General Election 2015

3 year contract..what if the proposed tenant does not want to commit to 3 years?

Then he doesnt have to, but I think he should be given the option. Im pretty sure that its easy enough to say that tenants must be offered a 3 year contract. But lets face it why wouldnt you accept it ? I would, it gives the tenant the security of fixed abode for 3 years. Typically there would likely still be a notice period should they wish to terminate early

Then he doesnt have to, but I think he should be given the option. Im pretty sure that its easy enough to say that tenants must be offered a 3 year contract. But lets face it why wouldnt you accept it ? I would, it gives the tenant the security of fixed abode for 3 years. Typically there would likely still be a notice period should they wish to terminate early

if he does not want to commit, then the landlord does not want to commit. What is the point?

Just make 3 year tenancy agreements an option to sign up to?

But its not tackling the root cause is it ? Its effectively burrying their heads in the sand over what the issues actually are. Both the rent crisis and energy price can be summed up simply buy a higher demand than there is supply. Or, to put it more pertinantly, not enough surplus of supply.

 

Both these issues are controlled by market forces. And both needed to have the incumbant government to actually act. And I blame both the tories and labour for it. We have needed more housing and more power stations for years, yet every government is happier to point the fingers at the big six and landlords rather then tackling the real issues.

 

3 year rental contracts are a good thing, trying to control rent is unfortunately, IMO, destined to fail.

You're going around in circles, mate.

Part of the reason that there isn't enough supply is because properties, including many former council properties, are in the hands of private landlords looking to re-pitch that accommodation to a more lucrative market. Brixton is a recent example, but see also places like Notting Hill.

The whole point of rent controls is to prevent market forces from being the only factor, so to blindly accept that the issues have to be controlled by the market, or indeed that the market can't be influenced by policy, is somewhat missing the point.

Ha, you're kidding right?

 

Substantiation is not for him.

Yeah , I was making a point really.

The ever impartial BBC, eh?

 

I think I'd rather hear from people that benefit from the policy (and can explain it better than Jamie via the BBC).

 

Ex-Lion-Tamer, fill your boots. Jamie; get someone to read the contents of this link out to you.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control

It was Marr saying that which annoyed me the most today actually, him making out that because economists are against full on rent control, they are against this quite moderate policy. Tim Montgomerie was also teaming up with the tory press office on twitter to make this deception

You're going around in circles, mate.

 

Part of the reason that there isn't enough supply is because properties, including many former council properties, are in the hands of private landlords looking to re-pitch that accommodation to a more lucrative market. Brixton is a recent example, but see also places like Notting Hill.

 

The whole point of rent controls is to prevent market forces from being the only factor, so to blindly accept that the issues have to be controlled by the market, or indeed that the market can't be influenced by policy, is somewhat missing the point.

How is that going around in circles exactly ? A lack of social housing is of course a lack of supply, and naturally that lack of supply will push up prices. Private landlords have of course hoovered up many of these properties, rightly or wrongly. But thats unnovoidable unless you wish to create some socialist heaven which prevents private investment into the housing market... Thats never going to happen.

So the answer is to build more houses. How will these rents be controlled exactly ? Or are you expecting a situation within which the rental value falls below that of the value of the house itself ? Which of course is fiscally madness. Its a great idea but explain to me how it can be effectively introduced ?

As I said, longer tenancy agreements and an increase in housing will go someway to help. But unfortunately we live in a capitalist society, and by nature that will mean its effected by market forces, none more so than housing and rents.

How is that going around in circles exactly ? A lack of social housing is of course a lack of supply, and naturally that lack of supply will push up prices. Private landlords have of course hoovered up many of these properties, rightly or wrongly. But thats unnovoidable unless you wish to create some socialist heaven which prevents private investment into the housing market... Thats never going to happen.

 

So the answer is to build more houses. How will these rents be controlled exactly ? Or are you expecting a situation within which the rental value falls below that of the value of the house itself ? Which of course is fiscally madness. Its a great idea but explain to me how it can be effectively introduced ?

 

As I said, longer tenancy agreements and an increase in housing will go someway to help. But unfortunately we live in a capitalist society, and by nature that will mean its effected by market forces, none more so than housing and rents.

We enforced price controls in this country from 1915-1980.

