Lots of marginal London seats have stacks of young professionals that this will appeal to. Its a clear and easy message to remember as well. Vote Labour and be done with £1000 fee's everytime you move....
I can already tell the reaction to Labour;s rent thing is going to show how hopelessly out of sync the Westminster bubble is with public opinion. The commentariat will be screeching about how it's radical and Marxist, but most of the public (including some Tories and a LOT of Ukip voters) will think it's commonsense and about time someone cracked down on landlords and other elites milking and exploiting people for all they're worth.
Despite how much in thrall the chattering classes still are to big business-men and think it's sacrilege to suggest they should be punished and be forced to give normal people a fairer deal, most people (not just diehard socialists, floating voters) are sick and tired of the fat cats getting away with blue murder and the politicians being too scared to do anything about it.
I can already tell the reaction to Labour;s rent thing is going to show how hopelessly out of sync the Westminster bubble is with public opinion. The commentariat will be screeching about how it's radical and Marxist, but most of the public (including some Tories and a LOT of Ukip voters) will think it's commonsense and about time someone cracked down on landlords and other elites milking and exploiting people for all they're worth.
I don't object to radical Marxism. I object to counterproductive incompetence. This will not help tenants in the medium term, and probably not even in the short term.
Lots of marginal London seats have stacks of young professionals that this will appeal to. Its a clear and easy message to remember as well. Vote Labour and be done with £1000 fee's everytime you move....
Very true but if they end up chasing less property the price will go up, simples. Got to be careful with this.
'As I say. We'll see. Most likely the PB Rebuttal shift will go into overdrive for a few months, then the government will adopt the measure.'
This is straight out of the Owen Jones playbook,you can excuse him as along with most things he proposes he wasn't alive when they were previously tried and ended in disaster. Ed should know better.
If you want to reduce supply & increase rents even further then this is the perfect way to achieve it.
I can already tell the reaction to Labour;s rent thing is going to show how hopelessly out of sync the Westminster bubble is with public opinion. The commentariat will be screeching about how it's radical and Marxist, but most of the public (including some Tories and a LOT of Ukip voters) will think it's commonsense and about time someone cracked down on landlords and other elites milking and exploiting people for all they're worth.
yep,it could be another energy price freeze moment,tories caught on the back foot yet again.
I can already tell the reaction to Labour;s rent thing is going to show how hopelessly out of sync the Westminster bubble is with public opinion. The commentariat will be screeching about how it's radical and Marxist, but most of the public (including some Tories and a LOT of Ukip voters) will think it's commonsense and about time someone cracked down on landlords and other elites milking and exploiting people for all they're worth.
Despite how much in thrall the chattering classes still are to big business-men and think it's sacrilege to suggest they should be punished and be forced to give normal people a fairer deal, most people (not just diehard socialists, floating voters) are sick and tired of the fat cats getting away with blue murder and the politicians being too scared to do anything about it.
So if you save a few quid over 30 years and buy a flat to rent it out as part of your old age planning you are " elite " now?? God help us all.
Yeah - I reckon about £750 for a two bed flat for a year is probably a par.
This is not a deposit or rent up front to be clear.
So the average is about £220. One was described as having 'collasal' fees of £600. So no where near £1000. Surely if such fees are banned, letting agents will simply increase the percentage charged to landlords, who will just hike up the rent to cover the difference (and more).
RT@labourpress: More about Labour's sweeping reforms of rented housing http://flip.it/UP11y >> don't read before bedtime. It's terrifying.
'Tenants would be able to terminate contracts after the first 6 months with one month notice as they can now.
But landlords would be able to terminate contracts with 2 months’ notice only if they can have good reason:
· The tenant falls into rent arrears, is guilty of anti-social behaviour or breaches their tenancy agreement · The landlord wants to sell the property, needs the property for their own or family use · The landlord plans to refurbish or change the use of the property.'
So, security for the tenant but not the landlord. Class.
It's not a free market. A little bit of preventing exploitation is not big deal. Question is have the Tories learned from the mess they got themselves into over the gas price freeze.
It's not a free market. A little bit of preventing exploitation is not big deal. Question is have the Tories learned from the mess they got themselves into over the gas price freeze.
Shapps: This is Venezuela.
No then.
Leaving aside the politics, do you think this is a policy that will help people?
Gillian Tett on Newsnight now. One of the only so-called "professional economists" who actually seems to judge on the facts rather than basing everything on her pre-conceived beliefs.
Forget the economics of this. This will be a huge vote winner amongst a key demographic.
Indeed, but the economics will not go away if it's handled badly. It will still bite Ed in the bum from 2016 on.
Well sure, but why would he give a crap about that? All parties make promises of things that will cause problems down the line, and quite often they may even know that it will cause problems, but if they don't win they cannot do all the other wonderful stuff they want to do, and they are confident if there are any problems they can overcome them in any case, so they can push away any concerns at such early stages. Future them can handle those problems.
The only differences are which priorities a party decides to be make a promise on and the extent of the problem it will cause, and the more popular a decision it is, the more obvious problems with it they can safely ignore for now. This seems like a popular move, and for all I know Labour are right and it won't be a disaster, so another canny move from Ed.
It isn't just luck from external factors which will see him get into No.10 so easily; he knows to make big, bold and popular moves to keep the base support fired up every now and then.
An average of £750 would imply that some fees are over a £1000.
Anyway don't matter what you guys think. This is going to be a palpable hit with the sort of ex Lib Dem voters that Labour needs to stroll into downing street.
I lived in a home which was subject to rent controls ( from the 60's). The rent was low and in return the landlord did nothing to maintain it. There was damp, dry rot and a dangerous gas fire. By all means control bad landlords but the best way to bring rents and house prices down is to increase the supply of housing.
