Rent controls - good or bad?

[Hippogriff]

So pretty terrible news for landlords then, since shorthold tenancy agreements at the moment give neither party the option to end the agreement early. (Where did you get the detail about tenants being able to exit early?)

 

It's not that terrible... at least I don't feel it is. I think most Landlords want to have longer-term Tenants, the churn created when a tenancy ends is not a desirable thing.

 

So... the Labour plan for 3 year tenancies has a 6 month probationary period. The Landlord can end the tenancy after 6 months if the Tenant can be said to have failed the probationary period, otherwise it goes on for another 2.5 years and the Landlord can only evict if the Tenant breaks the agreement (probably in a major way). From the other side, the Tenant can't just up and leave in that initial 6 month period, either... that's like your current fixed term AST of 6 months... but they can after that, for the next 2.5 years, pretty much just like the tenancy had gone periodic. Also, a Landlord can end the tenancy (and therefore evict the Tenant) if they need the property back for themselves or a close family member, I gather.

 

So, I think there's a lot of alarmist stuff regarding this.

 

BTW... read all of this by just reading articles about it, it's not hidden away.

 

Rent controls (or caps), on other hand, do not seem the smartest idea to me. I think a property should find its own place in the market... and can do that. I watched The Daily Politics today and the Labour MP on there did utter the words "We believe that Government can control markets." and that worries me. Not only because I think she was wrong, but because she really doesn't realise it. I am of the opinion that Governments can try, but fail because they are slow and lumbering whereas markets are [can be] dynamic and fast-moving.

 

I do not mind new legislation regarding things like revenge evictions. I strongly feel a Tenant should not be fearful of reporting a repair issue to a Landlord. I would say that it is this Government that has brought that in, though.

 

P.S. - obviously any tenancy can be ended by mutual agreement, whether in the fixed term or not.

[geared]

It's not that terrible... at least I don't feel it is. I think most Landlords want to have longer-term Tenants, the churn created when a tenancy ends is not a desirable thing.

 

Probably should have red what the poster wrote before quoting him there.

 

I offered any length contract to my tenants in the past, and both sets (including one family with a child) wanted 6 months only.

[Hippogriff]

Different viewpoint.

[geared]

Different viewpoint.

 

What as in Cyclone has first hand experience of the market, and you have just your opinion???

[Hippogriff]

No, as in most Landlords would like Tenants to stay on for longer and some Tenants might want the flexibility of a minimum 6 month fixed term, followed by it going periodic.

 

P.S. - sorry, but I don't know who Cyclone is, is Cyclone a well-known property mogul in these parts? I am not sure if I should know of Cyclone by reputation (you seem to be possibly implying that?) so I'm a bit confused by your angry-sounding question.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Hippogriff

[Justin Smith]

The contract should be similar to those offered by the council, ongoing until the tenant wants to leave, stops paying or doesn't follow the terms and condition of their tenancy.

 

Have you any idea how hard and expensive it is to get a bad tenant out ? If you had you wouldn`t be coming out with such trite advice......

You say the tenancy would be ongoing till the tenant wants to leave ? Are you saying the option to leave should only be in one direction, i.e. whether the tenant wants to move out ? Why is that ? How fair is that ? Have you actually thought about any of this ?

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 14:08 ----------

 

It's not that terrible... at least I don't feel it is. I think most Landlords want to have longer-term Tenants, the churn created when a tenancy ends is not a desirable thing.

 

So... the Labour plan for 3 year tenancies has a 6 month probationary period. The Landlord can end the tenancy after 6 months if the Tenant can be said to have failed the probationary period, otherwise it goes on for another 2.5 years and the Landlord can only evict if the Tenant breaks the agreement (probably in a major way). From the other side, the Tenant can't just up and leave in that initial 6 month period, either... that's like your current fixed term AST of 6 months... but they can after that, for the next 2.5 years, pretty much just like the tenancy had gone periodic. Also, a Landlord can end the tenancy (and therefore evict the Tenant) if they need the property back for themselves or a close family member, I gather.

 

So, I think there's a lot of alarmist stuff regarding this.

 

BTW... read all of this by just reading articles about it, it's not hidden away.

 

Rent controls (or caps), on other hand, do not seem the smartest idea to me. I think a property should find its own place in the market... and can do that. I watched The Daily Politics today and the Labour MP on there did utter the words "We believe that Government can control markets." and that worries me. Not only because I think she was wrong, but because she really doesn't realise it. I am of the opinion that Governments can try, but fail because they are slow and lumbering whereas markets are [can be] dynamic and fast-moving.

