When we had rent controls and secure tenancies by law the shortage of accomadation to rent was nowhere near where it is now.
Really? My memory must be playing tricks on me.
When I moved to London as a teenager in 78, there was almost no rental property at all. Zilch. With the stifling rent control we had at the time, any landlord who could get rid of tenants did so. Nobody in their right mind let their property. I only managed to get a grotty 2 rooms in a house as I had a friend living in the property. The landlord had been harassing the tenants to try and empty the house, but he stood firm and eventually he gave up and let the other rooms again.
The whole problem with this is that it is a chronic failure in supply and demand, and any attempt to resolve it by government fiddling is destined for disaster. And as with all Labour's policies, it's not been thought through. The only proper answer to the problem is a massive building programme of affordable housing (which can only be done by the public sector) and control of population growth. And we all know what that means ;-)
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need it for a family member
You will be able to force out a tentant if "major renovations" are needed
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need to sell the property
You will be able to force out a tenant for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour
In other words, these "3 year tenancies" won't be worth the paper they are written on and are just a cheap vote grabbing stunt.
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need it for a family member
You will be able to force out a tent if "major renovations" are needed
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need to sell the property
You will be able to force out a tenant for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour
In other words, these "3 year tenancies" won't be worth the paper they are written on and are just a cheap vote grabbing stunt.
Could be time to look at how it done in germany, as their system works well and long term lets are the norm and have worked well for years, there private rental system is controled by the state and is fair for both tenants and landlords, and is more based on our social housing system.
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need it for a family member
You will be able to force out a tent if "major renovations" are needed
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need to sell the property
You will be able to force out a tenant for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour
In other words, these "3 year tenancies" won't be worth the paper they are written on and are just a cheap vote grabbing stunt.
Thanks for that clarification.
Very helpful.
"Need to sell the property" is subject to one hundred interpretations but it should take care of anyone with no job and no income and a small second property who is worried about keeping a roof over their own heads and being able to heat and eat in the future. That is not the case with house prices plummeting and a 3 year lock in.
I don't have a second property and I may never do so but if I did and rented it out I would set the rent lower than the average on a 6 month because that is the way I do things for people who are reasonable. However, I would feel obliged to set it at the absolute maximum on a 3 year in case I ever needed money to evict through the courts.
In my list of policies on three posts yesterday I think it is clear I am economically centre left but I have to say that the Labour Party as it is currently doesn't speak to me in a positive way at all. Most leaves me cold or full of dread.
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need it for a family member
You will be able to force out a tent if "major renovations" are needed
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need to sell the property
You will be able to force out a tenant for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour
In other words, these "3 year tenancies" won't be worth the paper they are written on and are just a cheap vote grabbing stunt.
The tenants who do make it to the end of the 3 year contract advocated by Eric Pickles and Ed Miliband will find themselves having a few sleepless nights about their security. But it could be worse - like every 6 months for example. In an era when we constantly ask "What is so essential about Home Ownership?" how can a little more security for tenants be a bad thing?
How does it feel to be a 6 month tenant who only has Casual Work (aka a Zero Hours Contract) to fund the rent. Would we swap places with that person?
With regard to the outrageous suggestion that Ed is just a bloke trying to get elected:
"The pattern is this: Miliband identifies a genuine problem that frustrates many voters and which the government is making insufficient noise on. Miliband then announces a policy to tackle this which involves plenty of government action, possibly to an outlandish extent. The group this would hit, which is an unpopular group of fat cat energy bosses or heartless landlords, gets very cross. Right-wingers claim the Labour leader is having a 1970s socialist disco or trying to emulate the sort of chaps that lefties put on T-shirts. The polling shows the public like the policy. The government panics and announces a less significant (but possibly more workable) policy which reinforces that Miliband was right to highlight the problem in the first place."
Could be time to look at how it done in germany, as their system works well and long term lets are the norm and have worked well for years, there private rental system is controled by the state and is fair for both tenants and landlords, and is more based on our social housing system.
I don't know much about the German rental market and it's easy to say that another system works better from a distance without any understanding of the detail but my understanding is that more people rent because buying a home is even more expensive than it is here. That doesn't mean they are happy with the prospect of having to pay rent for the rest of their lives. If anything, more people are stuck in the rental trap than here.
