• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Game_of_Homes

Government consultation survey on making tenancies longer

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

We already have proper long term tenancies with long term tenancy rights.  They're called regulated tenancies and assured tenancies.  

It is only the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies in the mid 90's that has led to the mess that we've got now.  This consultancy is just mucking about with ASTs.  IMO it is quite simple -- if there is a need for a short term rental (even one that is extended) then it should be an AST -- everything else should be regulated or assured.  

[I actually don't understand it -- You're never allowed to use 'clever interpretation of the law' to get around your obligations to the 'man in the street'.  Eg, as an employer I'm not allowed to ride roughshod over employment law by employing everyone on 5 month 30 day contracts that get renewed every 6 months -- the law would quite rightly regard that as continuous employment.  So why can ASTs be used to take away tenant rights for long term tenancies by pretending that they're a succession of short-term tenancies?  It is a very odd (and unusually persistent) abuse of contract.]

Edited by dgul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dgul said:

We already have proper long term tenancies with long term tenancy rights.  They're called regulated tenancies and assured tenancies.  

It is only the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies in the mid 90's that has led to the mess that we've got now.  This consultancy is just mucking about with ASTs.  IMO it is quite simple -- if there is a need for a short term rental (even one that is extended) then it should be an AST -- everything else should be regulated or assured.  

[I actually don't understand it -- You're never allowed to use 'clever interpretation of the law' to get around your obligations to the 'man in the street'.  Eg, as an employer I'm not allowed to ride roughshod over employment law by employing everyone on 5 month 30 day contracts that get renewed every 6 months -- the law would quite rightly regard that as continuous employment.  So why can ASTs be used to take away tenant rights for long term tenancies by pretending that they're a succession of short-term tenancies?  It is a very odd (and unusually persistent) abuse of contract.]

Well, you can either fill in an imperfect consultation which has boxes which allow for suggestions and arguments and *might* bring about some changes to a useless system, or not fill it in and complain on internet forums that nothing changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completed. But again, this is meddling in something that would be better left alone to the free market.

There will be renters that want three year tenancies. There will be landlords that want the same. But there are banks that disallow them.

Take away the restriction and let tenants and landlords negotiate what they want between themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dgul said:

We already have proper long term tenancies with long term tenancy rights.  They're called regulated tenancies and assured tenancies.  

It is only the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies in the mid 90's that has led to the mess that we've got now.  This consultancy is just mucking about with ASTs.  IMO it is quite simple -- if there is a need for a short term rental (even one that is extended) then it should be an AST -- everything else should be regulated or assured.  

[I actually don't understand it -- You're never allowed to use 'clever interpretation of the law' to get around your obligations to the 'man in the street'.  Eg, as an employer I'm not allowed to ride roughshod over employment law by employing everyone on 5 month 30 day contracts that get renewed every 6 months -- the law would quite rightly regard that as continuous employment.  So why can ASTs be used to take away tenant rights for long term tenancies by pretending that they're a succession of short-term tenancies?  It is a very odd (and unusually persistent) abuse of contract.]

To be fair, employers used to sack plebs after 5 months and 30 days. I know because it happened to a friend of mine twice. The second time he was wise to it so took the last day off sick. Upon his return on the Monday he was informed that they had sacked him in his absence. Nowadays the key period is 2 years. Or just use an agency.

The land and labour markets are both completely stitched up against many working people. They have almost no bargaining power anymore. Neoliberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

 

There will be renters that want three year tenancies. There will be landlords that want the same. But there are banks that disallow them.

 

My understanding is that this is the major sticking point. I believe that it's a condition of many BTL mortgages that tenants should be on ASTs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Completed. But again, this is meddling in something that would be better left alone to the free market.

There will be renters that want three year tenancies. There will be landlords that want the same. But there are banks that disallow them.

Take away the restriction and let tenants and landlords negotiate what they want between themselves.

Did you find the bug in it that I think I found? - for some reason one question allowed for more than one answer, but it would only accept one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wheeler said:

The banks don't want to be encumbered by tenants if they need to repossess the property. I suspect that's why ASTs came into existence.

This is new to me, though I'm not really surprised to see another link between the corrupt money system and the dysfunctional land system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, billfunk said:

To be fair, employers used to sack plebs after 5 months and 30 days. I know because it happened to a friend of mine twice. The second time he was wise to it so took the last day off sick. Upon his return on the Monday he was informed that they had sacked him in his absence. Nowadays the key period is 2 years. Or just use an agency.

The land and labour markets are both completely stitched up against many working people. They have almost no bargaining power anymore. Neoliberalism.

Yes, but you can't then immediately re-hire them the day after.  If you want a pile of temporary workers without any long term training etc then fine -- but you can't game the system otherwise.  This was fixed in case law in the 90s -- workers rights trump the right of an employer to write a contract cleverly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wheeler said:

The banks don't want to be encumbered by tenants if they need to repossess the property. I suspect that's why ASTs came into existence.

Couldn't the bank just collect the rent directly and bypass the landlord rather than kicking out a good tenant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Game_of_Homes said:

Couldn't the bank just collect the rent directly and bypass the landlord rather than kicking out a good tenant?

I've always wondered the same thing. Mortgagor becomes the defacto landlord until such time that the property can be sold to another landlord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Did you find the bug in it that I think I found? - for some reason one question allowed for more than one answer, but it would only accept one.