Rent regulation covered the whole of the UK private sector rental market from 1915 to 1980. However, from the Housing Act 1980, it became the Conservative Party's policy to deregulate the housing market, starting with abolition of all price controls, leaving a basic regulatory framework of freedom of contract. Rent regulations survive among a small number of council houses, and often the rates set by local authorities mirror escalating prices in the non-regulated private market.

When would you say the housing crisis began, if you had to pick a time?

You're also forgetting that all unpaid mortgages are IOUs. Fiscal madness is the system, and is nothing to be upheld. Lower the rents and cancel the IOUs.

And here we are once again debating a good piece of opposition policy proposal-making. Have the Tories no ideas of their own? All of the debate in this election is far from their turf, and they're constantly on the defensive.

Incidentally, Miliband, contra our wasp-chewing Batman, is not talking about the kind of rent controls you'd find in NYC, where huge swathes of private property are rent controlled pretty much ad infinitum. What he's actually arguing for are rental contracts longer than 12 months, which don't result in the miserable experience of ejected tenants every year. It's miles away from the price restraints that have been in place in Manhattan since WW2.

What he's actually arguing for are rental contracts longer than 12 months, which don't result in the miserable experience of ejected tenants every year. It's miles away from the price restraints that have been in place in Manhattan since WW2.

fair enough. Does that mean a Landlord HAS to offer a minimum contract over 12 months? if not, then surely they won't if they did, what is to stop them upping the rent from the off?

what about private landlords that have HMO licenses and charge per person per room so to speak?

Its cynical because he did not raise it at the time and has waited until an election to do so to try and link the tragic migrant deaths to Cameron. In fact his view at the time was;

 

“This is an important moment to recognise the National Transitional Council and their role in taking Libya forward and we’ve got to be led by them. It’s very important that Libyans determine their future.”

Of course it is. You can see it. I can see it. But Verbal when he doesn't like anything that is critical of his darling Labour Party and its leader goes overboard accusing people of being confused, in a frenzy, being partisan (just like him, of course) and living on Kipper Island, whatever that is.

Apparently although there is a duty for us to try and stabilise the country after our intervention, that rests solely on Cameron's shoulders and Milliband wiped his hands of it until the opportunity arose for some feeble point-scoring.

I notice that he hasn't bothered yet to reply to the frenzied, confused and partisan point you made.

Verbal:

I hope, as I'm sure you do, that when Miliband forms the next government he addresses this issue early on and urgently.

As far as I'm aware, there is no mention of any intention in Labour's manifesto to do anything at all to address this problem. It is obviously so important to him and Labour that it is not worth a mention even in passing. Therein lies the hypocrisy of making such an issue of it just now

And here we are once again debating a good piece of opposition policy proposal-making. Have the Tories no ideas of their own? All of the debate in this election is far from their turf, and they're constantly on the defensive.

 

Incidentally, Miliband, contra our wasp-chewing Batman, is not talking about the kind of rent controls you'd find in NYC, where huge swathes of private property are rent controlled pretty much ad infinitum. What he's actually arguing for are rental contracts longer than 12 months, which don't result in the miserable experience of ejected tenants every year. It's miles away from the price restraints that have been in place in Manhattan since WW2.

Even so, I'd welcome this.

Governments have a history of introducing a policy and then making that policy worse over time. Student loans, tuition fees, etc. My hope is that this would be similar foot-in-the-door legislation, only made better over time, because we simply cannot continue on our current course.

fair enough. Does that mean a Landlord HAS to offer a minimum contract over 12 months? if not, then surely they won't if they did, what is to stop them upping the rent from the off?

what about private landlords that have HMO licenses and charge per person per room so to speak?

I think that part of the plan is that the rental history of the property be disclosed to a potential tenant so that they can negotiate with the landlord. It would be obvious to the potential tenant if the landlord had upped the rent unfairly.

fair enough. Does that mean a Landlord HAS to offer a minimum contract over 12 months? if not, then surely they won't if they did, what is to stop them upping the rent from the off?

what about private landlords that have HMO licenses and charge per person per room so to speak?