I don't know much about the German rental market and it's easy to say that another system works better from a distance without any understanding of the detail but my understanding is that more people rent because buying a home is even more expensive than it is here. That doesn't mean they are happy with the prospect of having to pay rent for the rest of their lives. If anything, more people are stuck in the rental trap than here.
Whilst I do not think the property ownership obsession in the UK is a good thing, is it really a good prospect to still be renting after retirement, and having nothing to pass on to your kids?
The government panics and announces a less significant (but possibly more workable) policy which reinforces that Miliband was right to highlight the problem in the first place."
It makes a fair point. Miliband (or rather his team) is quite adept at identifying concerns of many of the electorate. However, where it all falls down is a coherent approach to doing anything about it.
Whilst I do not think the property ownership obsession in the UK is a good thing, is it really a good prospect to still be renting after retirement, and having nothing to pass on to your kids?
If you rent all of your working life just how do people plan to pay for their accommodation for the 20 or 30 years after retirement? Surely not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab...
From the Independent: I'd argue that the unregulated private rental market has been for many years the main contribution to the "cost of living crisis" for a great many people. So aren't these proposals a badly needed step in the right direction?
It makes a fair point. Miliband (or rather his team) is quite adept at identifying concerns of many of the electorate. However, where it all falls down is a coherent approach to doing anything about it.
If you rent all of your working life just how do people plan to pay for their accommodation for the 20 or 30 years after retirement? Surely not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab...
Well saying the number of people being priced out of the housing market is increasing forcing more people to rent then what choice is there, this is what happens when supply does not meet demand and house prices are to expensive
Anyone else not surprised in the least by the sheer hypocrisy of the same party (and many of it's supporters) that brands millions of people who depend on one benefit or other, even those who WORK in low paid jobs, as, "parasites, scroungers, spongers, work-shy,shirkers, part of the benefits or something-for-nothing culture" etc, feel free to include any I've missed,
As well as supporting the punishment of an estimated million human beings, again many of them working in low paid jobs, for spare room crime,
Yet as soon as anyone proposes introducing legislation to address the private landlords who have no problem at all with 'exploiting the benefits system' (ahh there's one I missed) by getting the hard working tax payers to subsidise their income, (and another one I missed) via housing benefit payments,
(they're doing very well out of their Tory chums spare room fine at the moment as lots of social housing tenants are forced out of cheap social housing and into far more expensive private rentals)
The Tory supporters leap to the defence of these particular exploiters of the benefits system,
How crack pot an idea is it if rent control used to work in the UK and rent control is used in many other nations. How is rent control not a tried and tested and workable thing.
Rent control is a flop everywhere it is tried - you dont solve a housing shortage by restricting the supply of available properties.
what you've got here is lowest common denominator politics. most people aren't landlords, so it's ok to go after them. most people don't work for energy companies. so it's ok to persecute them. most people aren't bankers, so it's ok to go after them.
First they came for the Bankers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Banker.
Then they came for the Energy Companies, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an Energy Company.
Then they came for the Landlords, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Landlord.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
mark my words if you work in an industry that has a lot of customers, few employees and is unpopular currently. they'll have you. super markets, train companies, fixed line phone providers, broad band, moblie phones, drug companies. one day they'll have everyone.
Anyone else not surprised in the least by the sheer hypocrisy of the same party (and many of it's supporters) that brands millions of people who depend on one benefit or other, even those who WORK in low paid jobs, as, "parasites, scroungers, spongers, work-shy,shirkers, part of the benefits or something-for-nothing culture" etc, feel free to include any I've missed,
As well as supporting the punishment of an estimated million human beings, again many of them working in low paid jobs, for spare room crime,
Yet as soon as anyone proposes introducing legislation to address the private landlords who have no problem at all with 'exploiting the benefits system' (ahh there's one I missed) by getting the hard working tax payers to subsidise their income, (and another one I missed) via housing benefit payments,
(they're doing very well out of their Tory chums spare room fine at the moment as lots of social housing tenants are forced out of cheap social housing and into far more expensive private rentals)
The Tory supporters leap to the defence of these particular exploiters of the benefits system,
Is anyone surprised in the least?
