Rent controls - good or bad?

[spider1]

Dont think there will be many landlords up north complaining about tenants having to sign a 3 year agreement and rent going up with inflation . Different down south in London area

were rents are high to start with might be okay Treble what they are in sheffield at least. Making people sign a 3 year lease up north no chance they want to get in the real world. Is the country being run by a set of idiots. I havent put my rents up for 3 years as i have good tennants . Looks like i can order a new car then bad news for my tennants.

Edited April 28, 2015 by spider1

[-Boomer-]

It's a good thing

[Hippogriff]

To be clearer on notice required for these plans... a 3 year tenancy would be created, the Tenant would be able to end it with 1 month notice, the Landlord would not. If the Landlord wanted to end it before the 3 years they would have to rely on the Tenant breaking some term of the tenancy agreement.

[GerryBooth]

I have not increased my rents for 3 years but if they are also wanting any rent increases to be no more than inflation when you have a tenancy changeover that is not going to work. I keep the rents the same as during the tenancy the house decoration, kitchen and bathroom is depreciating.

 

When a tenant moves out I get the property back up to scratch and charge a below but reviewed market rent. If I cannot charge more than inflation over the last rent this will not work. I may have to do annual rent increases to make up the shortfall.

[Hippogriff]

I believe modest annual increases are good practice and avoid the, potential, need for a surprise, and very unwelcome - possibly unmanageable - massive hike at some point. Obviously thinking of longer term tenancies here... which is what most Landlords would like to have (you'd hope / think).

[-Boomer-]

To be clearer on notice required for these plans... a 3 year tenancy would be created, the Tenant would be able to end it with 1 month notice, the Landlord would not. If the Landlord wanted to end it before the 3 years they would have to rely on the Tenant breaking some term of the tenancy agreement.

 

When I sign a contract for my mobile phone, the vendor puts up the prices without asking me first.

[handypandy]

I think it would be a bit of a non-event to be honest. Most landlords would jump at the chance of a three year let and tenants, who can exit with a four week notice anyway, will be practically unaffected. The only disappointed parties will be the agents and I'm not about to shed a tear there.

 

 

 

.

[I1L2T3]

I have not increased my rents for 3 years but if they are also wanting any rent increases to be no more than inflation when you have a tenancy changeover that is not going to work. I keep the rents the same as during the tenancy the house decoration, kitchen and bathroom is depreciating.

 

When a tenant moves out I get the property back up to scratch and charge a below but reviewed market rent. If I cannot charge more than inflation over the last rent this will not work. I may have to do annual rent increases to make up the shortfall.

 

Don't think this applies to you but you are highlighting some of the issues, perhaps unintentionally.

 

When BTLers upgrade a property the smaller operators will often not do it at minimal cost. They often don't have a large enough portfolio to have their own dedicated maintenance team and the costs of upgrades are going to be passed on to tenants. Likewise with other overheads, the costs are passed on to tenants. In some areas of the country they can quite simply get away with terrible investing decisions and pass the cost of their mistakes to tenants.

 

Such a mess.

[Hippogriff]

I may have to do annual rent increases to make up the shortfall.

 

Sure, but under the Labour proposal the annual rent increase cap would also be inflation... so, today, that'd be 0%.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 07:48 ----------

 

...the costs of upgrades are going to be passed on to tenants. Likewise with other overheads, the costs are passed on to tenants.

 

I think that the costs - of anything - are passed onto the Tenants, and will be.

 

Government can legislate for what they perceive to be a fairer system. Or, I'd say, they can try. But any newly introduced costs are simply going to be passed onto the Tenants.

 

If a Council introduces mandatory licensing with a fee, the Landlord pays it, but they hike the rent by a nominal amount each month so their costs are covered.

 

If the Government legislates so that Agents cannot charge an up-front fee to Tenants, then the fee will only be taken another way... possibly by Landlords paying it and then having a higher rent to offset it.

 

If a Landlord decides to upgrade a property, that is done so the property can attract a higher rent.

 

It is a very difficult thing to say to someone - "you know that figure you were getting from your investment before? well, it's just been reduced" - people don't just take that, they act to get it back or minimise it as much as possible.

 

So, while you can see good intentions behind plans, it won't work effectively (does it ever?).

 

The 'issue' at the moment is that politicians like to / must appeal to the majorities in the world... for obvious reasons. There are a lot more people renting property than there are letting it... therefore Landlords are in a minority (possibly not amongst MPs, though). So Landlords should be prepared for some more Landlord-bashing to happen.

 

If you're a Landlord thinking of buying a new BTL property, or you're someone thinking of becoming a Landlord, please wait and see what happens after the election, it might cause you to reconsider.

[loraward]

Without BTL many people would be homeless . BTL is vital

 

Without BTL property prices wouldn't be so high and the people renting would be better placed to buy.