A fairer deal for renters

The question below is wrong to put the three criteria in one question, because each needs a different answer

he 'London Model' would include the following:

•             open-ended tenancies, where tenants can give an appropriate amount of notice to leave the property at any time  
•             end Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions, meaning landlords may only regain their properties under designated possession grounds; and 
•             ensure landlords can regain possession when they have a legitimate reason and have confidence in their ability to do so effectively.

In open-ended tenancies the Landlord can also give one months notice for the tenant to leave or one months notice to increase rent. This absolutely bad for poorer tenants, families with children etc - while end section 21 no-fault evictions is good for them.

Why have you put these three in one group?

Why have you not shown in your questions that in open-ended tenancies Landlords had power to end tenancy with one month's notice.

Your survey is faulty!!

Landlords need to be able to evict tenants without any reasons after a fair notice period; the real problems with the UK rental market are: a) woefully inadequate availability of council housing; b) national legislation precludes landlords from granting 2 or 3 year long leases; c) poor planning regulations allowing, eg the conversion of business premises into sub-standard living accommodation.

Biased questions as usual from the Mayor's office.

Landlords love respectful, long-term tenants who pay their rent on time. It is possible now to have an unlimited AST after the initial term - it just rolls over to a periodic tenancy agreement. Letting agents don't like this because they miss out on additional admin fees (no longer admissable after 1-Jun-19). Tenants - contact your landlord directly to roll over to this type of agreement.

To allow tenants to give notice at any time could fly in the face of local councils' requirements for a minimum 6-month term and would lead to additional costs to the landlord (letting agent fees in finding new tenants; DEICR, etc.). This mean increased rents to cover the costs.

Rent controls: property would be sold or repairs wouldn't get done - see what's happening in Berlin. Rent controls don't work. Councils are some of the worst landlords and they are imune to much of the legislation that private landlords are subject to. A friend of mine, in her eighties, was without a boiler (so no heating nor hot water) for over 6 weeks before Christmas - nice one Lambeth. A private landlord wouldn't be able to get away with that. 

I would advise tenants to check that their landlord is registered and/or accredited (NLA, RAL, etc.). Any problems go to the Environmental Health Office at your local council (regulations re size of room, gas safety, electricial checks, EPC, how to rent booklet, etc.). Rules are already there - it's up to councils to implement them. 

Don't forget Section 24 taxation too. That's another cause of rent increases. 

Joined up thinking is required.  Renting is for mugs - except the alternative of buying is currently beyond the reach of many people.

To avoid young and low earners being mugged, house purchase should be made easier and fairer, and that does not mean mortgages at huge interest rates to reflect higher risks.  We need a kind of hire purchase for houses with very low deposits where failure to pay leads to eviction, as with rented properties, but at the end of a fixed period sees the hirer who does pay owning the property.  The biggest problem is that the current lending criterea discriminates against the young and low earners.  We can't get around this by forcing banks to lend, but the Mayor of London's office could guarantee mortgages/loans if configured so that the Mayor's office can evict non payers and if so, obtains the whole property, (this would mean nil loss to the Mayor).  It might even be possible for the Mayor to borrow from the Bank of England.

The prudent young/low earner could then pay monthly to buy a house at low interest, thus matching rentals, yet retain an interest in the property that he or she eventually owns. 

Far better than tinkering with the rental sector!

Landlords must be able to sell properties when they wish to.
Good landlords don't seek to evict good tenants. 

As others have mentioned, 'rent control' as per countries like Germany.

The selling off of social housing by the then Tory government (under M Thatcher) for them to not have the worry with the expense of maintaining housing via local councils, which successive governments have continued with was just plain wrong.

Allowing those that can afford it to build housing empires (and make millions in the process when they sell up) of the likes of Fergus Wilson is just plain wrong.

Allowing foreign investors buy up newly built inner London developments by the 1000's to then keep them empty to sell for a profit within a couple of years is just plain wrong.

Many of the worlds cities are going this way.  They will eventually become gated communties for the very rich with the poorly paid and over worked having to commute from miles away into and out of the city each day just to scrape a living.

