HMOs can be a nightmare, anyone complaining about the spread of new build houses should have to live next to one. I have just been clearing the back ally behind one of my places, furniture, bags of dog poo, a fridge, takeaway bags etc. you can tell which houses are HMO by the depth in the ally behind. Give it 6 weeks and you won't know I bothered. Eight years ago it was a nice neighborhood, I only buy places I would live in myself - not any more, this one will go on the market and the problem will get worse.
No Fault Evictions
- Thread starter Ozi
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Most businesses involve doing far more work for equivalent profit but all their assets fall in value. Property owning and letting is very peculiar.
It's a "broken" system, whatever that means exactly.
Never looked at commodities trading, futures, currency, stock market?
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Exactly. Strictly for gamblers/speculators. Not a reliable basis for providing homes for all.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
I understand your frustration regarding rogue landlords seemingly getting away with it. Which regulations do you think have imposed unreasonable requirements though?
Never
Every institution, pension fund, insurance fund, the city and government are up to the eyeballs in real estate.
If prices collapse, then so does the country, the currency and the banks.
I’m all for some creative destruction but I fear the very liberals who scream about ‘the working poor’ now, will be the first to cry out regarding their 5th child benefits not being met, when the £ is worthless.
Modern estates were filled with young families, people who took pride in their accommodation and estates. Many who had come from houses with no toilet; but these were proud people and worked hard.
Then Labour passed policy that those in most need would get a house/flat and so these estates started filling up with with drug addicts, people on the dole and other undesirables.
Many good tenants and owners then sold up and left, the estates started falling into a poor state, that no decent person then wanted to live in. Crime went through the roof and then immigrants were bought in and they then suffered these sink estates.
The legacy of these living on well into the 2000’s
All because a bunch of lefty do-gooders wanted to ‘help’. Just like they do in San Francisco.
Every institution, pension fund, insurance fund, the city and government are up to the eyeballs in real estate.
If prices collapse, then so does the country, the currency and the banks.
I’m all for some creative destruction but I fear the very liberals who scream about ‘the working poor’ now, will be the first to cry out regarding their 5th child benefits not being met, when the £ is worthless.
It was the left that destroyed social housing, not conservatives.
Modern estates were filled with young families, people who took pride in their accommodation and estates. Many who had come from houses with no toilet; but these were proud people and worked hard.
Then Labour passed policy that those in most need would get a house/flat and so these estates started filling up with with drug addicts, people on the dole and other undesirables.
Many good tenants and owners then sold up and left, the estates started falling into a poor state, that no decent person then wanted to live in. Crime went through the roof and then immigrants were bought in and they then suffered these sink estates.
The legacy of these living on well into the 2000’s
All because a bunch of lefty do-gooders wanted to ‘help’. Just like they do in San Francisco.
So, just chuck em back out on the streets? Not sure that's much of a solution to anything except how to completely break society down.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
A relative told me years ago he had worked on huge council estates in the Midlands in the '50s. The houses were primitive, they weren't even plastered inside, they were painted bare brickwork. They had one light, one light switch and one power point per room other than the kitchen. They were dirt cheap to rent, and tenants were glad of them. They took them, saved their money for a few years and were glad to move out and onwards. The ethos then was different. Now people expect (with no means testing) to have their housing subsidised for life and to be able to do exactly as they please with it - the council will update, maintain and redecorate.
A chap I worked with for a long time had a council house (he bought and sold it), one day he moaned that the council had taken over a week to put a tap washer in his kitchen tap. I said Chris, you could do that inside five minutes. I know, he said, but why should I? It's a council house.
My friend worked as a baker, he walked in winter in foul weather through two council estates on the way to work. He said on the weekends they were still partying at 3am, they had just had new central heating, new double glazing, they usually had a newer cars than he had and he was doing two jobs. I look in the bathrom mirror in the morning and wonder what the hell I'm doing wrong, he said.
The system encourages dependency.
A chap I worked with for a long time had a council house (he bought and sold it), one day he moaned that the council had taken over a week to put a tap washer in his kitchen tap. I said Chris, you could do that inside five minutes. I know, he said, but why should I? It's a council house.