Until Labour propose this and come up with some credible and well costed plans to do so, they have no credibility on this.
You take Zones 1-3 and that is a massive under estimate. I bet that is also per person and not for the property.
For renters in London this is a very very big issue.
Massive understatement based on what data? And what is to say it isn't per property? Again, it'd be nice to have some actual data from your side of the argument too.
An average of £750 would imply that some fees are over a £1000.
Anyway don't matter what you guys think. This is going to be a palpable hit with the sort of ex Lib Dem voters that Labour needs to stroll into downing street.
Oh, and I'd add that the agent with the 'colossal' £600 fees was in East Ham, which is in zone 3 I believe.
I can already tell the reaction to Labour;s rent thing is going to show how hopelessly out of sync the Westminster bubble is with public opinion. The commentariat will be screeching about how it's radical and Marxist, but most of the public (including some Tories and a LOT of Ukip voters) will think it's commonsense and about time someone cracked down on landlords and other elites milking and exploiting people for all they're worth.
Despite how much in thrall the chattering classes still are to big business-men and think it's sacrilege to suggest they should be punished and be forced to give normal people a fairer deal, most people (not just diehard socialists, floating voters) are sick and tired of the fat cats getting away with blue murder and the politicians being too scared to do anything about it.
So if you save a few quid over 30 years and buy a flat to rent it out as part of your old age planning you are " elite " now?? God help us all.
Miliband got away with his energy prize-freeze lark because the objects of his assault were faceless multinationals. Everyone knows someone who leases property in some capacity however, and those poor people will have their heads in their hands at present. Miliband has muffed this one.
Yeah. If nothing else it will give more stability and prevent underhand abuses.
So when the amateur landlords decide it's all too much hassle and withdraw from the market, leaving fewer poorer properties for the same number of tenants, you'll be happy?
It's not a free market. A little bit of preventing exploitation is not big deal. Question is have the Tories learned from the mess they got themselves into over the gas price freeze.
It's not a free market. A little bit of preventing exploitation is not big deal. Question is have the Tories learned from the mess they got themselves into over the gas price freeze.
Shapps: This is Venezuela.
No then.
Just before I toddle off to bed - so I might read any reply in the morning: why exactly is it not a free market? Folk buy property, rent it to others who are not compelled in any way to buy? What's not free? If you regulate poorly or overtax or make too it too risky through legislation people will do less of any given economic activity, doesn't matter if it's smoking, renting flats in Brent or retailing toilet rolls in Caracas. It's not hard.
There are social issues around renting I accept but you've got to be seriously careful you don't regulate and watch supply dry up.
In 1978 in Italy the Fair Rent Act (Equo Canone) introduced a maximum fee for residential properties and four-year contracts. Maximum fees were increased much slower than inflation and didn’t comply with changes in the urban population. This led landlords to prefer selling to renting, or to opt for black-market negotiations of fees, which in turn led to a restriction in the rental market. In 1998, only 20% of the Italian housing market was rental; average- and high-income families preferred to buy their home, while low-income families that could not afford to, suffered from high rents.
An average of £750 would imply that some fees are over a £1000.
Anyway don't matter what you guys think. This is going to be a palpable hit with the sort of ex Lib Dem voters that Labour needs to stroll into downing street.
As already stated you are talking bollocks and gettîng confused with deposits, you gave the game away when you said this could be per person.
Not only do you not care about the economics but you don't actually understand the policy.
Gillian Tett on Newsnight now. One of the only so-called "professional economists" who actually seems to judge on the facts rather than basing everything on her pre-conceived beliefs.
It strikes me as almost quite amusing that Labour might be regarded as lacking credibility on almost every issue and yet still find themselves with an easy majority next year. Were I a Labour supporter I'd be quite giddy by now.
in 1976 I bught a 3 bedroom semi in Knutsford for 11,000 pounds. I sold it less than a year later for 13,000 pounds. The house next to it is currently on sale for 225,000 pounds.
I bought a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom house in a North Yorkshire village in 1999 for 150,000 pounds, and sold it in 2005 for 390,000 pounds. It was appreciating annually at about 2/3 of my salary. That's absurd.
By contrast, the proceeds of the North Yorkshire home allowed us to purchase - much larger - one 4 bedroom and one 5 bedroom house in the leafy nothern suburbs of Atlanta, together with 3 cars and all the impedimenta you need to buy when moving to 110 volts from 240. We still had over $20k left.
The house we bought near Augusta in 1987 for $180k was recently re-sold for about 30% more than we paid for it. Both the current homes are worth about what we paid in 2005.
Granted there has been something of an economic meltdown, but house prices in the sunbelt are cheap compared to the north.
The are building houses here at a fast clip, often to house those leaving the rust belt.
Buiding regs locally are fairly simple -
1. Infrastructure - power, gas, water and sewer, roads, schools - has to be in place first. 2. No apartments, no town houses (semi-detached), no buildings (offices) more than 4 stories, just single famly homes. 3. Adjacent homes cannot have the same floorplan.
This is basic economics - scarcity drives up the price. BUILD HOUSES!!!
Yeah - I reckon about £750 for a two bed flat for a year is probably a par.
This is not a deposit or rent up front to be clear.
So already gone down from £1,000 to £750 and even then you don't actually know.
No wonder you're not worried about the economics of it.
Nigel,labour not bothered about the economics of it,they winning the battle for the ordinary voter that they on your side against the big wigs,wouldn't surprise me if tuition fee's and railways next for labour.
Read my posts I explicitly excluded deposits and rent up front.