This is the thing, it's not really about bringing rents down, it's just giving people security for three years without being priced out of their own homes

This is the thing, it's not really about bringing rents down, it's just giving people security for three years without being priced out of their own homes

I get that. Just asking the questions on how this can be implemented.

I get that. Just asking the questions on how this can be implemented.

OK, well I think landlords probably will up the rent from the off to make up for not being able to do so later on. But at least the tenant has the security of knowing what they'll be paying for the next three years

OK, well I think landlords probably will up the rent from the off to make up for not being able to do so later on. But at least the tenant has the security of knowing what they'll be paying for the next three years

fair enough. Does that mean a landlord will be required by law to offer a minimum of a 3 year deal or at least, over 12 months?

Nothing to stop tenants asking for contracts longer than 12 months, and nothing to stop landlords agreeing to it.

In my experience it's quite rare for tenants to want to commit to anything more than 12 months.

Don't have a problem with rental controls, even though perhaps I should, but I think it will be hard to control. Certainly won't get many people taking on 3 year contracts.

All I can see happening is massive initial price hikes to take into account the increases they'd likely implement over the 3 years. All they'd do is give it a lick of paint and say to the new tenants that it's been renovated, hence the increase over the previous tenant. As we all know there is a lack of properties this wouldn't be too much of an issue.

And here we are once again debating a good piece of opposition policy proposal-making. Have the Tories no ideas of their own? All of the debate in this election is far from their turf, and they're constantly on the defensive.

 

Incidentally, Miliband, contra our wasp-chewing Batman, is not talking about the kind of rent controls you'd find in NYC, where huge swathes of private property are rent controlled pretty much ad infinitum. What he's actually arguing for are rental contracts longer than 12 months, which don't result in the miserable experience of ejected tenants every year. It's miles away from the price restraints that have been in place in Manhattan since WW2.

I am with you on that, I think its been a pretty disastrous campaign from a tory perspective. Where so in the clear at the beginning of play but ultimately lost ground as Milliband has turned out to be a lot better than everyone originally expected. Id like to see the tories attack with something more than the lazy SNP scaremongering. We all know its dangerous to have the SNP anywhere near the UK parliament, but why bang the drum over and over.

Just to confirm my place on the rent cap issue, I fully support the minimum contract, I think its a great idea, but Id would say implementing a rental cap is destined to fail.

Can I just point out that price controls (not what Labour is suggesting, I know) would benefit nearly all of us, even the Tories?

Are we really happy paying the levels of Housing Benefit we do? Every taxpayer is lining a landlord's pockets. The Conservative answer was to simply not pay over a certain amount, putting the tenant in jeopardy. That has only really affected the capital (the cap is £400 pw), but a privately-rented former council house on my old estate still costs £1000 a month.

The only people that price controls would hit are the landlords and the banks. I reckon they've had enough out of us over the years.

 

In my experience it's quite rare for tenants to want to commit to anything more than happy 12 months.

I worked for a year at a large Letting Agent in Southampton many years ago. hardly anyone what so ever wanted a 12 month contract (bar students) out of the near on 800 houses we had on the books.

it has changed a lot since then, I suspect

We enforced price controls in this country from 1915-1980.

 

Rent regulation covered the whole of the UK private sector rental market from 1915 to 1980. However, from the Housing Act 1980, it became the Conservative Party's policy to deregulate the housing market, starting with abolition of all price controls, leaving a basic regulatory framework of freedom of contract. Rent regulations survive among a small number of council houses, and often the rates set by local authorities mirror escalating prices in the non-regulated private market.

 

When would you say the housing crisis began, if you had to pick a time?

 

You're also forgetting that all unpaid mortgages are IOUs. Fiscal madness is the system, and is nothing to be upheld. Lower the rents and cancel the IOUs.

Honestly ?

I think the right to buy scheme was an excellent policy that should have been implemented better afterwards. 28 billion into the treasury and how much was ring fenced to build more social housing ?

It is largely a redundant arguement though, we have had labour and tory governments that have failed since to rebuild the public assets we had back then. If someone would have acted then rents probably would have been unlikely to have risen as fast as they have.

fair enough. Does that mean a landlord will be required by law to offer a minimum of a 3 year deal or at least, over 12 months?

