2 years ago | 22 comments
A report commissioned by Labour has called for a major overhaul of the private rented sector (PRS), including the creation of a National Landlord Register and measures to prevent rent rises.
There are also calls for Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions to be abolished and a bid to discourage PRS landlords from leaving for the short-let and temporary accommodation sectors.
And there needs to be more social housing built, the report says, with an acknowledgement that planning policies will need to be reformed.
The report, by Hammersmith and Fulham council leader, Stephen Cowan, is ‘independent’ and its views ‘don’t reflect the Labour Party’.
However, it is being seen as influencing Labour’s housing policy ahead of the next election.
Mr Cowan said: “Britain’s housing sector is broken. For many people, the opportunity to live in a secure, affordable, accessible and good home is out of reach.
“That is set to remain the situation for generations to come unless the system is changed significantly. And that is something Labour has determined to do.”
He added: “Fixing the supply of genuinely affordable homes to buy or rent is an essential step to fixing every part of the housing sector.”
The report outlines five key areas for reform, emphasising the need for a ‘holistic approach’ to fix the housing market.
The report also makes clear that landlords should pay a fee to use the National Landlords Register – and an independent body should carry compliance checks.
Landlords may also worry about the security of tenure proposal with only periodic tenancies being used – and want to sell a property ‘should not be a ground for ending the tenancy’.
The only ground would be for a landlord to move back into their property as their main residence.
A default by the tenant would also be grounds for possession but lowering the ground for antisocial behaviour should be ‘discretionary’.
The report also wants tenancy agreements to ‘take the form set out in the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016’.
Landlords could also see rent rises being restricted under Labour to ‘within tenancies but not between them’ to prevent a new tenancy starting at ‘market rates’. Rent stabilisation would also see:
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
2 years ago | 22 comments
2 years ago | 14 comments
2 years ago | 32 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 3237 - Articles: 81
5:46 AM, 19th May 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Stella at 18/05/2024 – 20:10
Yes,
I got inside information yesterday from TSB. Acorn are protesting outside their branches soon to say Stop restricting Landlords to may 1 year tenancies as this is cause of rent increases, & means Landlord can give notice after a year & then homeless.
Them Renters groups on another planet, make it worse for theirselves.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 617
9:56 AM, 19th May 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 19/05/2024 – 05:46
Mortgage companies should have backed us.
Surely it cannot be in their interest to see property not maintaining market value because the tenant has security of tenure.
Instead we have some like nationwide and the cooperative bank backing Shelter.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
10:23 AM, 20th May 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 18/05/2024 – 13:19
If you are able to incorporate your business or run it as a limited liability partnership and your niece is either a shareholder in that company or partner in that partnership then the bank account will not be frozen on your death.
Member Since September 2023 - Comments: 335
4:57 PM, 21st May 2024, About 2 years ago
Can’t use the words rent freeze or cap because they know exactly what happens when these measures are introduced, so a fancy new programme of regulation introduced by liebor with the same intention ,which will inevitably mean a increase in rents plain and simple.WHAT DONT YOU GET LIEBOR LOOK AT SCOTLAND LOOK AT WALES WHEN YOU INTRODUCE THESE MEASURESTHE ONLY THING THAT WILL STOP THIS IS BUILD MORE SOCIAL HOUSING ITSNOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
Member Since December 2013 - Comments: 59 - Articles: 12
8:41 PM, 23rd May 2024, About 2 years ago
Frightening what isn’t mentioned isn’t it.
A whole bunch of Economists yet none of them mention Price Elasticity of Demand – a fairly basic Economic concept.
If the cost of supply goes up, the cost of the product goes up by a fraction of that. PED in housing is estimated in a number of surveys to come in at about 0.6.
That means 60% of all cost increases are passed on to the tenant on average.
If every penny that was spent on ideas like “having properties regularly surveyed” was viewed through the eyes of the tenant and the impact on THEIR wallet, do you think things might be a bit more “essential” and a bit less “nice to have”?
Someone already left a comment on one of my articles – the biggie is always going to be the assault on private property rights. I thought we’d got rid of Corbyn and McDonnell but (from recommendations):
Security of tenure
(1) All privately rented homes should be open-ended periodic
tenancies that can only be ended on defined grounds, most of
them involving default by the tenant.
(2) Wishing to sell the property should not be a ground for ending
a tenancy.
(3) Wishing to occupy the property should not be a ground for
ending a tenancy apart from cases falling within the current
Ground 1 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988;
that is, cases where the landlord used to live in the property
as their only or principal home and wants to move back
Paying tenants reasonable moving costs – OK. Can live with that. Not being able to end a tenancy to sell something that I own? Sounds like Narnia to me but that even knocks the unshakeable’s confidence, that one.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 617
9:51 PM, 23rd May 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Adam Lawrence at 23/05/2024 – 20:41
Good reason not to vote for Reform just in case it gives control to Labour.
This does not shock me.
it is reminiscent of the way the rental market functioned pre 1988 Housing act.
Labour lefties are determined to turn back the clock.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
10:48 AM, 24th May 2024, About 2 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Adam Lawrence at 23/05/2024 – 20:41
Yes, these proposals are a horror. A lot of small portfolio landlords would have to evict their tenants before these rules ever come into force. “Wishing to sell the property should not be ground for ending the tenancy”? These plans are effectively sequestration of assets.
On price elasticity that’s not really the only consideration in terms of how the market works. The other consideration is choice and competition. By driving out people who can provide accommodation in some form because they can no longer afford the risk of putting a roof over somebody’s head rents will be pushed up even higher.
What the PRS does is provide choice and therefore competition to public sector and social housing.