I want to know why you think the Independent, when writing a story about how bad fees are, would chose to ignore these mythical £1000 fees you speak of. It'd have made a corker of a story. Unless, of course, they were explicitly cherry-picking the zones with the smallest fees.
In 1978 in Italy the Fair Rent Act (Equo Canone) introduced a maximum fee for residential properties and four-year contracts. Maximum fees were increased much slower than inflation and didn’t comply with changes in the urban population. This led landlords to prefer selling to renting, or to opt for black-market negotiations of fees, which in turn led to a restriction in the rental market. In 1998, only 20% of the Italian housing market was rental; average- and high-income families preferred to buy their home, while low-income families that could not afford to, suffered from high rents.
It's almost as if steps taken to make renting out properties less attractive make it more difficult for potential tenants to find properties. Well, who wouldathunk it?
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
I can already tell the reaction to Labour;s rent thing is going to show how hopelessly out of sync the Westminster bubble is with public opinion. The commentariat will be screeching about how it's radical and Marxist, but most of the public (including some Tories and a LOT of Ukip voters) will think it's commonsense and about time someone cracked down on landlords and other elites milking and exploiting people for all they're worth.
Despite how much in thrall the chattering classes still are to big business-men and think it's sacrilege to suggest they should be punished and be forced to give normal people a fairer deal, most people (not just diehard socialists, floating voters) are sick and tired of the fat cats getting away with blue murder and the politicians being too scared to do anything about it.
So if you save a few quid over 30 years and buy a flat to rent it out as part of your old age planning you are " elite " now?? God help us all.
Miliband got away with his energy prize-freeze lark because the objects of his assault were faceless multinationals. Everyone knows someone who leases property in some capacity however, and those poor people will have their heads in their hands at present. Miliband has muffed this one.
Let's hope the tories do a better job on this than they did on the energy price freeze.
Under Ed's plan would millions of private landlords choose to -
A. Lock themselves into a 3 year rental agreement, with severe restrictions.
Or
B. Go for the Rachmann approach, with an informal agreement, rent paid cash, and limited protection for the tenants.
Hmmm.
First energy, then rents-what next - food prices ?
Another winner. No one would bother selling food at a loss, so we'd all starve as the commodity was sold elsewhere, or be stuck with the cheaper and worse quality products. There are plenty of other markets worldwide.
If a party could convince me they could significantly lower house prices, they'd have my support in an instant. But that doesn't seem viable, so I'll take what I can get from whoever I guess.
Under Ed's plan would millions of private landlords choose to -
A. Lock themselves into a 3 year rental agreement, with severe restrictions.
Or
B. Go for the Rachmann approach, with an informal agreement, rent paid cash, and limited protection for the tenants.
Hmmm.
First energy, then rents-what next - food prices ?
Another winner. No one would bother selling food at a loss, so we'd all starve as the commodity was sold elsewhere, or be stuck with the cheaper and worse quality products. There are plenty of other markets worldwide.
If Osborne goes to the Foreign office (not sure where that rumour started), who are favourites to be the next exchequer (ignoring elections for the time being).
Yeah fair enough they will sell them if they can't be arsed to go to a letting agency that does everything for them and just passes on any small changes in cost.
Probably flog it to a non lazy landlord mind. That or a middle class person that won't now be renting do no long driving up the rent in south London.
If Osborne goes to the Foreign office (not sure where that rumour started), who are favourites to be the next exchequer (ignoring elections for the time being).
If Osborne goes to the Foreign office (not sure where that rumour started), who are favourites to be the next exchequer (ignoring elections for the time being).
If Osborne goes to the Foreign office (not sure where that rumour started), who are favourites to be the next exchequer (ignoring elections for the time being).
If a party could convince me they could significantly lower house prices, they'd have my support in an instant. But that doesn't seem viable, so I'll take what I can get from whoever I guess.
'A party' can't lower house prices - prices are high because demand exceeds supply. Increase the supply and prices will stabilize.
Of course 'a party' could try to reduce demand, which would also stabilize prices, but the optics on that politcally are terrible.
If Osborne goes to the Foreign office (not sure where that rumour started), who are favourites to be the next exchequer (ignoring elections for the time being).
Gove, May but best pick is Javid.
Gove has plenty of baggage, IMO.
He's doing a great job - leave him where he is.
That may be so, but I don't think he is well-regarded at large (but that is just a hunch, maybe a poll will prove me wrong).
'Under Ed's plan would millions of private landlords choose to -'
Sell them,let them under conditions not covered by the regulations e.g serviced apartments,holiday lets etc.
So, renters will be worse off overall. They really haven't thought this one through.
Basic economics says that if you want to reduce the price of something, make sure there's more of it. More rental property, increased competition for the tenants, lower rents etc
More building, not increased self defeating regulation is the answer.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
If a party could convince me they could significantly lower house prices, they'd have my support in an instant. But that doesn't seem viable, so I'll take what I can get from whoever I guess.
'A party' can't lower house prices - prices are high because demand exceeds supply. Increase the supply and prices will stabilize.
I of course was using shorthand, as in to mean a party which could help create the kind of scenario in which prices would lower, though as you say the politics of that would be hard and very unlikely.
Yeah fair enough they will sell them if they can't be arsed to go to a letting agency that does everything for them and just passes on any small changes in cost.
Probably flog it to a non lazy landlord mind. That or a middle class person that won't now be renting do no long driving up the rent in south London.
If you have X properties for rent and Y potential tenants, and X is smaller than Y, prices will go up.
Now, if some of those properties are sold to occupiers, we get the new equation:
X-N properties for rent and Y-N potential tenants.