The default tenancy would be three years. These would start with a six month probation period. Tenants would be able to terminate contracts with at least one month notice as they can now while landlords would be able to terminate contracts with two months’ notice only if they can have good reason – not simply to put rents up. There would also be provision for new tenants like students or business people on temporary contracts to request shorter-term tenancies subject to the landlord’s agreement.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/117361995039/labours-plan-to-give-generation-rent-a-better-and

The default tenancy would be three years. These would start with a six month probation period. Tenants would be able to terminate contracts with at least one month notice as they can now while landlords would be able to terminate contracts with two months’ notice only if they can have good reason – not simply to put rents up. There would also be provision for new tenants like students or business people on temporary contracts to request shorter-term tenancies subject to the landlord’s agreement.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/117361995039/labours-plan-to-give-generation-rent-a-better-and

Define "good reason".

Define "good reason".

The landlord falling into arrears due to the rent cap ?

The landlord falling into arrears due to the rent cap ?

fancy moving back in....then quick change of mind?

completely unenforceable.

Honestly ?

 

I think the right to buy scheme was an excellent policy that should have been implemented better afterwards. 28 billion into the treasury and how much was ring fenced to build more social housing ?

 

It is largely a redundant arguement though, we have had labour and tory governments that have failed since to rebuild the public assets we had back then. If someone would have acted then rents probably would have been unlikely to have risen as fast as they have.

The big fear amongst property owners is that any sort of price controls are going to eat into the artificial value of their homes. If that happens, again my sympathy would be with the homeowners, not the banks that issued the loans. So if we have to write a bit of bank debt off to achieve an equitable result for most, I'm all for it.

As I said in my post to Verbal, we can't continue on our current course. I say this with a wee bit of hyperbole, but barring instances where people have just been rolled over (Mongols, etc), most civiilisations have unravelled due to the difference in rich and poor, and in many cases, have deteriorated to the point where they actually make attractive targets for would be aggressors. See the Roman Empire for that.

People need basics, and unfortunately, nearly all the basics are now in private hands, in a system which gives primacy to private interests. Pendulum has to swing the other way at some point, because it is costing us all.

Define "good reason".

Clearly that will need to be worked out and regulated. It's not that hard - we already have the tenancy deposit scheme which ensures that landlords can't deduct from deposits unless they have a good reason to (an excellent labour policy that has made a massive difference to tenant rights)

The big fear amongst property owners is that any sort of price controls are going to eat into the artificial value of their homes. If that happens, again my sympathy would be with the homeowners, not the banks that issued the loans. So if we have to write a bit of bank debt off to achieve an equitable result for most, I'm all for it.

 

As I said in my post to Verbal, we can't continue on our current course. I say this with a wee bit of hyperbole, but barring instances where people have just been rolled over (Mongols, etc), most civiilisations have unravelled due to the difference in rich and poor, and in many cases, have deteriorated to the point where they actually make attractive targets for would be aggressors. See the Roman Empire for that.

 

People need basics, and unfortunately, nearly all the basics are now in private hands, in a system which gives primacy to private interests. Pendulum has to swing the other way at some point, because it is costing us all.

Im all for hitting the banks, but again that will hurt us all, you cant just wipe out a significant level of debt. We all saw what happened the last time the banks took a battering. And we are all still feeling the pain. Unfortunately its us that pay, not the fat cats.

Secondly, that cannot happen without hurting homeowners, and should too many homeowners fall into arrears, hell, even landlords then again you risk a housing market crash (see above)

I agree, the current system isnt perfect, but socialism doesnt have all the answers either, it doesnt work effectively anywhere.

But I digress, the answer is to build more houses, plain and simple

Im all for hitting the banks, but again that will hurt us all, you cant just wipe out a significant level of debt. We all saw what happened the last time the banks took a battering. And we are all still feeling the pain. Unfortunately its us that pay, not the fat cats.

 

Secondly, that cannot happen without hurting homeowners, and should too many homeowners fall into arrears, hell, even landlords then again you risk a housing market crash (see above)

 

I agree, the current system isnt perfect, but socialism doesnt have all the answers either, it doesnt work effectively anywhere.

 

But I digress, the answer is to build more houses, plain and simple

Debt is wiped out all the time. It's completely artificial, and it pains me to see that people take it as some immutable system. The latest iteration, not tied to any specific commodity, is less than 100 years old. Fractional reserve lending is barely 300 years old, and was actually an illegal practice at the time.