Pretty much everyone apart from those who would vote for a pig in a red rosette have slammed them. You're blinded as per usual by hatred.
The absurdity of New York City’s housing market has become a standard part of many Econ 101 courses, because it is such a clear example of public policy that achieves the near opposite of its goals
Anyone else not surprised in the least by the sheer hypocrisy of the same party (and many of it's supporters) that brands millions of people who depend on one benefit or other, even those who WORK in low paid jobs, as, "parasites, scroungers, spongers, work-shy,shirkers, part of the benefits or something-for-nothing culture" etc, feel free to include any I've missed,
As well as supporting the punishment of an estimated million human beings, again many of them working in low paid jobs, for spare room crime,
Yet as soon as anyone proposes introducing legislation to address the private landlords who have no problem at all with 'exploiting the benefits system' (ahh there's one I missed) by getting the hard working tax payers to subsidise their income, (and another one I missed) via housing benefit payments,
(they're doing very well out of their Tory chums spare room fine at the moment as lots of social housing tenants are forced out of cheap social housing and into far more expensive private rentals)
The Tory supporters leap to the defence of these particular exploiters of the benefits system,
Is anyone surprised in the least?
The two things are not the same, anyway benefit claimants are not by definition scroungers, parasites or spongers.
This is a proposal to intervene in a market - and this always ends in tears, not least because any intervention ends up being reactive to changes and therefore be slow. This is why rent controls end up with poor quality housing, with the supply being low, or you end up setting the limit too high and still have the problem you introduced rent controls to solve.
The only solution is to increase the supply of housing and that means building - in this way the price goes down. Not only that but you can alter the balance of single occupancy or low occupancy homes and deal with one of the primary issues with the Extra Room Supplement - that there are insufficient low occupancy homes so those with an extra room can move into and have a home more suited to their needs.
Whilst I do not think the property ownership obsession in the UK is a good thing, is it really a good prospect to still be renting after retirement, and having nothing to pass on to your kids?
It worked for my grandparents. Neither set owned their own home but both could live on their old age pensions alone. Nowadays we buy our houses, invest in private pensions and other investments and still many people are struggling to be able to retire.
The Government could affect the rental prices by building more council houses and offering them at a cheaper rent than the market value. They do not need to make a massive profit on these houses but just over a period of time pay back the building and maintenance costs.
We have not had rent control since the 80s, but still suffer a supply of available properties
Thats because we have not built enough. High rental prices are a symptom of the scarcity of available homes to rent, you solve that by increasing supply or reducing demand, Rent controls achieve the exact opposite - they increase demand and reduce the supply - its not a very bright system.
It worked for my grandparents. Neither set owned their own home but both could live on their old age pensions alone. Nowadays we buy our houses, invest in private pensions and other investments and still many people are struggling to be able to retire.
Something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.
in the 60's life expectancies were in the region of 70 years old. on average people would live 5 years after retiring.
Pretty much everyone apart from those who would vote for a pig in a red rosette have slammed them. You're blinded as per usual by hatred.
Ahh the old "pig in a red rosette" sneer, the old one's are the best eh?
Of course this particular piece of arrogant lazy thinking only ever seems to apply to Labour voters, I'm surprised "you only vote for Labour because your parents and grandparents did" wasn't trotted out as well,
These particular sneers and insults NEVER apply to the oh so intellectually superior Tory voters of course,
For the record I would vote for (almost) any pig in any colour of rosette provided it was the pig wearing the rosette of the party that stands the best chance of keeping the pig in the blue rosette OUT,
Hence my reason for voting for a pig in a yellow rosette in 2010,
Still, let's not spoil a good old fashioned piece of blind ingnorance and prejudice (as per usual) with those annoying fact things eh?
Whilst I do not think the property ownership obsession in the UK is a good thing, is it really a good prospect to still be renting after retirement, and having nothing to pass on to your kids?
Those who buy a modest house may well find also they have nothing to pass onto their kids as the care home claims their house.!
Why should people be worrying about what to leave their children by the way?
The children could be better off then their parents in the first place .;-)
The Government could affect the rental prices by building more council houses and offering them at a cheaper rent than the market value. They do not need to make a massive profit on these houses but just over a period of time pay back the building and maintenance costs.