Notice something? The pressure on the remaining properties has got greater. This is bad news for tenants, not good news.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
What do you do with shares which stop paying or reduce dividends?
You sell them, especially if you are looking for a secure and regular income.
The inevitable result of such a policy would be to reduce supply of rented accommodation and increase supply of 'buy to occupy' property.
The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy. A sort of Primrose Hill form of socialism.
Except it will mean house prices come down, won't it? If you sell shares that have stopped paying dividends you have to do it for a low price to attract buyers. And, of course, as we are constantly told on here most parts of the country are not like London anyway.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive.
Except it doesn't work like that. Tenant has 3 years security, Landlord is on 1 months notice from the tenant after 6 months. Hardly balanced.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Down thread there was a comment from The Watcher:
'Tenants would be able to terminate contracts after the first 6 months with one month notice as they can now.
But landlords would be able to terminate contracts with 2 months’ notice only if they can have good reason:
· The tenant falls into rent arrears, is guilty of anti-social behaviour or breaches their tenancy agreement · The landlord wants to sell the property, needs the property for their own or family use · The landlord plans to refurbish or change the use of the property.'
Still don't get why they wouldn't end up flogging them to a landlord that could be arsed
Large scale landlords need economy of scale. Individual two or one bedroom flats isolated in multi-occupied converted properties would be a nightmare to manage. Even housing associations are reluctant to buy. Yet this type of property makes up a very large proportion of the private BTL market.
The only way Ed could make such a scheme work would be to effectively nationalise the properties by subsidising housing associations to buy the properties. This would involve a fairly substantial cost and would need to be funded out of additional borrowing.
Still Ed might be able to sell the idea as another scheme which can be financed by taxing bankers' bonuses!
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive.
Except it doesn't work like that. Tenant has 3 years security, Landlord is on 1 months notice from the tenant after 6 months. Hardly balanced.
Can I borrow money Mr Banker to renovate a slum into some nice flats ?
Yes - what's the security ?
Er the flats but the tenants can't be evicted for 3 yrs
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
What do you do with shares which stop paying or reduce dividends?
You sell them, especially if you are looking for a secure and regular income.
The inevitable result of such a policy would be to reduce supply of rented accommodation and increase supply of 'buy to occupy' property.
The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy. A sort of Primrose Hill form of socialism.
But in that case the price of property will come down because the increase in supply and the reduction will turn renters back into buyers because mortgage payments will become competitive with rental payments. Your error is to assume that everyone is immutably either a renter or a buyer.
Still, it's not a surprise. I'd already identified the rental market as a field ripe for wrecking by Ed Miliband. With a fair wind he might be able to completely wipe it out, as his predecessors did in the 1970s.
in 1976 I bught a 3 bedroom semi in Knutsford for 11,000 pounds. I sold it less than a year later for 13,000 pounds. The house next to it is currently on sale for 225,000 pounds.
I bought a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom house in a North Yorkshire village in 1999 for 150,000 pounds, and sold it in 2005 for 390,000 pounds. It was appreciating annually at about 2/3 of my salary. That's absurd.
By contrast, the proceeds of the North Yorkshire home allowed us to purchase - much larger - one 4 bedroom and one 5 bedroom house in the leafy nothern suburbs of Atlanta, together with 3 cars and all the impedimenta you need to buy when moving to 110 volts from 240. We still had over $20k left.
The house we bought near Augusta in 1987 for $180k was recently re-sold for about 30% more than we paid for it. Both the current homes are worth about what we paid in 2005.
Granted there has been something of an economic meltdown, but house prices in the sunbelt are cheap compared to the north.
The are building houses here at a fast clip, often to house those leaving the rust belt.
Buiding regs locally are fairly simple -
1. Infrastructure - power, gas, water and sewer, roads, schools - has to be in place first. 2. No apartments, no town houses (semi-detached), no buildings (offices) more than 4 stories, just single famly homes. 3. Adjacent homes cannot have the same floorplan.
This is basic economics - scarcity drives up the price. BUILD HOUSES!!!
Ah heres my mistake in life, not getting on the property ladder before I was born...
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive.
Except it doesn't work like that. Tenant has 3 years security, Landlord is on 1 months notice from the tenant after 6 months. Hardly balanced.
Can I borrow money Mr Banker to renovate a slum into some nice flats ?
Yes - what's the security ?
Er the flats but the tenants can't be evicted for 3 yrs
Er.....
In another professional life, I collected rents for slum landlords across London. I reckon they'll be rising from their graves if they catch wind of this.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive.
Except it doesn't work like that. Tenant has 3 years security, Landlord is on 1 months notice from the tenant after 6 months. Hardly balanced.
Save that the exceptions would allow the landlord to get hold of the property - he can say that he wants to refurbish or sell or use for his family - and presumably can then rent to someone else at a higher rent.
So this may well look good (the proposals on letting agents' fees sound attractive) but in practice not achieve much at all or cause real problems if the supply of rented housing dries up. Who can say? The devil is in the detail.
What we do learn is that Ed M is very good at coming up with proposals which seem to address the symptoms of a problem but fails totally when it comes to dealing with the underlying problem.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
What do you do with shares which stop paying or reduce dividends?
You sell them, especially if you are looking for a secure and regular income.
The inevitable result of such a policy would be to reduce supply of rented accommodation and increase supply of 'buy to occupy' property.
The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy. A sort of Primrose Hill form of socialism.
But in that case the price of property will come down because the increase in supply and the reduction will turn renters back into buyers because mortgage payments will become competitive with rental payments. Your error is to assume that everyone is immutably either a renter or a buyer.
