Tenants Charter – Mr Pickles, have you gone completely mad?

Reply to the comment left by "Lucy McKenna" at "01/10/2013 - 13:24":

Hi Lucy

Political lobbying isn't what I do, as per my Twitter handle iAmAlandlord and I'm also an internet blogger. I will leave the lobbying to the Landlord Association I support.

Yes I am angry but I have no desire whatsoever to to spend my days in London educating political twits who have no grasp of reality.

I'm happy to confine my rants to the web and anybody who chooses to read them, share them and debate with me in an environment where I am most comfortable, i.e. in front of my PC in my PJ's.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Conrad Vink" at "01/10/2013 - 13:33":

Conrad

To a very great extent I follow your logic. However, the choices available to government are carrot or stick. The more they shake the stick, the more the good landlords like me consider whether this is the right business to be in. When we exit the business, and as the government stick discourages further investment, the rogues thrive.

I am convinced the answer is for the government to improve the incentive to build supply. Most people only agree to live in damp houses or beds in sheds when they have no real choice. Those of us who can afford holidays don't put up with such conditions because we have choices which only exist because supply and demand are matched. Tenants need more choices and regulation isn't going to drive that, however, investment and incentives will.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "01/10/2013 - 13:58":

Mark,

I don't think your logic works: Rental laws based on 6 month ASTs draw responsible long-term landlords into the sector, while rental laws based on 3 or 5 year tenancies will leave only rogue chancers?

It just doesn't make sense, and it's not the experience of countries where longer tenancies are the norm either.

Conrad. Yes there are a few unscrupulous landlords around but believe me most of us are like Mark with heart in the right place.

Early on in the thread/post Mark mentioned that gaining possession when tenants fail to honour their tenancy agreements like not paying the rent needs to be changed. Rotten landlords are pilloried but nobody ever hears or complains about the many basically dishonest tenants there are about. I bet that in Germany which you quote it is easy to get bad tenants out?

So if Pickles's idea of longer tenancies ever comes to pass at least couple it with making it easy to chuck rotten tenants out.

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "01/10/2013 - 14:09":

Yes, it would make perfect sense to couple longer tenancies with making it easier to evict rogue tenants. They give good tenants a bad name and encourage the general perception of the private rented sector as being a hive of scum and villainy.

It doesn't need to be this way, the private rented sector should be a well-functioning market in which providers and consumers of housing deal with one another respectfully and meet all of their commitments. Short term tenancies encourage bad behaviour on both sides.

Reply to the comment left by "Conrad Vink" at "01/10/2013 - 14:08":

Conrad

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make.

I would dearly love to have long term tenants, as would most good landlords. However, to be told that I must give people security of tenure with only minimal protection against bad payers I'm afraid I'd have to say "I'm out" and so will most landlords.

Would you really want to commit to living in the same place for 5 years though?

If you were a tenant of mine you could move out any time after 6 months, subject only to giving me a months notice. On the flip side, I would have to pay you compensation to leave if you were a good tenant.

I was a tenant once and I'd have jumped at the opportunity to have a Deed of Assurance but I would have been very reluctant to sign up for a 5 year tenancy. If good tenants ask good landlords for a Deed of Assurance the idea might just catch on. In the meantime, there is a housing shortage to deal with and the only way to solve it is to create massive incentive for massive investment.

Forget regulation, it will be like herding cats and will only serve to drive out the good landlords who will end up paying for it and passing on the costs to good tenants.

The authorities need to combine forces and take out the criminal elements. They know who they are and if they can get their heads together and do away with their stupid data sharing protocols they will actually get somewhere. I have been saying this now for some time and i know the powers that be have been listening. It's only a matter of a few months now before the hit squads move in. Remember, you heard it here first.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "01/10/2013 - 14:33":

I think 3 or 5 year tenancies would need to have a clause allowing them to be terminated early upon payment of compensation. As you say, not everybody will want to commit to living in the same place for that long. However, most tenants want more than six months' security.

Another possibility would be asymmetric tenancies in which tenants could give notice during the fixed period but landlords could not so long as the tenant was meeting their obligations.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "01/10/2013 - 14:33":

I don't think that 5 tenancies would or should necessarily imply that tenants would be tied for the full 5 years.
Certainly that's not how it works in other countries.

Reply to the comment left by "Conrad Vink" at "01/10/2013 - 14:31":

It's very sad that society in general shares your perception Conrad because the reality is actually very different. Most tenants are very good, I have granted over 1,000 tenancies and only needed to seek a possession orders on three occasions in nearly 25 years. Either I am lucky or I am smart and I could say the same about my tenants.

I accept there are a few bad landlords and a few bad tenants in every area but I really do believe that for the most part the landlord/tenant relationships function very well. However, 4 million happy tenants doesn't give the Press and Shelter much to write about does it? Sadly, bad news sells newspapers and everybody loves to hate a villain. It's a shame that landlords have taken the limelight away from bankers, estate agents, car salesmen and the double glazing industry. I wonder which sector of society will be next?
.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Conrad Vink" at "01/10/2013 - 14:42":

Conrad - you said; "Another possibility would be asymmetric tenancies in which tenants could give notice during the fixed period but landlords could not so long as the tenant was meeting their obligations."

Well if my mortgage lender would allow me to sign up to that and subject to the eviction laws being sorted out you'd have my vote on that suggestion. It's where the Deed of Assurance is heading as a logical step closer to the preferred destination of the majority.
.