The big fear amongst property owners is that any sort of price controls are going to eat into the artificial value of their homes. If that happens, again my sympathy would be with the homeowners, not the banks that issued the loans. So if we have to write a bit of bank debt off to achieve an equitable result for most, I'm all for it.

 

As I said in my post to Verbal, we can't continue on our current course. I say this with a wee bit of hyperbole, but barring instances where people have just been rolled over (Mongols, etc), most civiilisations have unravelled due to the difference in rich and poor, and in many cases, have deteriorated to the point where they actually make attractive targets for would be aggressors. See the Roman Empire for that.

 

People need basics, and unfortunately, nearly all the basics are now in private hands, in a system which gives primacy to private interests. Pendulum has to swing the other way at some point, because it is costing us all.

So you're happy to hit the pockets of homeowners, to lower the prices of those who rent?

Remind me Pap, do you rent or own?

So you're happy to hit the pockets of homeowners, to lower the prices of those who rent?

 

Remind me Pap, do you rent or own?

That post specifically mentions writing off debt to prevent homeowners from being smashed.

Learn to read, and then we'll talk.

That post specifically mentions writing off debt to prevent homeowners from being smashed.

 

Learn to read, and then we'll talk.

How would that work then Pap? You can't just batter the banks without it hurting the rest of us.

That post specifically mentions writing off debt to prevent homeowners from being smashed.

 

Learn to read, and then we'll talk.

How do you propose the debt is written off ?

How would that work then Pap? You can't just batter the banks without it hurting the rest of us.

You can, you should and as I said earlier, all those mortgages are IOUs.

If that penny isn't dropping for you, the pounds of the argument are never going to make sense.

A couple of points on the landlord thing. Generally speaking, it's in interest of the landlord to keep tenants as long as possible. It's a pain to change tenants, cleaning, vacant periods, contacts, references etc.

Also, if contracts are going to be for three years, don't you think that there will be some consideration for inflation in the longer contract? Given the lack of quality housing stock, it could cause prices to go up, hardly protecting the tenants is it?

Lastly, as mentioned by others what about students who must (guess) make up a reasonable percentage of the rental market? They don't want 3 year contracts and there are plenty of others like them. Maybe you just have to offer a 3 year contract? At the same rate as a 1 year contract? Maybe it's all in the detail?

You can, you should and as I said earlier, all those mortgages are IOUs.

 

If that penny isn't dropping for you, the pounds of the argument are never going to make sense.

You really don't live in the real world do you? You live in some pie in the sky utopia, and then you criticise people for not getting your 'unique' point of view.

You really don't live in the real world do you? You live in some pie in the sky utopia, and then you criticise people for not getting your 'unique' point of view.

Says the man that believes in the fiction of the banking system.

The big fear amongst property owners is that any sort of price controls are going to eat into the artificial value of their homes. If that happens, again my sympathy would be with the homeowners, not the banks that issued the loans. So if we have to write a bit of bank debt off to achieve an equitable result for most, I'm all for it.

 

.

Jesus. You've not though that through at all, have you?

So homeowners find themselves out of pocket, so what shall we do? Oooh, yeah, let's introduce more legislation that forces lenders to write off some of those loans!

What do you think the banking reaction to that would be? Sit by and do nothing and see their bottom lines take a hit, or insure themselves from further government raids by hiking up mortgage lending rates?

Now what happens pap, now that mortgage lending rates have jumped to an unaffordable 10%+? Who pays the heaviest price now?

Says the man that believes in the fiction of the banking system.

Says the man that believes in the fiction of the banking system.

Do you use a bank Pap?

You can, you should and as I said earlier, all those mortgages are IOUs.

 

If that penny isn't dropping for you, the pounds of the argument are never going to make sense.

Laughable. You're barking (up the wrong tree).

Jesus. You've not though that through at all, have you?

 

So homeowners find themselves out of pocket, so what shall we do? Oooh, yeah, let's introduce more legislation that forces lenders to write off some of those loans!

 

What do you think the banking reaction to that would be? Sit by and do nothing and see their bottom lines take a hit, or insure themselves from further government raids by hiking up mortgage lending rates?