The proposal makes no difference to the pressure on the housing stock, be it BTL, Owner occupied or Social. The number of properties is the same, the number of households is the same, they are competing for the available housing.
Reduce rents by building more houses. Now which party was trying to loosen planning regulations?
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive.
Except it doesn't work like that. Tenant has 3 years security, Landlord is on 1 months notice from the tenant after 6 months. Hardly balanced.
What we do learn is that Ed M is very good at coming up with proposals which seem to address the symptoms of a problem but fails totally when it comes to dealing with the underlying problem.
He truly is the professional political machine people thought he was. He has a genuine knack for these sorts of announcements it seems. Could be a good man to win elections for his party, although he really needs more governing skill behind him once he gets there, and I'm not sure who of the Labour benches could fit the bill.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive.
Except it doesn't work like that. Tenant has 3 years security, Landlord is on 1 months notice from the tenant after 6 months. Hardly balanced.
Save that the exceptions would allow the landlord to get hold of the property - he can say that he wants to refurbish or sell or use for his family - and presumably can then rent to someone else at a higher rent.
So this may well look good (the proposals on letting agents' fees sound attractive) but in practice not achieve much at all or cause real problems if the supply of rented housing dries up. Who can say? The devil is in the detail.
What we do learn is that Ed M is very good at coming up with proposals which seem to address the symptoms of a problem but fails totally when it comes to dealing with the underlying problem.
"I'm kicking you out in a month as my children are moving in. Bye"
So, tenancies will be no more secure than they are now. Probably less.
in 1976 I bught a 3 bedroom semi in Knutsford for 11,000 pounds. I sold it less than a year later for 13,000 pounds. The house next to it is currently on sale for 225,000 pounds.
I bought a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom house in a North Yorkshire village in 1999 for 150,000 pounds, and sold it in 2005 for 390,000 pounds. It was appreciating annually at about 2/3 of my salary. That's absurd.
By contrast, the proceeds of the North Yorkshire home allowed us to purchase - much larger - one 4 bedroom and one 5 bedroom house in the leafy nothern suburbs of Atlanta, together with 3 cars and all the impedimenta you need to buy when moving to 110 volts from 240. We still had over $20k left.
The house we bought near Augusta in 1987 for $180k was recently re-sold for about 30% more than we paid for it. Both the current homes are worth about what we paid in 2005.
Granted there has been something of an economic meltdown, but house prices in the sunbelt are cheap compared to the north.
The are building houses here at a fast clip, often to house those leaving the rust belt.
Buiding regs locally are fairly simple -
1. Infrastructure - power, gas, water and sewer, roads, schools - has to be in place first. 2. No apartments, no town houses (semi-detached), no buildings (offices) more than 4 stories, just single famly homes. 3. Adjacent homes cannot have the same floorplan.
This is basic economics - scarcity drives up the price. BUILD HOUSES!!!
Ah heres my mistake in life, not getting on the property ladder before I was born...
What a great idea - offering housing investment opportunities to couples who are thinking of having children!
I could call it Intercourse Investments - lots of growth from a small deposit :-)
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
What do you do with shares which stop paying or reduce dividends?
You sell them, especially if you are looking for a secure and regular income.
The inevitable result of such a policy would be to reduce supply of rented accommodation and increase supply of 'buy to occupy' property.
The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy. A sort of Primrose Hill form of socialism.
Except it will mean house prices come down, won't it? If you sell shares that have stopped paying dividends you have to do it for a low price to attract buyers. And, of course, as we are constantly told on here most parts of the country are not like London anyway.
It does depend on the quantity of housing stock which switches from tenanted to owner occupied. But you are right about the likely affect on house prices.
At the moment there are eight purchase enquiries registered by estate agents for each property listed for sale (on average and with wide regional variations). It is this imbalance which is driving prices up not an expansion in mortgage credit. In fact the total outstanding on secured housing loans has fallen in each of the past two months.
So there would need to be a fairly significant shift in numbers to counter the current lack of liquidity in the market.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
Oh dear.
Is that a 'Oh Dear' I might be voting tory ;-)
It's an Oh dear Ed is going to have a horrible press conference tomorrow because he has not thought this through. Once again, he has identified a very real problem and come up with a not very good solution.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
Oh dear.
Is that a 'Oh Dear' I might be voting tory ;-)
It's an Oh dear Ed is going to have a horrible press conference tomorrow because he has not thought this through. Once again, he has identified a very real problem and come up with a not very good solution.
I can agree with all of that post.
The rental market can (and for many does) work very well. However, when it fails it causes misery for tenants, and sometimes for landlords.
Not only do we need more homes built, but we need good homes built.
Actually, what I said above is slightly wrong. I am surprised, but only because I was expecting Ed to produce this particular piece of utter lunacy at the Labour Conference in September, not now.
This is extremely worrying - what on earth is he going to come out with then? It's genuinely hard to think of anything more damaging he could go for, but he's bound to want to pull another big turkey out of the hat.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
What do you do with shares which stop paying or reduce dividends?
You sell them, especially if you are looking for a secure and regular income.
The inevitable result of such a policy would be to reduce supply of rented accommodation and increase supply of 'buy to occupy' property.
The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy. A sort of Primrose Hill form of socialism.
But in that case the price of property will come down because the increase in supply and the reduction will turn renters back into buyers because mortgage payments will become competitive with rental payments. Your error is to assume that everyone is immutably either a renter or a buyer.
The proposal makes no difference to the pressure on the housing stock, be it BTL, Owner occupied or Social. The number of properties is the same, the number of households is the same, they are competing for the available housing.
Reduce rents by building more houses. Now which party was trying to loosen planning regulations?
