stop me; but won't succeed.

I have things set up so I am untraceable.

Technically I don't rent anywhere apart from 2 properties which won't be above any rent control.

The tenant will have a choice of paying the rent required irrespective of any rent control.

Or rooms will be let out to give more than the whole normal rent.

So I could rent a flat with licenced AST's to give more than the normal whole flat rent which would be within the rent control amounts for a 1 bed; but gives the LL more than a whole flat rent!!

A very silly idea by SILLY BILLY ED!!

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 755

Currently Online:
11 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

PaulBarrett: 2902

Mary Latham: 2194

LyndonBaker: 1805

David Price: 1700

Patricia: 1054

DATA CONTROL: 979

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2634

Members: 6857

Moderators: 5

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 3

Topics: 4686

Posts: 31577

Newest Members:

nowthen, wattutilities, bill, mrpgriffin, khaa1329, stefan

Moderators: News @ Tenant Referencing: 1636, laura: 15, Chloe: 107, lucybarr: 0, jaswhite: 20

Administrators: Paul Routledge: 3433