|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 22, 2023 15:15:03 GMT
And there we disagree
The fact that there are so many horror stories and so many bastard landlords out there, who can behave badly proves my point
The stories I hear from my wife demonstrate it's the wild west out there and the rental sector is one which needs to be urgently professionalised to sort out all the rogue landlords
The fact that reforms have cross party support proves my point
The Tories would not make a manifesto commitment about no fault evictions if there wasn't an issue
I'd also increase fixed term tenancies. Say a 5 year period - with landlords only having the power to evict their tenants if they break their agreements or don't pay the rent.
I'd also restrict rent increases - no more than inflation and then only at set times
More generally we need to address the chronic shortage of social homes in this country. The housing shortage is the root of the housing emergency. Social housing would also cut the housing benefits that currenlty gets paid to private landlords
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 15:17:55 GMT
The fact that there are so many horror stories and so many bastard landlords out there, who can behave badly proves my point I've no doubt you're correct – but that's a different argument. I'm talking about the rules being stacked against landlords and you're talking about landlords who break the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 22, 2023 15:30:49 GMT
The only thing I am aware of that is "stacked against landlords" is the time it can sometimes take to evict badly behaved tenants (up to five months)
Unless you find it onerous to provide a gas safety or energy performance certificate every year?
Or protect a deposit?
Or put in smoke and carbon monoxide alarms?
Or pay tax?
What is it that you feel should be changed to further favour the landlord?
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 15:37:27 GMT
The only thing I am aware of that is "stacked against landlords" is the time it can sometimes take to evict badly behaved tenants (up to five months) Unless you find it onerous to provide a gas safety or energy performance certificate every year? Or protect a deposit? Or put in smoke and carbon monoxide alarms? Or pay tax? What is it that you feel should be changed to further favour the landlord? You've hit the nail on the head: several months to evict a non-paying, destructive or antisocial tenant is far too long. There's also the risk that the tenant will trash the place before leaving as revenge for the eviction, which the police (in general) would not treat as a criminal offence. However, it is a criminal offence for the landlord to attempt to prevent the non-paying, destructive or antisocial tenant from continuing to access the property without a court order; it could even be construed as harassment if the landlord fails to provide the same level of service to a non-paying tenant as to one who continues to pay the rent. No problem with the gas safety certificate or carbon monoxide alarm, although I did think the law change a couple of years ago that rental properties had to meet the latest electrical standards was overkill. I was quoted £3,795 by my letting agents to improve the electrics in a flat with 1990s wiring (entirely safe and hardly the dark ages in terms of electrical knowhow). Knowing that agents' contractors usually attempt to rip off landlords, I obtained my own quotes and got the work done for £1,450. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Nov 22, 2023 15:47:59 GMT
But would help to cause stagnation in the economy as so many people would have less disposable income. Yes. The Government is now walking a tightrope between controlling inflation and tipping the economy into recession. Their clear indication that they are planning to introduce tax cuts in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement seems odd to me, given that just a year ago Sunak and co were vilifying Liz Truss for doing the same. Whilst I agree ideologically with lower taxes, this doesn't seem to me to be the right time to take that step. Not about what's best for the Country but what's best for the Tories at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 15:52:27 GMT
Not about what's best for the Country but what's best for the Tories at the moment. Yes, I'd agree with that: their backs are against the wall and they're getting desperate. In fairness, the cuts they've proposed were fairly tentative and don't appear to have spooked the financial markets: the FTSE 250 is about three-quarters of a percent up today. But we'll know whether they've caused alarm if bond yields suddenly shift, which is what happened last year to scupper Liz Truss. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Nov 22, 2023 16:05:11 GMT
Do you do this deliberately? What about the poor suckers who have to pay for the rent? They then press for more wages to cover for their real term loss of income and so the inflationary cycle moves inexorably upwards The main point though is that he's a hypocrite. No wonder he tried to hide this stuff. I'm glad he's been outed for the hypocrite he is Sure – a rent rise can be indirectly inflationary, for the reason you mention. But it is likely to be directly deflationary, as the money collected is statistically more likely to be saved than spent. As for hypocrisy, there is none. Arguing that millions of public sector workers should not receive large pay rises due to the stimulatory effect on the economy does not oblige Mr Hunt to let his handful of properties for below market rent. With regard to "hiding this stuff" – it's nobody's business but his and his tenants what rent he charges, and has nothing to do with his role as a politician. One might as well argue that the "investigative journalist" (and I use the term loosely) who uncovered this non-story is a hypocrite for accusing Mr Hunt of fuelling inflation by charging a market rent, as doubtless he himself accepts the market rate for his own work and doesn't offer a discount to help fight inflation. You cannot deny there is seemingly a huge conflict of interest in the amount of Tory backbenchers and Cabinet ministers who are landlords, and the subsequent constant watering down of tenants rights policies such as no fault evictions and the like. Mr. Hunt's influence has a direct affect on his earnings potential outside of politics. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Nov 22, 2023 16:11:39 GMT