Where?
The areas with the highest rents and the biggest housing shortages don't have the land. In suburban and rural area how many people are going to want a big council house estate built near them? Build a 200,000 new town in Kent and it won't do anything to affect rental prices in London.
The only way Labour can promise a massive house building programme is to sweep away local planning laws and that would cause riots (or at least a lot of angry letters) in the Shires.
Comments
Really? My memory must be playing tricks on me.
When I moved to London as a teenager in 78, there was almost no rental property at all. Zilch. With the stifling rent control we had at the time, any landlord who could get rid of tenants did so. Nobody in their right mind let their property. I only managed to get a grotty 2 rooms in a house as I had a friend living in the property. The landlord had been harassing the tenants to try and empty the house, but he stood firm and eventually he gave up and let the other rooms again.
The whole problem with this is that it is a chronic failure in supply and demand, and any attempt to resolve it by government fiddling is destined for disaster. And as with all Labour's policies, it's not been thought through. The only proper answer to the problem is a massive building programme of affordable housing (which can only be done by the public sector) and control of population growth. And we all know what that means ;-)
Apparantley this new "Miliband Law" is going to have so many exceptions that it will be meaningless. That sounds familiar.
According to the Guardian report:
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need it for a family member
You will be able to force out a tentant if "major renovations" are needed
You will be able to force out a tenant if you need to sell the property
You will be able to force out a tenant for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour
In other words, these "3 year tenancies" won't be worth the paper they are written on and are just a cheap vote grabbing stunt.
Could be time to look at how it done in germany, as their system works well and long term lets are the norm and have worked well for years, there private rental system is controled by the state and is fair for both tenants and landlords, and is more based on our social housing system.
Thanks for that clarification.
Very helpful.
"Need to sell the property" is subject to one hundred interpretations but it should take care of anyone with no job and no income and a small second property who is worried about keeping a roof over their own heads and being able to heat and eat in the future. That is not the case with house prices plummeting and a 3 year lock in.
I don't have a second property and I may never do so but if I did and rented it out I would set the rent lower than the average on a 6 month because that is the way I do things for people who are reasonable. However, I would feel obliged to set it at the absolute maximum on a 3 year in case I ever needed money to evict through the courts.
In my list of policies on three posts yesterday I think it is clear I am economically centre left but I have to say that the Labour Party as it is currently doesn't speak to me in a positive way at all. Most leaves me cold or full of dread.
The tenants who do make it to the end of the 3 year contract advocated by Eric Pickles and Ed Miliband will find themselves having a few sleepless nights about their security. But it could be worse - like every 6 months for example. In an era when we constantly ask "What is so essential about Home Ownership?" how can a little more security for tenants be a bad thing?
How does it feel to be a 6 month tenant who only has Casual Work (aka a Zero Hours Contract) to fund the rent. Would we swap places with that person?
With regard to the outrageous suggestion that Ed is just a bloke trying to get elected:
"The pattern is this: Miliband identifies a genuine problem that frustrates many voters and which the government is making insufficient noise on. Miliband then announces a policy to tackle this which involves plenty of government action, possibly to an outlandish extent. The group this would hit, which is an unpopular group of fat cat energy bosses or heartless landlords, gets very cross. Right-wingers claim the Labour leader is having a 1970s socialist disco or trying to emulate the sort of chaps that lefties put on T-shirts. The polling shows the public like the policy. The government panics and announces a less significant (but possibly more workable) policy which reinforces that Miliband was right to highlight the problem in the first place."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/ed-milibands-price-control-pattern/
I don't know much about the German rental market and it's easy to say that another system works better from a distance without any understanding of the detail but my understanding is that more people rent because buying a home is even more expensive than it is here. That doesn't mean they are happy with the prospect of having to pay rent for the rest of their lives. If anything, more people are stuck in the rental trap than here.
I found this article which makes for interesting reading:
Germany seems to offer cheaper rents and more choice than the UK. But is the grass really grüner?
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/mar/19/brits-buy-germans-rent
Whilst I do not think the property ownership obsession in the UK is a good thing, is it really a good prospect to still be renting after retirement, and having nothing to pass on to your kids?