 

Now what happens pap, now that mortgage lending rates have jumped to an unaffordable 10%+? Who pays the heaviest price now?

 

I don't believe that usury is a good thing either, so I don't give a f**k what the banking system thinks of it. My entire point is that the creation and distribution of money is arbitrary and artificial. Yet we'll let our own people starve in deference to it.

You are using fiction to support fiction. You may as well be talking about the potential rise of orcs in Middle Earth if the elves decide to do the offs. It's about as relevant.

I don't believe that usury is a good thing either, so I don't give a f**k what the banking system thinks of it. My entire point is that the creation and distribution of money is arbitrary and artificial. Yet we'll let our own people starve in deference to it.

 

You are using fiction to support fiction. You may as well be talking about the potential rise of orcs in Middle Earth if the elves decide to do the offs. It's about as relevant.

With respect Pap, because I like you, this really needs its own thread as there is literally no point it being debated with here. Its just never going to work is it ? What do you propose we go to instead of the banking systems we use now ?

Do you use a bank Pap?

I use two. One for current, and another for savings.

Hate the game, not the players that have no choice but to play it.

A couple of points on the landlord thing. Generally speaking, it's in interest of the landlord to keep tenants as long as possible. It's a pain to change tenants, cleaning, vacant periods, contacts, references etc.

Also, if contracts are going to be for three years, don't you think that there will be some consideration for inflation in the longer contract? Given the lack of quality housing stock, it could cause prices to go up, hardly protecting the tenants is it?

 

Lastly, as mentioned by others what about students who must (guess) make up a reasonable percentage of the rental market? They don't want 3 year contracts and there are plenty of others like them. Maybe you just have to offer a 3 year contract? At the same rate as a 1 year contract? Maybe it's all in the detail?

Rents will be allowed to increase with inflation within the three years, and students will be able to agree one year contacts. See the link I posted earlier

What is everyones thoughts on Labours proposed rent caps ? Personally I see it as a potential 'vote swinger' that in reality is destined to fail long term. I just dont see how you could possibly control it.

 

Its similar to the energy price freeze policy that they championed for so long. All in all its just a load of political blustering of which IMO is destined really to fail miserably. We are already seeing what a think will be a reduced spend on network infrastructure at least over the next 2-3 years to try to claw money back that would potentially be lost. And lets be honest, we all know whats coming after the freeze

Long term, its a crap idea. As a short term fix while they address affordability in better more strategic ways - particulalrly building more houses, its not a bad thing.

With respect Pap, because I like you, this really needs its own thread as there is literally no point it being debated with here. Its just never going to work is it ? What do you propose we go to instead of the banking systems we use now ?

Right now, the banking system is driven by consumer demand, again itself completely artificial because we're constantly being marketed to. One of the best ideas I've heard is that money should only be created for infrastructure projects. The topic under discussion, housing, would obviously be part of that.

The huge objection I have is the primacy of the banking system. It is under no real government control, and more often than not, is setting the agenda for us all. See austerity in all its forms across the continent. Each and every life that is affected is a consequence of supporting the fiction.

Long term, its a crap idea. As a short term fix while they address affordability in better more strategic ways - particulalrly building more houses, its not a bad thing.

Why is it a crap idea?

Nothing to stop tenants asking for contracts longer than 12 months, and nothing to stop landlords agreeing to it.

 

In my experience it's quite rare for tenants to want to commit to anything more than 12 months.

The tenants are only committing to one month.

It will put rents up, no doubt. And in what cloud cuckoo land does knowing what the previous tenant was paying give you some kind of negotiating trump card?

Right now, the banking system is driven by consumer demand, again itself completely artificial because we're constantly being marketed to. One of the best ideas I've heard is that money should only be created for infrastructure projects. The topic under discussion, housing, would obviously be part of that.

 

The huge objection I have is the primacy of the banking system. It is under no real government control, and more often than not, is setting the agenda for us all. See austerity in all its forms across the continent. Each and every life that is affected is a consequence of supporting the fiction.

But whats the alternative ? Part of my job is keeping the lights on for want of a better way of saying it by working in the power distribution industry. How do you plan to keep me providing that service without the banking system ?