 

I do not mind new legislation regarding things like revenge evictions. I strongly feel a Tenant should not be fearful of reporting a repair issue to a Landlord. I would say that it is this Government that has brought that in, though.

 

P.S. - obviously any tenancy can be ended by mutual agreement, whether in the fixed term or not.

 

And how do you think the landlord has to go about proving that ? Go to court or some other expensive solution ? A solution that the landlord pays for in nearly every case. Even if the tenant is found in the wrong they just disappear and the landlord has to pursue them for the money.

Believe me you really have no idea how bad some tenants can be. I`m so paranoid about getting a bad tenant that I`ll only rent out my flats to people over 40 who are working, I`ve had to learn from bitter experience. I`d sooner have them empty or use them as storage than risk a young (even worse out of work and young) tenant.

 

On your last point any landlord who has half a brain wants his tenants to report defects in the property. It`s his/her property and he should want to keep it in good repair. Small easily repairable faults can develop into expensive, major repairs. if anything I get concerned when my tenants don`t report faults with the flats.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Justin Smith

[geared]

P.S. - sorry, but I don't know who Cyclone is, is Cyclone a well-known property mogul in these parts? I am not sure if I should know of Cyclone by reputation (you seem to be possibly implying that?) so I'm a bit confused by your angry-sounding question.

 

No-one knows who anyone else is.

 

but they were a poster on this thread, posting about personal experience with the rental market.

Edited April 27, 2015 by geared

[Cyclone]

It's not that terrible... at least I don't feel it is. I think most Landlords want to have longer-term Tenants, the churn created when a tenancy ends is not a desirable thing.

The bit that I said was terrible was the right for tenants to end the tenancy at any point with just 1 months notice. A right they do NOT currently have.

I also asked where this detail came from.

 

So... the Labour plan for 3 year tenancies has a 6 month probationary period. The Landlord can end the tenancy after 6 months if the Tenant can be said to have failed the probationary period, otherwise it goes on for another 2.5 years and the Landlord can only evict if the Tenant breaks the agreement (probably in a major way). From the other side, the Tenant can't just up and leave in that initial 6 month period, either... that's like your current fixed term AST of 6 months... but they can after that, for the next 2.5 years, pretty much just like the tenancy had gone periodic.

So only a disadvantage to the landlord then, not the tenant.

Also, a Landlord can end the tenancy (and therefore evict the Tenant) if they need the property back for themselves or a close family member, I gather.

Always been the case I believe, so not a change.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 14:47 ----------

 

No, as in most Landlords would like Tenants to stay on for longer and some Tenants might want the flexibility of a minimum 6 month fixed term, followed by it going periodic.

 

P.S. - sorry, but I don't know who Cyclone is, is Cyclone a well-known property mogul in these parts? I am not sure if I should know of Cyclone by reputation (you seem to be possibly implying that?) so I'm a bit confused by your angry-sounding question.

 

No, I just hand a single house to let when I couldn't sell it. And these were only anecdotes, so not reliable evidence.

[spider1]

If they do you are free to exit the contract.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 12:54 ----------

 

 

This seems to be a common misconception on this thread so far;

 

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/private_renting/ending_a_tenancy/ending_a_fixed_term_agreement

 

 

Whilst within the fixed period a tenant cannot give notice and leave. They are liable to pay for the full assured term.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 12:56 ----------

 

 

Many don't want to buy though.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 13:01 ----------

 

 

What tax relief do they get?

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 13:02 ----------

 

 

It matters if you want to move house, have £90k of mortgage and a house worth 1k... You're staying right where you. For the rest of your life.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 13:03 ----------

 

 

It's 'greed' to sell up before half the value of your house is effectively confiscated by the state and given to someone else.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 13:04 ----------

 

 

They don't need a 30k deposit anyway.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 13:07 ----------

 

 

Giving the landlord absolutely no predictable security of income...

 

The 6 month assured period gives the landlord and the tenant confidence, tenants (in my experience) don't want a longer fixed term and are happy to stay on a rolling contract with 1 months notice for them, and 2 from the landlord required to end the contract.

This seems entirely reasonable and workable, there is no reason to mandate 3 year fixed terms.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 13:07 ----------

 

 

What exactly were the other 11 doing that was in breach of contract?

They don't need. a 30k deposit anyway.// Back to your internet cyclone how much do you think 10 percent of 150.000 is .:loopy:

[Cyclone]

It's normally 15k... Did you think it was 30k?