You mean the ones JOB CENTRES set up like, Catalogue distributors for kleeneaze, and avon, and telling people they are now self-employed and no longer unemployed, thousands of these jobs on the DWP job site, IDS job market what a laugh
Around 1.6 million rental properties are on a BTL mortgage - out of 2.4 million available.
This means nearly 70% of rental properties will be exempt from the rules. The rest of them will just be encouraged to re-mortgage a small proportion of the property to exempt themselves too.
But the law could change that for future tenancies.
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 ;-)
I lived in London in the seventies, and accomadation to rent was plentiful.
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.
It's a long time since I last saw paranoia as bad as this.
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.
The Coalitions subsidy of BTL landlords is an intervention in the market. And if rent controls would reduce the supply of properties to rent, why hasn't fast rising rents increased the supply?
People who claim to be self-employed in order to claim certain benefits but never actually seem to be doing any work.:)
What's the matter frightened to actually say what you mean? what a surprise, actually scratch that, no surprise at all,
by the way I don't have to justify how much work I do each day to anyone and certainly not YOU,,
Suffice to say there are many hours of the day when I am not posting here, as is clearly shown (if you care to check my profile) where you will see I have an average of 5.53 posts a day.
The Liberal elite who left the mass immigration door open whilst themselves living in leafy suburbs like er surrey or chiswick for example.
London does need to sort itself out thats for sure but it does not seem capable does it with chinese and russian buiniess people buying off plan before locals have a chance.
Its the mass immigration ploicy of NU Labour and the "right on types" that have left the UK overpopulated whislt those already here suffer.
Including the NIMBYS who want housing for their children but not built near them.
No spite in me wanting decent housing for all i think with respect.:)
I have always believed council housing is there for those that need it not to give the poor a nest egg,in fact one of my dads ex workmates bemoaned the fact his sons could not get social housing,my dad said you know why that is don't you people have bought them,just like my dads ex workmate who had bought his.!
Yes their children have the advantage of no social housing left for them a nest egg is a very poor substitute.As a sidenote scores of ex council properties in my town are now turning up in some cases at treble the rent,with no security of tenure and sometimes p--s poor landlords.>:(
When we had rent controls (Mrs T abolished them in the late eighties) rents were set locally. The rents of each area were gathered, extremely low and high omitted, and the regulated rent for each type of property would be determined. Housing benefit would not be paid above that level.
A combination of housing benefit cap and rent controls set locally sounds like a sensible approach to what is a genuine problem.
As for the proposal about three year tenancy agreements - daresay the devil will be in the details. Lots of posters referring to German rental market. Worth baring in mind that in Germany there is a culture of renting that we don't have. Tenancy agreements are typically long term. Five or even ten year contracts, I believe, are not unusual. Houses are often supplied empty - the tenants fully decorate and furnish the property. Which means the lets feel much more like the home of the tennant - to the benefit of both parties. Perhaps this is a culture which needs fostering over here.
The third proposal - scrapping letting agent fees. Can't see much complaint on here about that one!
Perhaps Ed needs to push this- he could be on to a winner!
He is providing homes for people, what is wrong with that? Where would they live otherwise? In the properties of other landlords?
In social housing if we built some instead of using the money to give over £20 billion a year to line the pockets of people like him via housing benefit. Nice little earner for him but no longer term benefit for the taxpayer as it's ongoing revenue spending. It could be used to finance housing investment instead.
It's what the Tories did in the 1930s and 1950s before the bankers and developers bought them!
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?
This dud policy is just like Osborne's equally bad Help to Buy scheme and both fail to address the fundamental underlying problem of the lack of affordable houses to buy and the lack of social housing. That is where action is really needed.
The waste of space that was New Labour instantly found £30 billion for their botched wars but they couldn't find any substantive amounts of money for dealing with housing issues and the two current coalition parties just haven't bothered to address this important issue either. A plague on all their houses! (thanks, Mercutio)
Trouble is the last time we tried rent controls it led to more homelessness and bad quality housing with the emergence of slum landlords like Rachman
;-)
No it didn't. It was because of the likes of Rachman that regulation of rented property was introduced, and during the long period of regulation we never had the shortage of rented residencies and rent inflation the like of today.
No it didn't. It was because of the likes of Rachman that regulation of rented property was introduced, and during the long period of regulation we never had the shortage of rented residencies and rent inflation the like of today.
