Richlist Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 Watching the debate on tv last night I discovered that a couple of Labour's wacky, ill thought out proposals if they are elected affect the private rented sector. 1. They intend to introduce European style rental contracts of 3 year duration. If I'm faced with having to use 3 year contracts where I can't increase rents I'll just charge more at the outset....that will have the effect of increasing rents making it even more difficult for tenants to afford. 2. They intend to stop lettings agents charging landlords & tenants. Presumably they will only be able to charge the landlord. If landlords are paying the combined landlord and tenant charges landlords will then increase rents to cover their additional expenses. Vote Labour only if you want the private rented sector ruined. They really haven't got a clue what they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 hear hear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 I never watch these hot air debates as they are, to me, quite pointless. Doesn't matter which party you support any interference by Government can be a pain in the backside, Just think HIP's introduced by the last Labour Government. What a raging costly business that was and more to the point it didn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 A greater concern for me is a mandatory 36 month AST. An abusing T can't be hoofed on a S21 during the fixed term. Often the S21 is the best way to get shut of an abuser as there is so much discretion with a S8. So if the problems are in the latter part of a fixed period I will take the S21 route that has no (nowadays less at any rate) risk of failure. My thoughts for a while is that with ever increasing legislation controlling our business is that we are close to becoming no more than social LL's, running the business for the state. This would be even more of that dictator style control. I believe the increased losses for me would be more than the business could bear. A non paying T with ridiculous defences raised by Shelter would only get evicted at the discretion of a socialist minded County Court judge, and after I had paid for the 'service' too. But how do you feel about funding the Tory right to buy proposal. As tax payers we must end up paying the housing associations the difference between the discount sale price and the market value. They also state that each property sold will mean one built, paid for by us again. I don't for one minute believe this funding will come from the sale of the high value council properties, mind how much is No 10 worth? All money raised will be used many times over to fulfill just a few of the manifesto promises, and as usual they will be off to get more loans to be paid off.....never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted April 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 I agree that the Tory right to buy for housing associations is also wrong BUT it doesn't have the direct adverse affect on my rental business that the Labour plans clearly have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 Very true. Maybe it's time to rent my home out and take a housing association house, for a while. One way of recouping my tax when I sell it or rent it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Even if a 36 month tenancy was mandatory there must be a mechanism in place if a tenant wants less than 36 months. So you have a 750 pcm property with a 1000 deposit that is advertised at 1000 pcm and 2000 deposit or the lower rate if the tenant agrees to a shorter tenancy. If tenant fees are banned it will lead to: 1 Rents will increase 2 Service will be reduced by the agent 3 Extra charges being brought in to charge landlords more 4 Guarantor fees being greatly increased. 5 Commission % being creeped up by agents 6 More landlords trying to do it themselves and muddling their way through it. 7 More evictions by landlords who tried to self manage. 8 Less properties to rent as landlords decide to sell up 9 More mickey mouse agents with lower fees and no skills or training. Why don't these idiot politicians talk to the industries before meddling it them. The way forward is to put controls on fees and how much can be charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Why more controls anyway. T's have choice to pay or not to pay, as do LL's with A's. If we desire we can offer a longer tenancy and a tenant can negotiate a longer tenancy already, well try anyway. While we would be held in for 3 years I can't imagine a court holding an absconding T to his 2 years + of rents when he has relocated. Once again though we would be expected to suffer the losses of a T who abuses and stops paying until we eventually hoof 'em. Grampa your thoughts of giving incentive to a T accepting a lesser length of tenancy would surely go against legislation and fail come court time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Why more controls anyway. T's have choice to pay or not to pay, as do LL's with A's. I agree and that is my first choice but as they have banned them in Scotland I can see it happening here sometime so the comprise in my view is to put controls/limits on amounts that can be charged. I am more than happy with the system as it is. If we desire we can offer a longer tenancy and a tenant can negotiate a longer tenancy already, well try anyway. And the reason we (the landlords) don't normally give a longer tenancy is because we want to protect ourselves against bad tenants. Good tenants have nothing to worry about. While we would be held in for 3 years I can't imagine a court holding an absconding T to his 2 years + of rents when he has relocated. Once again though we would be expected to suffer the losses of a T who abuses and stops paying until we eventually hoof 'em. Quite right. Grampa your thoughts of giving incentive to a T accepting a lesser length of tenancy would surely go against legislation and fail come court time. Possibly, it depends on how its worded. That was just my idea with 30 sec on thought to counter it. There will be a lot cleverer people than me trying to come up with angles to avoid it just give it time. Its the banning of fees than are the biggest worry to me as a agent and I charge less than most the agents in my area. I will have to re-think my whole business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted April 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 .....and still the politicians are talking about an election on May 7th. Elections no longer take place on polling day due to something called postal voting. Large numbers of the electorate have already cast their votes. May 7th is just the day that the votes are counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 How would labours rent reform effect you? Ed Miliband proposes to put a stop to families being “ripped off” by private landlords by introducing three year tenancy