Lobbying group Generation Rent has been accused of spreading propaganda, after it published its ‘manifesto’ ahead of next year’s General Election.
The ‘manifesto’ calls for overall reform of the private rented sector, claiming that it fails millions of tenants who live in fear of eviction, and is ‘second class’ compared with home ownership.
But a landlord body said that the real problem is that local authorities are simply not using their existing powers to deal with bad landlords – with only a handful of court cases compared to the large number of prosecutions for lack of TV licences.
In particular, Generation Rent wants tenants to have the right to five-year tenancies, mandatory licensing of all letting agents, and a national register of landlords.
It also wants to see housing at the centre of government policy, with a housing minister having a place at the Cabinet table.
In addition, Generation Rent wants £1bn of public money to go into building 10,000 homes on state-owned land, which would be sold to owner occupiers at close to cost price.
In future, these homes would be sold on at prices reflecting no more than inflation. Landlords would be able to buy them, but on the condition that rents would be controlled.
Richard Lambert, chief executive of the National Landlords Association, said: “Generation Rent has released first-class propaganda in order to support their assertions that tenants in the UK receive a second-class service from their landlord.
“No one should have to put up with poor property standards or live in fear of their tenancy ending, but the UK private rented sector is not at crisis point by any stretch of the imagination.
“Generation Rent seems to overlook the fact that tenancy durations are determined largely by tenants, not landlords. Like any other business, landlords want happy customers and steady income and it’s simply not the case that they look to evict their tenants at the first opportunity.
“What we need is for councils to tackle bad landlords and force them out of the private rented sector. In 2012 fewer than 500 landlords were prosecuted; compare this with the 155,000 people prosecuted for not having a TV licence.
“It is down to local and central government to prosecute publicly and effectively to make it clear that ignoring property standards is already illegal and that powers exist to tackle it.”
Comments (25)
Hello Adam
I need to take issue with some of your financial assumptions:
1) "I was horrified to discover how you can offset costs, inclusive of mortgage interest repayments, just like any business "- that's because letting a property is a business
2) " yet you are treated effectively as sole traders and therefore exempt from corporation tax" – but pay income tax at a higher rate than an SME would. A landlord could form a Ltd company but as a sole trader he is personally liable for any debts, as opposed to you with your Ltd company.
3)." On top of that you are exempt of VAT " – a landlord can voluntarily register for VAT and that would allow him to reclaim the vat on repairs etc to the property. However he would also have to charge vat on the rent. It would mean more profit to the landlord but would cost the tenant more.
4) "You also don't employ many people – and if you suggest that you use local contractors to service properties then think again. It's highly likely that an owner occupier of the same property would encounter the same problem therefore doing the same." – Really? How often do you replace your carpets, fridge, washing machine in your home. Our landlords replace the carpets at least every 5 years. Do you carry out Gas Safety and Portable Appliance testing? Coarbon Monoxide testing?
It would have been interesting had you actually ansered Paul's questions. I wanted to see your response to fulfilling your contractual obligations.
Paul,
I'd like to take this in 2 parts, firstly…
Lets just focus on that point you made, and I realise it's not your style and why you felt you had to mention it however. This statement…
"However, I could just say to you Adam, the UK housing market is the way it is, if you can't get on the housing ladder or afford to buy a home, tough luck, deal with it."
…is totally not in keeping with the argument I was making.
I chose to start my business, it was my risk and a difficult decision but I understood what I was doing and fully researched it before doing so.
You chose to start your business and also knew the risks you where taking on when doing so.
The state of the UK housing market was not something I was old enough to plan for, research or influence in any way. It was never in my sphere of control.
My point is that your business has many downsides as do many.
The way it affects younger generations before they have a chance to take hold of their aspirations is deeply unfair and when they start to kick back you all seem to be wondering why.
With a little research today I have discovered the extent of tax breaks on what the HMRC refers to as "unearned income".