Quite so, but the point I was answering was that "The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy" which assumes that renters can never turn into owners.
In fact this proposal would almost certainly crash the housing market. Perhaps that is the plan.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
Oh dear.
Is that a 'Oh Dear' I might be voting tory ;-)
It's an Oh dear Ed is going to have a horrible press conference tomorrow because he has not thought this through. Once again, he has identified a very real problem and come up with a not very good solution.
I can agree with all of that post.
The rental market can (and for many does) work very well. However, when it fails it causes misery for tenants, and sometimes for landlords.
Not only do we need more homes built, but we need good homes built.
The solution is to build more homes, not drive rentals into an underground black market.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
Oh dear.
Is that a 'Oh Dear' I might be voting tory ;-)
It's an Oh dear Ed is going to have a horrible press conference tomorrow because he has not thought this through. Once again, he has identified a very real problem and come up with a not very good solution.
I can agree with all of that post.
The rental market can (and for many does) work very well. However, when it fails it causes misery for tenants, and sometimes for landlords.
Not only do we need more homes built, but we need good homes built.
· The tenant falls into rent arrears, is guilty of anti-social behaviour or breaches their tenancy agreement · The landlord wants to sell the property, needs the property for their own or family use · The landlord plans to refurbish or change the use of the property.'
If none of those things are happening then almost by definition the property is in good order with regular paying tenants. So I'd have thought most landlords would be fairly happy with that situation...
Thinking back to when I was renting in one of the properties the landlady informed me whilst I was on holiday that she hadn't kept up the mortgage payments and the bailiffs were coming round ! Luckily the date was after my holiday ended... managed to sort out another room to rent and got deposit back.
Could have probably legally stopped the bailiffs coming in/sued the landlord or some such but my worry was they'd come whilst I was at work and it wasn't really worth the hassle.
The basic problem is a software glitch in the high altitude air traffic control center there. There is also a nationwide ground stop on traffic headed into the area controlled by the LA center. This includes LA, San Diego and Las Vegas plus other local airports.
The FAA says things are slowly returning to normal.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
What do you do with shares which stop paying or reduce dividends?
You sell them, especially if you are looking for a secure and regular income.
The inevitable result of such a policy would be to reduce supply of rented accommodation and increase supply of 'buy to occupy' property.
The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy. A sort of Primrose Hill form of socialism.
But in that case the price of property will come down because the increase in supply and the reduction will turn renters back into buyers because mortgage payments will become competitive with rental payments. Your error is to assume that everyone is immutably either a renter or a buyer.
Ishmael.
Yes you are right, but see my reponse to SO.
Given the current lack of liquidity in the residential property sales market, it may take some time to have a noticeable downward effect on prices.
On there being no immutable barrier between tenants and buyers, again you are right. But the conversion from one group to other will be dependent on a much wider range of economic factors: lending criteria and prudential regulation of the mortgage market and lender risk; interest rates; employment; economic confidence; availability of subsidies (HTB) etc.
The current economic environment should stimulate conversions from tenancies to mortgages and this is certainly the aim of Osborne's HTB scheme, but there is a long way to travel before we get back to financing supply which matches that of the early part of the century. And most would argue that is not a place to which we want or need to return!
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
Oh dear.
Is that a 'Oh Dear' I might be voting tory ;-)
It's an Oh dear Ed is going to have a horrible press conference tomorrow because he has not thought this through. Once again, he has identified a very real problem and come up with a not very good solution.
Same was said on his energy price freeze and he came out smelling of roses,I get the feeling labour not bothered if the solution doesn't work it's the perception of them on your side that matters and it's working.
Tories need one of these policies of labour to blow up in they faces or labour will keep winning the battle of public opinion on policy.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
What do you do with shares which stop paying or reduce dividends?
You sell them, especially if you are looking for a secure and regular income.
The inevitable result of such a policy would be to reduce supply of rented accommodation and increase supply of 'buy to occupy' property.
The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy. A sort of Primrose Hill form of socialism.
But in that case the price of property will come down because the increase in supply and the reduction will turn renters back into buyers because mortgage payments will become competitive with rental payments. Your error is to assume that everyone is immutably either a renter or a buyer.
The proposal makes no difference to the pressure on the housing stock, be it BTL, Owner occupied or Social. The number of properties is the same, the number of households is the same, they are competing for the available housing.
Reduce rents by building more houses. Now which party was trying to loosen planning regulations?
Quite so, but the point I was answering was that "The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy" which assumes that renters can never turn into owners.
In fact this proposal would almost certainly crash the housing market. Perhaps that is the plan.
Get that idea accepted as fact into mainstream beliefs and Ed has lost.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
Sell them. Which is good for nice middle class people who want to buy properties but shit for those who actively wish to rent, because they'll have less choice at higher prices.
This is not difficult stuff.
Presumably it will work both ways - a three year lease binds both sides. For a lot of landlords that may well prove attractive. However, I can also see it being very unattractive to many types of tenant. It certainly would not work for students, or flat-sharers, or a lot of couples without kids. Thus, I imagine there will be a great deal of detail around the headlines. If not, the proposals will very rapidly crash and burn. Could be a painful press conference for Ed tomorrow. Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.
Apparently it's one way. Tenants can still give one month's notice.
Oh dear.
Is that a 'Oh Dear' I might be voting tory ;-)
It's an Oh dear Ed is going to have a horrible press conference tomorrow because he has not thought this through. Once again, he has identified a very real problem and come up with a not very good solution.
I can agree with all of that post.
The rental market can (and for many does) work very well. However, when it fails it causes misery for tenants, and sometimes for landlords.
Not only do we need more homes built, but we need good homes built.
The solution is to build more homes, not drive rentals into an underground black market.