agreements in the private sector. The proposal includes limiting the amount of rent increases and a ban for letting agents charging tenants fees. The new three-year tenancy agreements would start with a six-month probationary period, at the end of which the landlord would be able to terminate the contract if the tenant was deemed to have failed the probation – for example, if there were rent arrears or there had been anti-social behaviour. This would then be followed by a two-and-a-half-year term during which tenants would be able, as they are now, to terminate the contract with one month's notice. Landlords would only be able to terminate contracts with two months' notice (Section 21) if: • The tenant was behind with their rent, was guilty of anti-social behaviour or breached their tenancy agreement • The landlord wanted to sell the property, needed it for their own use, or required it for their family • The landlord planned to refurbish or change the use of the property "Landlords would not be able to terminate tenancies simply to put rents up," says Labour. There are exceptions such as landlords with buy-to-let mortgages taken out prior to the legislation taking effect to continue using shorter agreements where the mortgage small print does not cater for longer tenancies. There would also be provision for new tenants such as students or workers on temporary contracts to request shorter-term tenancies, subject to the landlord agreeing to this. The legislation would place an upper ceiling on rent increases. Labour says this would be based on a benchmark such as average market rents. It may or may not also be linked to inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted April 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 There are so many holes in these plans that I suspect some landlords will be able to drive a bus through these proposals.....I'll be somewhere at the front of the queue ready to do precisely that. + The law already allows 3 year AST's, well 3 years less 1 day. + In my experience it's the Tenant that wants the flexibility of a shorter contract not the landlord. + Not only will current mortgage terms and conditions be an issue so will wording of leases. Totally unbelievable. Do political parties ever ask for help from experts ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 It's all soundbites to gain votes. In this case Milliband hopes that Generation Renter's will sit up and take note of his weak and inoperable policy and perhaps vote for him. He is still a Plank though and always will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 I think the renters who don't have the intelligence to see the flaws in this proposal will already vote for him, or UKIP. Those that understand better won't see the advantages that aren't there anyway. At least with the present fixed period it works both ways. Some how he sees it reasonable that we are tied for 2 1/2 years and they are only tied for a month, any repossession attempt would be at the discretion of a judge and we know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grampa Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 It seems to me that Labour are making the silly assumption that the majority of tenants will now vote for them on the back of these proposals.But the way I see it is the only extra votes will be the tenants and supporters who in their eyes have been ripped off or treated badly by their landlords or agents and not all of them anyway as not everyone's voting preference is decided on one policy.But I could see a bloody lot of landlords commercial and residencial who haven't decided who their voting for yet steering clear of labour come voting day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 I always think of Hazel Blears Labour MP. Openly forced to pay back money for non entitlement of MP's expenses and waving her cheque around for all to see..... and in the 2010 General Election is voted back in with an increased majority. Former Labour Cabinet minister Hazel Blears - who repaid thousands of pounds of capital gains tax at the height of the MPs' expenses scandal five years ago - is standing down as an MP. Says it all for me that in some Labour area's you could put a donkey up for election with a big red rosette and the donkey would win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 I hadn't considered that one Grampa. If any LL's do actually vote Labour this could well lose 'em. So if they can't understand that a greater minus than a positive = a minus how can we trust them with our economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Well, thank goodness we don't have to discuss Ted Milliband's new proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richlist Posted May 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Our celebrations ended lunchtime.....going to catch up on sleep now, happy in the knowledge we have a Tory Gov and I can continue to be nasty to the Scots. Whatever they get, they want more. Let's hope the Tory's give them a very rough ride over the next 5 years.... I certainly will at every opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestnut Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Steady on RL! Scotland is not a bad place for holidays. And as only half of their population seem to want 'out', one shouldn't generalise, like some politicians might do about landlords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Less than half, of the voters,,,,, last time. The SIP (Scottish Independence Party) will be at it again soon even though they said the last one was a one off. Now you can stop harassing your T's to vote Tory RL. Truth is I don't trust Camaroon with total power, I would have preferred the Lib / Dem's to have some moderating influence. But still, better than Labour getting in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortitia Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 Hazel Blears - quite agree - the electorate in some areas are just dim. It was a joy to see Ed Balls get the heave ho. Never mind all that at least we can get back to seeing/hearing some proper news on TV and Radio. I did my best to avoid all politics without success. What could Cameroon do that is so bad? Best of a duff bunch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 Ed Balls. Oh! what joy it was to see his face. I bet he still can't believe what hit him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 The Kremlin have raised an objection to the way our Election was run. They can't understand why Putin didn't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 The Kremlin have raised an objection to the way our Election was run. They can't understand why Putin didn't win. That would not surprise me one bit. Like the Irish election a few years back to keep on having a re-election until the right result is achieved that people didn't want in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.