Rent controls - good or bad?

[ubermaus]

I suppose it's knowledge / experience and intent... I've never gone on Zoopla and filtered down to postcode and number of bedrooms to get a sample of the market. That would be proper research.

 

A real example was a property I was letting for £925 through 2014, in 2015 I very consciously decided to put it on the market at £1,100. I expected haggling. I would have been happy to haggle. Less than a month later it went for £1,100. I actually admit to that surprising me, somewhat, but it's a seller's market today.

 

Illustrates why we need rent controls. Putting a property up 15% in a year is way above inflation & wages.

[sgtkate]

I think the difference between housing and other items is that you don't have great deal of choice. You need to live SOMEWHERE but you might not need to buy cake (to use a analogy from another thread).

 

So people will have to pay the going rate. They can't not pay it else they'd be homeless so natural competition here have almost no meaning. If you NEED something you have to pay the price asked for. Also, not many landlords are going to charge under the rates charged by their peers, why would they? So there's no undercutting and no competition especially not in the cheapest areas as once you are at the cheapest houses in the area there is no where else for you to go except the streets, and that is why we need short term rent controls and long term commitment to building more social housing.

[ubermaus]

I think the difference between housing and other items is that you don't have great deal of choice. You need to live SOMEWHERE but you might not need to buy cake (to use a analogy from another thread).

 

So people will have to pay the going rate. They can't not pay it else they'd be homeless so natural competition here have almost no meaning. If you NEED something you have to pay the price asked for. Also, not many landlords are going to charge under the rates charged by their peers, why would they? So there's no undercutting and no competition especially not in the cheapest areas as once you are at the cheapest houses in the area there is no where else for you to go except the streets, and that is why we need short term rent controls and long term commitment to building more social housing.

 

Thats why all this supply and demand tosh is just an excuse for landlords to increase rents above and beyond what they should be.

[Hippogriff]

Illustrates why we need rent controls. Putting a property up 15% in a year is way above inflation & wages.

 

Of course, you are making an assumption that it wasn't under-priced at £925 (which it really was) and might still be at £1,100. The point being made is that the market - and the market alone - should (and usually will) decide. Meddling politicians can come up with loads of great ideas... if someone's income is limited or restricted then they usually find another way to boost it, people (and companies) always move faster than government.

[loraward]

 

Government certainly have something to answer for with restraining the supply, I totally agree. I don't really agree that they control the population growth. They can affect it through immigration controls, but they can't stop or start people having children.

 

Given that the problem is one of supply and demand, the appropriate government response would be to look at how they restrain the supply side and change that, reduce their interference, rather than try to fix the problem by making more interventions!

 

 

They support population growth by encouraging immigration into the UK and increasing a families income if they have children. If someone wants four children but can only afford to support two, it is very likely they will only have two, if government says we will step in and support any children you can't afford, it will encourage people to have more.

 

 

Supply and demand is also restrained by affordability, when people can't afford something demand diminishes, government once again step with HB which keeps prices artificially high, without HB prices would have to fall because fewer people would be able to afford the rents demanded by landlords.

[ubermaus]

Of course, you are making an assumption that it wasn't under-priced at £925 (which it really was) and might still be at £1,100. The point being made is that the market - and the market alone - should (and usually will) decide. Meddling politicians can come up with loads of great ideas... if someone's income is limited or restricted then they usually find another way to boost it, people (and companies) always move faster than government.

 

In your opinion. Thats what were talking about here, should landlords set the market or not.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2015 at 12:57 ----------

 

If someone is desperate to rent they might take at 1200 or 1300. Should that be allowed to happen?

Were talking about a fundemental need here.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2015 at 12:58 ----------

 

Which i believe should be capped at inflation.

[Hippogriff]

In your opinion. Thats what were talking about here, should landlords set the market or not.

 

The market sets itself, it's like its own nebulous entity... thinking a Landlord or a bunch of Landlords operating at a micro level can control (set) a market at a macro level is a bit like thinking a government can. Neither can. But Landlords can set their own rent prices for their own properties... if they are successfully let then great, if not - time for a quick rethink.

 

When setting an initial price for a property I'm letting out I'd say that my opinion is the only one that counts... as with the example I gave, my opinion was obviously correct?

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2015 at 13:03 ----------

 

If someone is desperate to rent they might take at 1200 or 1300. Should that be allowed to happen?

Were talking about a fundemental need here.

 

Two things on this... 1) Reed Rains were more gung-ho about setting the level than any other Agent I talked to - they wanted to go for £1,200. I backed away from that.

 

2) It's not a fundamental need for the Tenant that I have, it's turned into his Sheffield crash-pad, so he's only there about 10 nights a month and, I think, in and out of the Genting Club like there's no tomorrow.

[RonJeremy]

Housing is a fundamental need - but so is food and water - should these be regulated by some civil servant in a pair of lycra trousers? If I want to rent out my property for a fee and someone is happy to pay the figure that I feel it is worth the hassle to me to do it, why should someone else interfere in that?

To be honest, it would probably stop me bothering to build and rent out flats if there was constant interference from the council. I imagine there would be a lot more people who would think the same. The result would be fewer houses/flats to let.

[perplexed]

In your opinion. Thats what were talking about here, should landlords set the market or not.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2015 at 12:57 ----------

 

If someone is desperate to rent they might take at 1200 or 1300. Should that be allowed to happen?

Were talking about a fundemental need here.

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2015 at 12:58 ----------

 

Which i believe should be capped at inflation.

 

An issue with this is that costs are not capped at inflation - which to me often seems to be a figure plucked out of the air half the time anyway.

[ubermaus]

Housing is a fundamental need - but so is food and water - should these be regulated by some civil servant in a pair of lycra trousers? If I want to rent out my property for a fee and someone is happy to pay the figure that I feel it is worth the hassle to me to do it, why should someone else interfere in that?

To be honest, it would probably stop me bothering to build and rent out flats if there was constant interference from the council. I imagine there would be a lot more people who would think the same. The result would be fewer houses/flats to let.

 

Actually housing, food and water is more or less effected by govt. The question is how much.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 00:35 ----------

 

An issue with this is that costs are not capped at inflation - which to me often seems to be a figure plucked out of the air half the time anyway.

 

The proposal is that rent are to be controlled

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2015 at 00:37 ----------

 

The market sets itself, it's like its own nebulous entity... thinking a Landlord or a bunch of Landlords operating at a micro level can control (set) a market at a macro level is a bit like thinking a government can. Neither can. But Landlords can set their own rent prices for their own properties... if they are successfully let then great, if not - time for a quick rethink.

 

When setting an initial price for a property I'm letting out I'd say that my opinion is the only one that counts... as with the example I gave, my opinion was obviously correct?

 

---------- Post added 01-05-2015 at 13:03 ----------

 

 

Two things on this... 1) Reed Rains were more gung-ho about setting the level than any other Agent I talked to - they wanted to go for £1,200. I backed away from that.

 

2) It's not a fundamental need for the Tenant that I have, it's turned into his Sheffield crash-pad, so he's only there about 10 nights a month and, I think, in and out of the Genting Club like there's no tomorrow.

 

So what are you going to do if rent increases are capped? Make less money i suppose.