Labours got the answer to that - use or lose policy.
I imagine - and hope - that you're being sarcastic.
I mean, you don't actually think that the way to encourage housebuilding companies to take a risk, buy land with their limited capital, and try to get planning permission, is to fine them if it doesn't work out quite as quickly as they had hoped, do you?
Comments
Despite how much in thrall the chattering classes still are to big business-men and think it's sacrilege to suggest they should be punished and be forced to give normal people a fairer deal, most people (not just diehard socialists, floating voters) are sick and tired of the fat cats getting away with blue murder and the politicians being too scared to do anything about it.
Yeah - I reckon about £750 for a two bed flat for a year is probably a par.
This is not a deposit or rent up front to be clear.
'As I say. We'll see. Most likely the PB Rebuttal shift will go into overdrive for a few months, then the government will adopt the measure.'
This is straight out of the Owen Jones playbook,you can excuse him as along with most things he proposes he wasn't alive when they were previously tried and ended in disaster.
Ed should know better.
If you want to reduce supply & increase rents even further then this is the perfect way to achieve it.
The only solution is to build more properties.
http://www.independent.co.uk/property/house-and-home/property/tenants-in-the-dark-as-letting-charges-spiral-out-of-control-8906242.html
'Tenants would be able to terminate contracts after the first 6 months with one month notice as they can now.
But landlords would be able to terminate contracts with 2 months’ notice only if they can have good reason:
· The tenant falls into rent arrears, is guilty of anti-social behaviour or breaches their tenancy agreement
· The landlord wants to sell the property, needs the property for their own or family use
· The landlord plans to refurbish or change the use of the property.'
So, security for the tenant but not the landlord. Class.
It's not a free market. A little bit of preventing exploitation is not big deal. Question is have the Tories learned from the mess they got themselves into over the gas price freeze.
Shapps: This is Venezuela.
No then.
No wonder you're not worried about the economics of it.
'Are fees really £1000 for a one/two bed place?'
It's clearly bollocks,he's getting fees confused with deposits.
You take Zones 1-3 and that is a massive under estimate. I bet that is also per person and not for the property.
For renters in London this is a very very big issue.
The only differences are which priorities a party decides to be make a promise on and the extent of the problem it will cause, and the more popular a decision it is, the more obvious problems with it they can safely ignore for now. This seems like a popular move, and for all I know Labour are right and it won't be a disaster, so another canny move from Ed.
It isn't just luck from external factors which will see him get into No.10 so easily; he knows to make big, bold and popular moves to keep the base support fired up every now and then.
Anyway don't matter what you guys think. This is going to be a palpable hit with the sort of ex Lib Dem voters that Labour needs to stroll into downing street.
Until Labour propose this and come up with some credible and well costed plans to do so, they have no credibility on this.
'You take Zones 1-3 and that is a massive under estimate. I bet that is also per person and not for the property.'
You haven't a clue what your talking about,I have several rental properties and the agents fees are a fraction of your fantasy figures.
Yeah. If nothing else it will give more stability and prevent underhand abuses.
East Ham, not West Ham!
There are social issues around renting I accept but you've got to be seriously careful you don't regulate and watch supply dry up.
Not only do you not care about the economics but you don't actually understand the policy.
in 1976 I bught a 3 bedroom semi in Knutsford for 11,000 pounds. I sold it less than a year later for 13,000 pounds. The house next to it is currently on sale for 225,000 pounds.
I bought a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom house in a North Yorkshire village in 1999 for 150,000 pounds, and sold it in 2005 for 390,000 pounds. It was appreciating annually at about 2/3 of my salary. That's absurd.
By contrast, the proceeds of the North Yorkshire home allowed us to purchase - much larger - one 4 bedroom and one 5 bedroom house in the leafy nothern suburbs of Atlanta, together with 3 cars and all the impedimenta you need to buy when moving to 110 volts from 240. We still had over $20k left.
The house we bought near Augusta in 1987 for $180k was recently re-sold for about 30% more than we paid for it. Both the current homes are worth about what we paid in 2005.
Granted there has been something of an economic meltdown, but house prices in the sunbelt are cheap compared to the north.
The are building houses here at a fast clip, often to house those leaving the rust belt.
Buiding regs locally are fairly simple -
1. Infrastructure - power, gas, water and sewer, roads, schools - has to be in place first.
2. No apartments, no town houses (semi-detached), no buildings (offices) more than 4 stories, just single famly homes.
3. Adjacent homes cannot have the same floorplan.
This is basic economics - scarcity drives up the price. BUILD HOUSES!!!
A. Lock themselves into a 3 year rental agreement, with severe restrictions.
Or
B. Go for the Rachmann approach, with an informal agreement, rent paid cash, and limited protection for the tenants.
Hmmm.
Read my posts I explicitly excluded deposits and rent up front.
What do you suppose they will do with the properties. Leave them empty?
This is not difficult stuff.
Yeah fair enough they will sell them if they can't be arsed to go to a letting agency that does everything for them and just passes on any small changes in cost.
Probably flog it to a non lazy landlord mind. That or a middle class person that won't now be renting do no long driving up the rent in south London.
'Under Ed's plan would millions of private landlords choose to -'
Sell them,let them under conditions not covered by the regulations e.g serviced apartments,holiday lets etc.
Gove, May but best pick is Javid.
We missed Camerons little Barb about politics of envy for people who think its fair that people gained massively from the Royal Mail sell off.
You sell them, especially if you are looking for a secure and regular income.
The inevitable result of such a policy would be to reduce supply of rented accommodation and increase supply of 'buy to occupy' property.
