An agent has warned that landlords will bow out of the private rented sector if a city takes note of objectors’demands.
Brighton and Hove City Council has been presented with a series of demands by the Living Rent Campaign.
The group’s six-point ‘manifesto’ wants borough-wide licensing; rent controls; three- to five-year tenancy agreement as standard; an ‘ethical’ landlord accreditation scheme; an ‘ethical’ letting agent scheme; and new council homes which would be let at ‘living rents’.
More than 30% of Brighton and Hove homes are privately rented. The Living Rent Campaign says rents are too expensive.
But Andy Garth, former president of the Brighton and Hove Estate Agents Association, said he questioned how the council could enforce the manifesto, while persuading landlords to remain in the city.
He said rent controls were incompatible with a free market, and added: “In an ideal world, we would like everything to be cheaper.
“Unfortunately, we live in a world where it can’t.”
Comments (3)
So the Living Rent Campaign says rents are too expensive in Brighton & Hove. Well, what level should they be ? What tenants would LIKE to pay, maybe ? Don't these numpties realise that it's the market that determines rent levels and the fact that B&H is a desirable and fashionable place to live in makes rents higher than they might be ? Another hop-load of socialistic populist clap-trap. In our area (not B&H) where rents are cheaper, because of the fact that private landlords are not keen to let to benefits tenants, the local council has to pay above market rents in order to tempt private landlords. Can you Adam & Eve it ?
Most landlords want a long term let but not run the risk of bad tenants. If people want to impose long term social housing, then there must be a balance and tighter controls on tenants. All I see all the time is a one sided story to relax the present system that struggles to cope with poor tenants. If these people are so keen on their ideas, they should try renting their home out for a month or two!
What will all these campaigners do when private landlords say that enough is enough? Good landlords will eventually balance the difference between income and the costs of letting out their properties and there will come a point where selling up will be the better option.
Andy Garth is correct. Landlords will reach a point where they sell up and the supply of GOOD property will be reduced.
Why should a landlord have his asset tied up for at least three years? These campaigners forget that the property belongs to the landlord NOT the tenant. The landlord will want to keep good tenants in the property for as long as possible so a minimum term of three months is not required. How many good tenants would sign up for that period anyway?