Milliband to cap private rents & extend tenancies.

[DeathAxe 10]

:confused:Really? And your evidence for that is?

 

Not being an idiot.

[anywebsite 10]

Of course, New York is an anti-capitalist, leftie utopia:rolleyes:

 

Of course, New York is a low rent utopia! Lets copy them!

[aliceBB 10]

Not being an idiot.

 

So why make idiotic claims for which you can produce no evidence?

 

Obviously, some rental properties in some areas will be former council houses flogged off to former council tenants by Thatcher and sold at some later stage - perhaps on the death or relocation of the new owners, as with any other property. But you can blame Thatcher and the Tory councils for that bit of short term money-spinning, which they then failed to put into new social housing stock. You can hardly blame those who bought the houses.

 

Equally, many rental properties are not former council homes.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

My point was that nothing in Milliband's proposals is sufficient incentive/reward for LLs to accept the tenant-friendly changes. Many LLs see the current legislation as giving the T more rights than the LL. A statutory rent rise equivalent to the RPI and a one-month reduction in S8 waiting time are hardly going to have LLs cracking open the champagne and declaring 'Gosh! This changes everything. I feel much happier now'.

So what, in your opinion, would be a sufficient incentive?

[aliceBB 10]

So what, in your opinion, would be a sufficient incentive?

 

I cannot think of any sweetener (even a government/council-backed financial guarantee, which no doubt they would wriggle out of) which would persuade LLs to agree to statutory minimum 3 year ASTs at T's request.

 

A rent rise in line with inflation is a gamble, as in some areas demand will outstrip supply and rents would otherwise go up in line with market forces. If supply outstrips demand , then LLs will be left with empty properties and rent rises are irrelevant.

[Coutts 10]

I cannot think of any sweetener (even a government/council-backed financial guarantee, which no doubt they would wriggle out of) which would persuade LLs to agree to statutory minimum 3 year ASTs at T's request.

 

A rent rise in line with inflation is a gamble, as in some areas demand will outstrip supply and rents would otherwise go up in line with market forces. If supply outstrips demand , then LLs will be left with empty properties and rent rises are irrelevant.

 

I'm sure many private landlords would be quite happy to agree to 5 year agreements if they could instantly evict within 14 days for non payment of rent. Theft is illegal apparently so it should be in housing as well.

[poppet2 13]

I'm sure many private landlords would be quite happy to agree to 5 year agreements if they could instantly evict within 14 days for non payment of rent. Theft is illegal apparently so it should be in housing as well.

 

No need for eviction within 14 days. Just add interest to the outstanding rent, far less hassle.

[Coutts 10]

No need for eviction within 14 days. Just add interest to the outstanding rent, far less hassle.

 

Landlords do need the power to evict for non payment within 14 days at very low cost. If they could do that, things would be so much better for good landlords and good tenants. if you're a good sort, you will have much more choice of property and location, if you're a bad egg, you'll be screwed, as you should be.

[chem1st 10]

I'm sure many private landlords would be quite happy to agree to 5 year agreements if they could instantly evict within 14 days for non payment of rent. Theft is illegal apparently so it should be in housing as well.

 

Rents charged in the UK are theft.

 

All the land was stolen. And planning permission restrictions increase the cost of the stolen land, particularly stolen land with planning permission and stolen land with dwellings upon it.

 

There is an argument that rent controls can restrict supply. And I might agree with that argument if we were in a free market, but we are not.

 

Property and land is subsidised massively, directly and indirectly.

 

What we need to do is to reform land rights, give everyone a right to build, give local authorities a right to build, then build, build, build.

 

Wipe out the rentiers, crash property prices and make our economy competitive. Bring down housing costs. Stop subsidising the ownership of freeholds. Stop paying people to own freeholds. Tax them.

 

Any true capitalist would be in favour of a LAND VALUE TAX. It is the fairest tax of them all.

[Coutts 10]

There is an argument that rent controls can restrict supply. And I might agree with that argument if we were in a free market, but we are not.

 

Wipe out the rentiers, crash property prices and make our economy competitive. Bring down housing costs. Stop subsidising the ownership of freeholds. Stop paying people to own freeholds. Tax them.

 

Rent control does restrict supply and it IS a free market. Property prices will crash, they always crash. They're going to crash again soon enough. It's a market after all where prices will always rise and fall. Interest rates go up and down. Buy at the bottom, sell at the top. it's a long war to riches as a landlord, the battles and skirmishes along the way mean nothing but you have to survive them. Buying an investment property is easy, being a landlord is not. The private rental sector is the saviour of housing in this country.

[aliceBB 10]

It is stretching it to call non-payment of rent 'theft' given that rent is payable in advance of the period of habitation to which it relates.

[poppet2 13]

The private rental sector is the saviour of housing in this country.

 

You make it sound as though private Landlords are doing us a favour.

Don't worry they are doing it for an investment and at quite a price to the tenant.

They are hardly doing it for anthropic reasons.

This is happening only because local authorities are hardly building.