Love the picture at the top of the article
It makes a fair point. Miliband (or rather his team) is quite adept at identifying concerns of many of the electorate. However, where it all falls down is a coherent approach to doing anything about it.
If you rent all of your working life just how do people plan to pay for their accommodation for the 20 or 30 years after retirement? Surely not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab...
Well saying the number of people being priced out of the housing market is increasing forcing more people to rent then what choice is there, this is what happens when supply does not meet demand and house prices are to expensive
As well as supporting the punishment of an estimated million human beings, again many of them working in low paid jobs, for spare room crime,
Yet as soon as anyone proposes introducing legislation to address the private landlords who have no problem at all with 'exploiting the benefits system' (ahh there's one I missed) by getting the hard working tax payers to subsidise their income, (and another one I missed) via housing benefit payments,
(they're doing very well out of their Tory chums spare room fine at the moment as lots of social housing tenants are forced out of cheap social housing and into far more expensive private rentals)
The Tory supporters leap to the defence of these particular exploiters of the benefits system,
Is anyone surprised in the least?
Rent control is a flop everywhere it is tried - you dont solve a housing shortage by restricting the supply of available properties.
First they came for the Bankers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Banker.
Then they came for the Energy Companies, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an Energy Company.
Then they came for the Landlords, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Landlord.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
mark my words if you work in an industry that has a lot of customers, few employees and is unpopular currently. they'll have you. super markets, train companies, fixed line phone providers, broad band, moblie phones, drug companies. one day they'll have everyone.
We have not had rent control since the 80s, but still suffer a supply of available properties
Pretty much everyone apart from those who would vote for a pig in a red rosette have slammed them. You're blinded as per usual by hatred.
How rent control doesn't work in New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/magazine/the-perverse-effects-of-rent-regulation.html?pagewanted=all
The two things are not the same, anyway benefit claimants are not by definition scroungers, parasites or spongers.
This is a proposal to intervene in a market - and this always ends in tears, not least because any intervention ends up being reactive to changes and therefore be slow. This is why rent controls end up with poor quality housing, with the supply being low, or you end up setting the limit too high and still have the problem you introduced rent controls to solve.
The only solution is to increase the supply of housing and that means building - in this way the price goes down. Not only that but you can alter the balance of single occupancy or low occupancy homes and deal with one of the primary issues with the Extra Room Supplement - that there are insufficient low occupancy homes so those with an extra room can move into and have a home more suited to their needs.
It worked for my grandparents. Neither set owned their own home but both could live on their old age pensions alone. Nowadays we buy our houses, invest in private pensions and other investments and still many people are struggling to be able to retire.
Something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.
Thats because we have not built enough. High rental prices are a symptom of the scarcity of available homes to rent, you solve that by increasing supply or reducing demand, Rent controls achieve the exact opposite - they increase demand and reduce the supply - its not a very bright system.
in the 60's life expectancies were in the region of 70 years old. on average people would live 5 years after retiring.
that is what has happened.
Ahh the old "pig in a red rosette" sneer, the old one's are the best eh?
Of course this particular piece of arrogant lazy thinking only ever seems to apply to Labour voters, I'm surprised "you only vote for Labour because your parents and grandparents did" wasn't trotted out as well,
These particular sneers and insults NEVER apply to the oh so intellectually superior Tory voters of course,
For the record I would vote for (almost) any pig in any colour of rosette provided it was the pig wearing the rosette of the party that stands the best chance of keeping the pig in the blue rosette OUT,
Hence my reason for voting for a pig in a yellow rosette in 2010,
Still, let's not spoil a good old fashioned piece of blind ingnorance and prejudice (as per usual) with those annoying fact things eh?
Those who buy a modest house may well find also they have nothing to pass onto their kids as the care home claims their house.!
Why should people be worrying about what to leave their children by the way?
The children could be better off then their parents in the first place .;-)
Where?
The areas with the highest rents and the biggest housing shortages don't have the land. In suburban and rural area how many people are going to want a big council house estate built near them? Build a 200,000 new town in Kent and it won't do anything to affect rental prices in London.
The only way Labour can promise a massive house building programme is to sweep away local planning laws and that would cause riots (or at least a lot of angry letters) in the Shires.