My friend worked as a baker, he walked in winter in foul weather through two council estates on the way to work. He said on the weekends they were still partying at 3am, they had just had new central heating, new double glazing, they usually had a newer cars than he had and he was doing two jobs. I look in the bathrom mirror in the morning and wonder what the hell I'm doing wrong, he said.
The system encourages dependency.
monster
Established Member
Ah, envy - the usual driver of the socialist is rearing its head!
I am not sure the system is broken, although I do agree its likely to get worse the more politicians of every stripe meddle with it.
On the whole the bad landlords tend to get the bad tenants and the good landlords tend to find the good tenants, so in the main people tend to get what they deserve.
The main area of concern is if the population is allowed to continue to increase at a rate faster than houses are being built.
One other factor you may want to be aware of (although I'm sure your solution would consist of yet further regulation and bans) is that if you regulate a property owners rights away in the rental market he has a number of options - one is to sell up which as is clear doesn't mean the house disappears it then may become an owner occupied home or be bought up by another landlord. But a third option also exists that landlords have increasingly been turning to recently which is Airbnb type 'serviced' accommodation / holiday lets which sidestep a lot of the regulation that applies to normal residential lettings. But what this means is that in this instance, the property IS being lost as a dwelling house and now becomes a holiday let where nobody lives.
Much like Zero Hour Contracts are a market response to overbearing employment regulation, Airbnb is now being used by landlords to escape the overbearing rental market regulation that seeks to remove ones own property from ones own control.
Amongst other things, its people like Jacob who call for ever more regulation (strangulation) of sectors or practices that they dislike that actually pave the way for these alternative methods of doing business - which ironically they will hate even more than the original practice they hated.
But when did a socialist ever consider the unintended consequences of their demands as long as they were hurting those they hate that 'have'.
monster
Established Member
Slum tenants need them.
Good tenants do not deserve bad landlords, similarly Good landlords do not deserve bad tenants.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Really? Do you have any data to back up this somewhat neat and tidy hypothesis?
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Some weird fantasy politics from our @monster as usual!Ah, envy - the usual driver of the socialist is rearing its head!
I am not sure the system is broken, although I do agree its likely to get worse the more politicians of every stripe meddle with it.
On the whole the bad landlords tend to get the bad tenants and the good landlords tend to find the good tenants, so in the main people tend to get what they deserve.
The main area of concern is if the population is allowed to continue to increase at a rate faster than houses are being built.
One other factor you may want to be aware of (although I'm sure your solution would consist of yet further regulation and bans) is that if you regulate a property owners rights away in the rental market he has a number of options - one is to sell up which as is clear doesn't mean the house disappears it then may become an owner occupied home or be bought up by another landlord. But a third option also exists that landlords have increasingly been turning to recently which is Airbnb type 'serviced' accommodation / holiday lets which sidestep a lot of the regulation that applies to normal residential lettings. But what this means is that in this instance, the property IS being lost as a dwelling house and now becomes a holiday let where nobody lives.
Much like Zero Hour Contracts are a market response to overbearing employment regulation, Airbnb is now being used by landlords to escape the overbearing rental market regulation that seeks to remove ones own property from ones own control.
Amongst other things, its people like Jacob who call for ever more regulation (strangulation) of sectors or practices that they dislike that actually pave the way for these alternative methods of doing business - which ironically they will hate even more than the original practice they hated.
But when did a socialist ever consider the unintended consequences of their demands as long as they were hurting those they hate that 'have'.
Actually the history of housing policy is much more interesting. It's always been a problem and always dealt with largelyly by the state and also few charities such as The Peabody Trust .
https://www.housing.org.uk/about-housing-associations/the-history-of-housing-associations/
Like health and the National Health Service, good housing can't be provided by the private sector simply because half the population can't afford it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house
"From the late 1970s, the wider takeover of free market economics propagated by Margaret Thatcher’s conservative government sought to reduce the role of the state and the housing sector was further opened for private investors and actors. Deregulation of the mortgage finance sector in the 1980s was particularly significant, with the 1988 Housing Act introducing private competition into the sector.[10] The Housing Act 1988 marked the onset of various policies resulting in the residualisation of the public housing. Residualisation refers to the shrinking of the social housing stock, consisting mostly of deteriorated quality dwellings, and the growing concentration of disadvantaged minorities in such housing.[11] As the residual housing sector is mostly concentrated in lower-income neighbourhoods, a ‘neighbourhood effect’ manifests, reinforcing the idea of poverty as a problem of the place which has allowed market ideologies to advocate against decommodified housing provision."