To me, the Jeremy Hunt thing is just a cheap and irrelevant smear, since raising housing costs is generally deflationary. Johnson and his cabal's behaviour was entirely different. It indicated that either they did not believe in the laws they'd introduced or thought themselves above the law or both. They are now reaping what they sowed, with Labour more than 20 points ahead in the polls. If memory serves, when Hunt was Health minister he heavily pushed "video appointment tech" which it turned out he had interests in, Hunt is part of a Conservative Party that is thoroughly discredited. The lack of new "talent" coming through the Party and the constant merry go round of the same dodgy spiv types must be a serious concern for any serious Conservative voter. A half way decent moderate Labour Party could put them out of power for a decade or two. |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 16:12:18 GMT
You cannot deny there is seemingly a huge conflict of interest in the amount of Tory backbenchers and Cabinet ministers who are landlords, and the subsequent constant watering down of tenants rights policies such as no fault evictions and the like. That's certainly one way of looking at it. Another is to say that those MPs have direct experience of the system, giving them an insight that the man on the street doesn't have. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 22, 2023 16:12:41 GMT
You've hit the nail on the head: several months to evict a non-paying, destructive or antisocial tenant is far too long It's an area of the law that should also be changed. We agree BUT if that's the extent of your complaints then that's certainly not my definition of "the rules being stacked against landlords" |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 16:18:14 GMT
You've hit the nail on the head: several months to evict a non-paying, destructive or antisocial tenant is far too long It's an area of the law that should also be changed. We agree BUT if that's the extent of your complaints then that's certainly not my definition of "the rules being stacked against landlords" That's my main objection, yes – and also the fact that the normal legal relationship between service provider and customer is upended in landlord/tenant legislation. By that, I mean it's generally illegal to consume a product or service you're not paying for. With lettings, it's illegal for the landlord not to provide the service that isn't being paid for. That's pretty fundamental to me, and coupled with the difficulty in evicting bad tenants certainly constitutes "the rules being stacked against landlords" to my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Nov 22, 2023 16:22:06 GMT
It's a fucking disgrace and if you think that is an improvement which makes Britain "a much better place than it was when Thatcher took over in 1979" then I despair Britain is in a better place than it was in the late seventies. Back then, inflation had hit 20% and was deeply embedded, causing untold misery for people on fixed incomes. This time it barely exceeded 10% and was rapidly brought down by quick intervention from the Bank of England. Right now the base rate is 5.25%. Under Labour in 1979 it hit 14%, making mortgages and loans cripplingly expensive – and it is generally poorer people who need to borrow and richer people who save. Right now the top rate of income tax is 45%. From 1974 to 1979 it was 98%, stifling entrepreneurship and causing a massive brain drain. Even at those rates, Labour was completely unable to balance the books and in 1976 Britain came closer than it ever has to national bankruptcy, requiring the intervention of the International Monetary Fund, which demanded some of the most savage austerity measures in history in return for financial support. Right now, widespread industrial action has caused only limited inconvenience to the British public. Back then, the unions were capable of bringing Britain to a standstill: shops were empty of food, corpses were rotting unburied and rats were swarming across mountains of rubbish in Central London, reducing it to the level of a third-world city. Whereas the Callaghan government had been craven in the face of its union paymasters, Thatcher gave them a bloody nose and like all bullies they backed down when they realised their behaviour was no longer going to be tolerated. Right now even the poorest people have access to smartphones. computers, satellite TV and other luxuries that would have been unimaginable to poor people in the seventies: a time when 25% of British households could not even afford a landline. For sure, property has become hugely expensive and unaffordable for many people, but that's partly because many of the other necessities of life have become much cheaper in real terms. But there's a reason that no government, Tory or Labour, has deviated significantly from the Thatcherite template since 1979, and nor will Starmer if he gets in. That's because we've witnessed the alternative and it was vastly worse. "Britain is in a better place than it was in the late seventies." Way too complex an issue to make such a generalisation, and the cost of housing, be it in mortgage or rent, has such a major affect on the whole fabric of society that that alone has caused major changes. Back then a man's wage could fund the purchase of a house along with a car and a holiday, a woman could stay at home if she wished and raise children and a decent standard of living was maintained. Now, two good wages are required which has a direct knock on to indigenous birth rates which leads to the need for future immigration to fund the pensions to support those who are living longer. More pretty things to fill our ever more limited time whilst fuelling ever greater levels of stress and other mental conditions. I wouldn't want to be starting out now, it's a much crueller and tougher world. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Nov 22, 2023 16:25:55 GMT
You cannot deny there is seemingly a huge conflict of interest in the amount of Tory backbenchers and Cabinet ministers who are landlords, and the subsequent constant watering down of tenants rights policies such as no fault evictions and the like. That's certainly one way of looking at it. Another is to say that those MPs have direct experience of the system, giving them an insight that the man on the street doesn't have. That insight always seems to protect landlords and go against tenant protection though, funny that.  |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 16:28:35 GMT
Absolutely true that housing costs have gone through the roof in real terms. But that's partly because many other things are much cheaper now in real terms, freeing up purchasing power. It's also true that houses could often be bought on a single income back then, but that's partly because people were willing to go without things (consumer goods and services as basic as a landline) back then that they wouldn't be willing to forgo now.
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Nov 22, 2023 16:29:30 GMT
That insight always seems to protect landlords and go against tenant protection though, funny that. Given that I believe landlord/tenant law is already weighted heavily in favour of tenants, that doesn't necessarily strike me as a bad thing. |
|