We had regulation before we had Rachman. Poor quality housing is a symptom of rent controls around the world.
We had regulation before we had Rachman. Poor quality housing is a symptom of rent controls around the world.
I don't about the rest of the world, but it wasn't so in Britain. The Rent Act of the seventies produced a much better rented property system than exists now,
We had regulation before we had Rachman. Poor quality housing is a symptom of rent controls around the world.
Currently a landlord can evict a tenant with 2 months notice, which makes many tenants reluctant to report landlords who refuse to carry out maintenance required by law, so greater security for tenants is needed.
There was a BTL landlord speaking on R5 today, and he's not opposed to that. The problem he pointed out was that most mortgage providers insist the property can be emptied quickly. And bizarrely, the governments own provider, forget its name, will only grant a mortgage on the insistence the property is not let to anybody in receipt of housing benefit!
Comments
No.:)
They may as well promise that everyone will have a better sex life for all of their ability to deliver it.
But the law could change that for future tenancies.
I lived in London in the seventies, and accomadation to rent was plentiful.
See post 131.
It's a long time since I last saw paranoia as bad as this.
The Coalitions subsidy of BTL landlords is an intervention in the market. And if rent controls would reduce the supply of properties to rent, why hasn't fast rising rents increased the supply?
What's the matter frightened to actually say what you mean? what a surprise, actually scratch that, no surprise at all,
by the way I don't have to justify how much work I do each day to anyone and certainly not YOU,,
Suffice to say there are many hours of the day when I am not posting here, as is clearly shown (if you care to check my profile) where you will see I have an average of 5.53 posts a day.
Yes - thank you for a good reply.
A combination of housing benefit cap and rent controls set locally sounds like a sensible approach to what is a genuine problem.
As for the proposal about three year tenancy agreements - daresay the devil will be in the details. Lots of posters referring to German rental market. Worth baring in mind that in Germany there is a culture of renting that we don't have. Tenancy agreements are typically long term. Five or even ten year contracts, I believe, are not unusual. Houses are often supplied empty - the tenants fully decorate and furnish the property. Which means the lets feel much more like the home of the tennant - to the benefit of both parties. Perhaps this is a culture which needs fostering over here.
The third proposal - scrapping letting agent fees. Can't see much complaint on here about that one!
Perhaps Ed needs to push this- he could be on to a winner!
In social housing if we built some instead of using the money to give over £20 billion a year to line the pockets of people like him via housing benefit. Nice little earner for him but no longer term benefit for the taxpayer as it's ongoing revenue spending. It could be used to finance housing investment instead.
It's what the Tories did in the 1930s and 1950s before the bankers and developers bought them!
Trouble is the last time we tried rent controls it led to more homelessness and bad quality housing with the emergence of slum landlords like Rachman
For those with short memories maybe. ;-)
This dud policy is just like Osborne's equally bad Help to Buy scheme and both fail to address the fundamental underlying problem of the lack of affordable houses to buy and the lack of social housing. That is where action is really needed.
The waste of space that was New Labour instantly found £30 billion for their botched wars but they couldn't find any substantive amounts of money for dealing with housing issues and the two current coalition parties just haven't bothered to address this important issue either. A plague on all their houses! (thanks, Mercutio)
No it didn't. It was because of the likes of Rachman that regulation of rented property was introduced, and during the long period of regulation we never had the shortage of rented residencies and rent inflation the like of today.
56% think Ed Miliband is right to suggest more government intervention on things like energy prices and rents, 29% it’s the wrong
Yougov
We had regulation before we had Rachman. Poor quality housing is a symptom of rent controls around the world.
Expect it in the Tory policies tomorrow
I don't about the rest of the world, but it wasn't so in Britain. The Rent Act of the seventies produced a much better rented property system than exists now,
56% of turkey's vote for the abolition of christmas....
The other 44% of turkeys vote Tory.
Merry Christmas.
Currently a landlord can evict a tenant with 2 months notice, which makes many tenants reluctant to report landlords who refuse to carry out maintenance required by law, so greater security for tenants is needed.
There was a BTL landlord speaking on R5 today, and he's not opposed to that. The problem he pointed out was that most mortgage providers insist the property can be emptied quickly. And bizarrely, the governments own provider, forget its name, will only grant a mortgage on the insistence the property is not let to anybody in receipt of housing benefit!