Last edited:
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Not sure if you’ve missed it or are choosing not to answer but I’ve asked you twice which regulation you feel is inappropriate?
I’m genuinely interested as I think they have been aimed at ensuring the quality of housing stock.
I have reservations about how the changes currently being proposed may be enacted but we’ve not seen the detail yet.
The tax changes (all made by the the Tories to date) were positioned as levelling the field for first time buyers. Interestingly in the last Chancellors statement it was acknowledged that they wanted to encourage more private landlords to leave the market.
I’d also be interested in your evidence that bad landlords and bad tenants attract each other. I get the impression the OP is a good landlord (as are others posting on here) but he (some of them) ended up with a feckless tenant(s)?
Ps For the avoidance of doubt I disagree with @Jacob on a lot of his views but find it difficult to not agree with him that the current housing market is flawed.
monster
Established Member
I have anecdotal experience.
My rental properties that I offer are in a good condition and well maintained and managed and I look after my tenants. Subsequently when I advertise and prospective tenants come and view the property, a two way process is in operation, the prospective tenants are weighing up whether the property is of the standard they require and want to rent and I am weighing up whether I want them as a tenant. If they are decent people and my property is in bad order then they will walk away and move onto the next one, but if my property is in good order and suits their requirements they will express their interesting in renting it and if i feel that they well be responsible and decent tenants an agreement can ensure.
The neighbour I mentioned earlier who offers a terrible standard of accommodation never has decent tenants staying there as they take one look at the property he is offering and move on to the next one, it is only those tenants that no other landlord wants to take that end up there.
Obviously there are many exceptions to the above, but in my 25 years of hands on experience and after having hundreds of tenants over those years, and I can only count two that I have had serious problems with and even those I managed to sort out with a reasonable outcome.
I must add that I do everything myself - from building and renovating the properties, to maintaining and managing them and interviewing and selecting tenants all myself.
One further point I would like to make is that if the regulators make it to difficult to evict bad tenants then you will find that there is a section in society, who will find it harder and harder to rent as landlords will never be prepared to take the risk on them if they can't subsequently easily evict them if they become problematic.
For example I had a lady apply to rent a property from me and she openly shared with me from the beginning that she had a bad credit history where she had defaulted on previous debt repayments etc, but she explained the circumstances and seemed honest and up front, she was working and assured me she would have no problem paying the rent. So I took a risk on her and she turned out to be a good tenant, looked after the property and never missed a rent payment. But if the government brings in further restrictions on evictions I wouldn't take the risk on someone like that in the future, they will have to have squeaky clean records and references etc otherwise I could be stuck with a bad tenant and no easy way to evict them.
Government actions and legislation has consequences that if they don't properly understand and consider, will only make the rental market worse for all parties involved.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Like the NHS, the private sector can cherry pick the least difficult (most profitable) tenants and leave the more problematic ones to the state. Not your fault I'd do the same, but it shows how the private sector is basically not up to the task - never has been, never will be, on so many fronts!
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...EAHUnxAYYQ0pQJegQIHBAB&biw=1265&bih=654&dpr=2
monster
Established Member
Sorry, I'm choosing not to answer as its not an argument I wish to get into.
monster
Established Member
Many private landlords house problematic tenants - but in my experience they tend to be the bad landlords with the substandard properties - hence my earlier point that bad landlords tend to get the bad tenants and vice versa.
If you are a problem tenant, you absolutely deserve to be in the park bench! Sort yourself out, live a decent life and don’t expect everyone to look after you.
Jacob, your failure to appreciate that the world doesn’t owe you a living is astonishing.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Hence my earlier point that the private sector can't cope.