The future looks to be a very bleak place.

Here come communism from nutty khan and corbyn, rents are high because landlords have to buy expensive properties in London.penalising landlords is crazy and against the law. Not all tenants are saints and In my experience i e had some rotten idiots that destroyed my lovely well looked after property. This labour governement hate hardworking successful people and just want to look after scroungers. I worked hard for my rental flat and pension,bloody hard perhaps tenente can do the same as some of my ex tenents have done. However, in order to have cheaper property in London and therefore cheaper rents, perhaps the idiot khan should look at some loopholes such as foreign buyers or companies being exempt from capital gains on property sales or introcducing a bibher factor foreing buyers/investors. Don’t punish hard working Londoners who e save all their lives for the rental flat to pay their pension, you’re going about it the wrong way. I fear or thiscountry under labour. Back to the dark communist ages.

I think the issue that really needs to be tackled is what is being charged. Prices are way too high making the possibility of saving towards ownership extremely difficult. an open ended tenancy really makes no difference in my opinion.

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute.

The ideas are good but we also need a rent increase cap or rent controls. In my experience, landlords that can't be bothered to serve a section 21 notice, or see you as 'trouble' because you ask for basic things to be fixed, will just hike the rent up at the next opportunity and de facto force you to leave. 

Without rent increase caps and rent controls, I fear that getting rid of Section 21 won't actually make any difference.

Secondly, we need an independent ombudsperson or organisation that can take action on rogue private landlords. I have experienced short-notice eviction, as well as landlords promising to make improvements or repairs in return for a rent increase, and the improvements never materialise. I have also had the freeholder turn up unannounced and remove property from our garden. All the time we feared eviction if we complained to our landlord.

If landlords feared blacklisting or fines, it would greatly help.

Your survey asks whether I think things are "good for..." various people but this will give you a very skewed result - probably the result you are looking for.

Open ended tenancies are more attractive - why would they not?  The renter has more flexibility with no downside!

Is it a good thing? No probably not.  It's not reasonable for the tenant to be able to leave at any time.  Every time the tenant leaves the landlord suffers a void period.  That costs him money.  If a tenant of mine wants a six month break clause then the rent goes up because I can't afford to keep having void periods.  If he wants a six month break then I assume he intends to use it so the rent needs to go up to cover a few weeks empty every six months instead of every 12.

That can't be good for tenants.

I understand that tenants are afraid to complain and perhaps I'm unique but if a tenant needs something fixed, I fix it.  I actually want my tenants to be happy because then they stay longer and I have less time with the flat empty.  A month empty while I find a new tenant costs me a lot more than a plumber to fix a tap.

However, there are tenants that are a pain.  They have far more things "break" than other tenants and they don't look after things.  Or they are consistently late with their rent without ever getting to the point that I can evict them for non payment (which by the way is well past the point that the deposit would compensate me for lost rent never mind dilapidations).  They are tenants I can do without and if there is no way to get rid of them then renting becomes less attrracive.  If renting is less attractive guess what?..  rents go up to compensate landlords for the risk.

Fixed term tenancies are just fine and have been for years.  Allow landlords to offer open ended tenancies if they want to to attract tenants but don't make it compuslory.

The problems in the housing market are largely caused by lack of  supply. If there was enough rented housing stock bad landords would have to improve, as tenants would have the choice to go elsewhere. Open ended tenancies will scare off many landlords and many lenders, and will end up reducing the supply of rental properties. This will hit the poorest hardest as faced with letting to tenants landlords cannot ask to leave except in the direst of circumstances, landlords are likely to be very choosy about who they let to in the first place. Saying the courts will still allow landlords to regain possession for rent arears, antisocial behaviour etc, is laughable-the current court system is underfunded and overworked and not fit for purpose- that is why landlords increasingly use S. 21 no fault notices to end tenancies, even where there are rent arrears etc, because it is the only sure way to get a property back.  A more constructive solution would be to introduce the option of granting fixed term tenancies of 3 or 5 years. These would give the tenants certainty and protect tenants against rent rises whilst giving landlords some control over their property. Not all landlords are bad, and not all tenants are bad.  The system needs to be fair if it is going to work. It should not demonise landlords. This survey should also allow comments throughout, not funnel answers into yes or no, one size may not fit all. 