Yes - and given it was surveymonkey it looks lie it was put out in a hurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Game_of_Homes said:

Well, you can either fill in an imperfect consultation which has boxes which allow for suggestions and arguments and *might* bring about some changes to a useless system, or not fill it in and complain on internet forums that nothing changes. 

No.  I've been through it and it is a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' type of questionnaire.  The problem is the fundamentals of security of tenure.  The output of this, as written, will be 'well, loads of people want 3 year tenancies with 6 month notice periods and rpi rent increases during the 3 year period -- so that's what we'll give them'.  The vast majority of people want 'tenancy until I don't want it any more, except for extreme circumstances', which is exactly (well, not quite) the situation pre-1980 and not-far-off 1980-88.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Cunning Plan said:

Yes - and given it was surveymonkey it looks lie it was put out in a hurry.

I thought it was particularly, shit for UK GOV

Yeah, I know, I know

But like anything UK GOV tries to do on the net

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgul said:

No.  I've been through it and it is a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' type of questionnaire.  The problem is the fundamentals of security of tenure.  The output of this, as written, will be 'well, loads of people want 3 year tenancies with 6 month notice periods and rpi rent increases during the 3 year period -- so that's what we'll give them'.  The vast majority of people want 'tenancy until I don't want it any more, except for extreme circumstances', which is exactly (well, not quite) the situation pre-1980 and not-far-off 1980-88.

So write that down in the boxes. It's a good suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Game_of_Homes said:

Couldn't the bank just collect the rent directly and bypass the landlord rather than kicking out a good tenant?

Do banks actually 'repossess' properties. That implies they take ownership. 

My guess is they just bung them on the market or to auction to get shot of them. If there is a sitting tenant with a couple of years to run I guess that may affect the value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UmBongo said:

I've always wondered the same thing. Mortgagor becomes the defacto landlord until such time that the property can be sold to another landlord.

This is how it used to be -- the mortgage holder had to become landlord.  Banks hated it and thus (pretty much) didn't loan against letted property.

Frankly, people have become completely desensitised to the issue of tenure security in the UK.  But when you look at it in a wider context (historical and other -countries) you see how completely bonkers it really is.

1 minute ago, Game_of_Homes said:

So write that down in the boxes. It's a good suggestion.

I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

This is how it used to be -- the mortgage holder had to become landlord.  Banks hated it and thus (pretty much) didn't loan against letted property.

Frankly, people have become completely desensitised to the issue of tenure security in the UK.  But when you look at it in a wider context (historical and other -countries) you see how completely bonkers it really is.

Well, one of the reasons is that the Government/media like to sell the lie that millenials/renters have no power and should just put up with the best of the worst. In fact they have increasing power and could start to demand some pretty outrageous things (in the same way that boomers want to have their cake and eat it). The problem is people have been so brainwashed with things like prices never falling, with the unfairness being "just the way it is" etc. They don't realise that actually they don't have to put up with this shit but they are either ambivalent (so don't vote) or don't believe that change is possible.

Edited by Game_of_Homes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

No.  I've been through it and it is a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' type of questionnaire.  The problem is the fundamentals of security of tenure.  The output of this, as written, will be 'well, loads of people want 3 year tenancies with 6 month notice periods and rpi rent increases during the 3 year period -- so that's what we'll give them'.  The vast majority of people want 'tenancy until I don't want it any more, except for extreme circumstances', which is exactly (well, not quite) the situation pre-1980 and not-far-off 1980-88.

Well yes. The first question was so vague and lacking in extra information that it was impossible to give a meaningful answer.

And I would go for the three year deal with the six month break clause - but for the tenant only. The landlord has a break clause at any point if the tenant fails to pay or is a nuisance.

To be fair, I think I would be happy to see an increase in tenants' and landlords' rights. I don't understand why it is so hard to evict someone that hasn't paid for two months. And it is these people that make it so much harder for anyone else to rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Do banks actually 'repossess' properties. That implies they take ownership. 

My guess is they just bung them on the market or to auction to get shot of them. If there is a sitting tenant with a couple of years to run I guess that may affect the value.

What happens is that the bank assumes ownership but doesn't acknowledge that the tenant is their tenant.  This would probably involve not taking (accepting) the rent, etc.  In this way the bank owns the property but doesn't have a contractual relationship with the tenant.  They can then evict on the minimum timescales (couple of months).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, billfunk said:

This is new to me, though I'm not really surprised to see another link between the corrupt money system and the dysfunctional land system.

I should have said "in my opinion". I don't have any evidence that this is the case.

5 minutes ago, Game_of_Homes said:

Couldn't the bank just collect the rent directly and bypass the landlord rather than kicking out a good tenant?

That would mean that the bank would have to go into the business of being a landlord. It could have a separate company to do that I suppose but I think the bank would see more profit in concentrating on money lending.

3 minutes ago, UmBongo said:

I've always wondered the same thing. Mortgagor becomes the defacto landlord until such time that the property can be sold to another landlord.

That would limit the market possibilities for the property though. You would be marketing it only at other landlords and missing out on potential owner/occupiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wheeler said:

That would limit the market possibilities for the property though. You would be marketing it only at other landlords and missing out on potential owner/occupiers.

True. Another option could be that the bank could offer to sell it to the tenant if s/he was interested. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UmBongo said:

True. Another option could be that the bank could offer to sell it to the tenant if s/he was interested. :)

Indeed, and loan the tenant the money to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wheeler said:

Indeed, and loan the tenant the money to buy it.

If the tenant has paid the rent/bills  regularly and it's more than the equivalent mortgage repayments why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.