The relatively affluent would gain at the expense of the needy. A sort of Primrose Hill form of socialism.
Especially now that UKIP is financing the transport of millions of bricks to their Freepost address.
Still don't get why they wouldn't end up flogging them to a landlord that could be arsed
Of course 'a party' could try to reduce demand, which would also stabilize prices, but the optics on that politcally are terrible.
Basic economics says that if you want to reduce the price of something, make sure there's more of it. More rental property, increased competition for the tenants, lower rents etc
More building, not increased self defeating regulation is the answer.
Now, if some of those properties are sold to occupiers, we get the new equation:
X-N properties for rent and Y-N potential tenants.
Notice something? The pressure on the remaining properties has got greater. This is bad news for tenants, not good news.
noelwhelan @noelwhelan
So SF says PSNI overseen by 'Independent' Police Board incl SF's Caitríona Ruane MLA & Gerry Kelly MLA engaged in 'political arrest'
Gavin Robinson @GRobinsonDUP
Yesterday SFs Pat Sheehan was calling for police to uphold the law and follow due process. Hasn't taken long for that tune to change! #Adams
' Maybe, once again, Ed has identified a key issue, but not come up with the optimal solution.'
The only way to resolve this issue is to increase the supply, it's basic economics,surely Ed can get his head around it.
'Tenants would be able to terminate contracts after the first 6 months with one month notice as they can now.
But landlords would be able to terminate contracts with 2 months’ notice only if they can have good reason:
· The tenant falls into rent arrears, is guilty of anti-social behaviour or breaches their tenancy agreement
· The landlord wants to sell the property, needs the property for their own or family use
· The landlord plans to refurbish or change the use of the property.'
So, security for the tenant but not the landlord
The only way Ed could make such a scheme work would be to effectively nationalise the properties by subsidising housing associations to buy the properties. This would involve a fairly substantial cost and would need to be funded out of additional borrowing.
Still Ed might be able to sell the idea as another scheme which can be financed by taxing bankers' bonuses!
Yes - what's the security ?
Er the flats but the tenants can't be evicted for 3 yrs
Er.....
Still, it's not a surprise. I'd already identified the rental market as a field ripe for wrecking by Ed Miliband. With a fair wind he might be able to completely wipe it out, as his predecessors did in the 1970s.
So this may well look good (the proposals on letting agents' fees sound attractive) but in practice not achieve much at all or cause real problems if the supply of rented housing dries up. Who can say? The devil is in the detail.
What we do learn is that Ed M is very good at coming up with proposals which seem to address the symptoms of a problem but fails totally when it comes to dealing with the underlying problem.
Reduce rents by building more houses. Now which party was trying to loosen planning regulations?
So, tenancies will be no more secure than they are now. Probably less.
I could call it Intercourse Investments - lots of growth from a small deposit :-)
At the moment there are eight purchase enquiries registered by estate agents for each property listed for sale (on average and with wide regional variations). It is this imbalance which is driving prices up not an expansion in mortgage credit. In fact the total outstanding on secured housing loans has fallen in each of the past two months.
So there would need to be a fairly significant shift in numbers to counter the current lack of liquidity in the market.
Still your theory is right.
Gaby Hinsliff @gabyhinsliff
OK, now this is interesting. Ed Miliband targets renters, not buyers (ie, practically everyone under 35) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/30/ed-miliband-labour-rental-market-reforms-property …
The rental market can (and for many does) work very well. However, when it fails it causes misery for tenants, and sometimes for landlords.
Not only do we need more homes built, but we need good homes built.
This is extremely worrying - what on earth is he going to come out with then? It's genuinely hard to think of anything more damaging he could go for, but he's bound to want to pull another big turkey out of the hat.
In fact this proposal would almost certainly crash the housing market. Perhaps that is the plan.
Night all.
· The landlord wants to sell the property, needs the property for their own or family use
· The landlord plans to refurbish or change the use of the property.'
If none of those things are happening then almost by definition the property is in good order with regular paying tenants. So I'd have thought most landlords would be fairly happy with that situation...
Thinking back to when I was renting in one of the properties the landlady informed me whilst I was on holiday that she hadn't kept up the mortgage payments and the bailiffs were coming round ! Luckily the date was after my holiday ended... managed to sort out another room to rent and got deposit back.
Could have probably legally stopped the bailiffs coming in/sued the landlord or some such but my worry was they'd come whilst I was at work and it wasn't really worth the hassle.
The basic problem is a software glitch in the high altitude air traffic control center there. There is also a nationwide ground stop on traffic headed into the area controlled by the LA center. This includes LA, San Diego and Las Vegas plus other local airports.
The FAA says things are slowly returning to normal.
Yes you are right, but see my reponse to SO.
Given the current lack of liquidity in the residential property sales market, it may take some time to have a noticeable downward effect on prices.
On there being no immutable barrier between tenants and buyers, again you are right. But the conversion from one group to other will be dependent on a much wider range of economic factors: lending criteria and prudential regulation of the mortgage market and lender risk; interest rates; employment; economic confidence; availability of subsidies (HTB) etc.
The current economic environment should stimulate conversions from tenancies to mortgages and this is certainly the aim of Osborne's HTB scheme, but there is a long way to travel before we get back to financing supply which matches that of the early part of the century. And most would argue that is not a place to which we want or need to return!
Tories need one of these policies of labour to blow up in they faces or labour will keep winning the battle of public opinion on policy.
Labours got the answer to that - use or lose policy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25396103
I mean, you don't actually think that the way to encourage housebuilding companies to take a risk, buy land with their limited capital, and try to get planning permission, is to fine them if it doesn't work out quite as quickly as they had hoped, do you?