More leftie policies from the Conservatives

[boletus]

https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...housing-speech

We’re proposing a new longer tenancy model, of a minimum of 3 years, with a 6 month break clause to allow tenants and landlords to exit the agreement early if needed.

(My bold)

[JK0]

https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...housing-speech


(My bold)

Hmm. But that isn't the impression the BBC has, nor I suspect will it be what results.

What he suggests is perfectly possible under the present legislation. That he proposes further legislation to enable his proposals, implies that there is further restriction to be placed on landlords.

[DPT57]

The Gov't can't possibly introduce a minimum term that locks tenants into a 3 year rental commitment. None of my young urban professionals would sign up to that so surely the 'further legislation' will be some way of having unequal obligations on landlord and tenant.

[JK0]

The Gov't can't possibly introduce a minimum term that locks tenants into a 3 year rental commitment. None of my young urban professionals would sign up to that so surely the 'further legislation' will be some way of having unequal obligations on landlord and tenant.

Be rather funny, wouldn't it, if it became routine, when taking on a tenant for a compulsory 3 year tenancy, you would not actually sign the agreement, unless at the same time the tenant also signed a paper tending his 6 month notice?

[KTC]

All they had to do is amend s21(4B) from "four months" to "three years".

Be rather funny, wouldn't it, if it became routine, when taking on a tenant for a compulsory 3 year tenancy, you would not actually sign the agreement, unless at the same time the tenant also signed a paper tending his 6 month notice?

That's precisely the reason s5(5) exist......

[JK0]

All they had to do is amend s21(4B) from "four months" to "three years".



That's precisely the reason s5(5) exist......

What's that then?

[jpkeates]

We’re proposing a new longer tenancy model, of a minimum of 3 years, with a 6 month break clause to allow tenants and landlords to exit the agreement early if needed.

That makes slightly more sense than the original "leaked" version.

On the "downside", landlords could execute their break clause and start a new tenancy every six months.
So I can see that drafting being fiddly.

And there's a danger that that would make six months and notice the norm. Meaning even less security.

It's just deckchair arranging.
Until there are homes available for people on lower incomes to live in as long as they want, the rental market is fundamentally flawed.
It's a for profit business that many of its customers expect to be a not for profit state or housing association type service.

[KTC]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...-rented-sector

[JK0]

Okay, well I've filled in the survey as best I can. It's obvious though from the way the questions are asked that this is a fait accompli.

[JK0]

One point I made in my questionnaire, (which I'm sure won't even be read) was the problem that will occur with a tenant losing his job after the 6 month break window. Someone out of work will fight tooth & nail not to be evicted to the street. Section 8 eviction will inevitably lead to claims of disrepair, if not deliberately created disrepair.

Therefore, is any landlord likely to voluntarily let a tenant stay on the existing tenancy after the 6 months? I dare say some of you guys will, but I won't. I guess a succession of 6 month tenancies then. Exactly the situation the legislation is claimed to want to counter!

[KTC]

I can't actually work out exactly what it is the proposal is. There's a two-way six months break clause, but the landlord must go to court with that for it to be effective? So you can't just exercise the break, and grant a new tenancy and repeat, you have to actually get possession.

[JK0]

But presumably a new tenancy signed before the old one expired would cancel it, wouldn't it?

[RedHitman]

This is doing exactly what the government want it to do; Drive out private landlords and make the whole process less attractive to be in because of all the red tape.

It’s a pain, no doubt. But like a lot of people have said here, it’s only going to dramatically backfire because now landlords will only rent to the cream of the crop.
If a tenant stops paying rent then the process is still exactly the same so nothing changes.
And if a landlord wants/needs to sell then they still can. Buying a house with tenants in-situ was attractive to me and that’s exactly what I’ve done in the past.

The main issue is of course if you have an annoying tenant that you simply get fed up with dealing their crap so want to issue that s21. But if you’re still getting paid then just grin and bare it; after all this is what we’re all in it for right, the income...

[Logical.Lean]

What's the average length of stay now, where it is the tenant that chooses to leave. ? (as opposed to where the LL chooses for them to leave)

How does that data change for different types of people ? How does it change when the rent is rising above the rate of pay, or by area or by type of property.

Does the none existent data show there's a problem.

As far as I can see a 3 year tenancy is a great idea, provided that it is very quick and easy to remove someone for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. It would create stability when the market is volatile.

My understanding is that the average length of stay for a family will be 4 or more years anyway.

[JK0]

Yeah mate, average is 4 years. That's one good tenant staying ten years, and two f***wits you kick out after a year.