the availability of rental housing is the biggest lever for improving the lot of renters - competition among landlords would increase which should act to reduce rents and improve quality. This can be increased by building new (best solution) or more people buying to rent (but which decreases housing stock for homeowners)

Security of tenure is not any solution in isolation - it needs to be combined with eg market rents, ability to act quickly if tenant is at fault, ability to carry out periodic maintenance - otherwise it would likely reduce the stock of rental housing available by discouraging landlords.

Regulation of property maintenance standards would be beneficial, but how to enforce it effectively would need to be thought through

There are a lot of pros and cons.

One being the substandard condition of housing. All renters should be registered. Council should inspect property to see if it complies. I think in one European country the landlord has to get a professional cleaning company in to prepare the flat and the renter has to do the same when they leave.

'get bad or non paying tenants should be evicted quicklyvwithin reasonable times. Tenants should not be able to squat.

It is difficult to  understand that we have rented for over 30 years from a housing association.

Peabody acts like a private landlord.

 Over 14 flats within our buildings  have been sold to private landlords not sold to tenants of the flats

So there is no longer a sense of community within the buildings.

Your survey is very limited will therefore not reflect a true picture of the situation. Taking away Section 21 without improving protection for landlords to speed up & reduce costs evictions of anti-social tenants, tenants that damamge property, tenants that don't pay rent. You are risking going down a route whereby less properties will be available to rent as it will become impossible for landlords to do so on th eopen market.

Any proposals/consultations should cover the best outcome for both tenants and landlords. Currently the legal system makes it a lengthy and costly process for landlords to evict non paying tenants so they have to resort to Section 21 to protect their interests. Put measure in place to protect both parties. Landlords do not resort to Section 21 unless they need their properties back, have a tenant who is anti social, damamges property or doesn't pay rent. Think of it; it doesn't make sense to evict a tenant who pays rent on time, looks after the property unless you require your property back or they are not paying. Business sense.

Most BTL mortgage landlords cannot let properties ror longer than a 12 month AST they will therefore not be able to let out their properties under new proposals and there will be less properties on offer. The renters will lose out. 

You have to research this properly from both tenant and landlord side to make this a workable plan. For example Section 21 can only be inforced landlord/mortgage company needs property back, if tenants is in rent arrears, if there have been complaints about the tenant for damamge of property or anti social behaviour.

The main problem in London is the lack of rented properties. This is main because it is deply unattractive for ordinary householders to become landlords and almost impossible to employers to organise accomodation for their workers wihtut incurring massive tax and other penalties.  Until such probelms are addressed measure like these will merely result in more reputable landlords withdrawing from the market.  

This is not the answer, Landlords should have the right over how they manage their own property providing they are not slum landlords and the property adheres to good standards and health and safety.  Landlords have mortgages, loans, taxes, property maintenance, and renewals to pay, very often tenants are in arrears and also leave the property in a poor state, even the high end properties. I rent from an amazing landlord and have seen where bad and obnoxious tenants need to leave or be evicted asap.  Government need to look at the situation where foreign investors are buying up huge amount of properties to rent out and make huge profits when they sell. .  Precedence for London property needs to be given to those who work in London and pay taxes. I dont believe anyone should have open ended leases even council tenants, that way one person in a council house who lives in a 2 or 3 bed property can be moved to a smaller property to make way for thise whe need a 2 or 3 bed property.   If everyone were on a one year or set period tenancy, they would treat the property with respect and mindful to be a good tenant otherwise their tenancy woud no be renewed. Its not the answer to give the power to the tenant, I think you would find that private landlords would throw in the towel and sell up. Id love for the mayor to live next door to a nightmare neighbour then find that he has to endure it because there are no high court evictions!