I was horrified to discover how you can offset costs, inclusive of mortgage interest repayments, just like any business, yet you are treated effectively as sole traders and therefore exempt from corporation tax. On top of that you are exempt of VAT and having googled "Avoid capital gains tax on buy to let" it would seem that if I add all of you together then you're avoiding more tax that vodaphone.
http://moneytothemasses.com/tag/how-to-avoid-cgt-capital-gains-tax-on-buy-to-let-property
You also don't employ many people – and if you suggest that you use local contractors to service properties then think again. It's highly likely that an owner occupier of the same property would encounter the same problem therefore doing the same.
My business used to pay UK PAYE, National Insurance, VAT and corporation tax. As managing director I would have more flexibility with the tax terms you enjoy. I never got 10% offset on depreciation.
It would appear that HMRC believes you provide a valuable service to society and provides you with tax incentives to do so. So if those incentives are for your services provided to society – then, by default, you HAVE a responsibility to society.
According to ONS figures, the end of a tenancy has been the most common cause of homelessness every quarter for the last two years.
None of you can or should be proud of that, especially in the light of your favourable tax treatment.
My second point is this…
Letting agents are doomed.
Letting agents are middle men and technology is in the business of destroying the middle men.
Woolworths, Ceefax, Virgin Music Stores, Jessops, Borders, almost HMV and now even Taxis.
Both landlords and letting ages are stuck in the dark ages due to their age demographic. just as the boards of the above companies where when the likes of my industry snuck up on them.
That's a free market, we all saw a way to do it better.
When I look at how bad all the letting agents websites are, the over reliance on the big web players such as rightmove.com and the lack of social media integration into their businesses.. All I see an opportunity…
By example, off the top of my head…
Great for Landlords as they pay £9.99 a month to manage their property through the site and iOS/Android device. No huge percentage of rent to agents.
Great for tenants as there's the person who owns the property directly accessible, and it's free to sign up.
Contractors can sign up too, when the tenant reports an issue to the landlord then the server automates a request for quotes from contractors and offers the best service rating and price to the landlord.
Same for white goods, compares price for like for like replacement.
All better and cheaper for Landlord, in fact it would feel a lot like a game and keep Tenant and Landlord in touch and build a great relationship – sharing the properties best interests in common.
That's just my first thoughts, if I handed that to my coders this would be ready to be submitted to the App Store by the end of this week (which isn't a bad idea)
Chuck in some marketing, a video and some social buzz and it would chip away at the letting agents market share until we get some copycat apps and then its over for the high street letting agent.
If you say it can't be done, I will openly laugh at your naivety to the fact it will be done.
If you honestly don't believe me try asking the black cab drivers, I bet they never thought an app would affect their age old business model. It has and the genie is out of the bottle their.
Companies like mine look for markets that don't understand or are blind to technology in their marketplace. That way we know you hire very corporate IT firms who always make boring solutions that our creativity of design and code can run rings around.
So if it's not us, it WILL be someone else.
Hi Adam, I'm struggling to see how many of my points / questions were answered there, but I see we have now moved on to tax breaks and Vat?
As you know many BTL landlords already pay tax on their earnings, they are not all professional landlords and this is not their only income. Tax breaks are usually employed to stimulate activity, which in turn stimulates the economy.
As for on-line, technology, I have no issue with this and the industry has already evolved beyond typewriters and running your photo's down to the local photo processing shop!
Smart agents are already embracing technology and using it to their advantage, but one thing I can tell you for sure, the public enjoy communicating with real people and even touching paper with real information on it.
The public use technology to get to people, real people that they then end up doing business with, because those people connected with them.
I think the point the tech heads seem to continually forget is that there is a lot more that goes into selling and letting than a jazzy website or an app.
There are some serious legal points to deal with and as mentioned, make a mistake at your peril, both on sales and lettings. I've heard people saying that selling a house should be as easy as selling a kettle?! Nonsense of the highest degree.
But you don't seem to care about that and the losses that landlords make, because that is their lookout, as it is a business. What you appear to be advocating is tenants to break the law, procure property for nothing and cause damage, as it doesn't matter as the landlords has to factor that in.
Next time I'm in an hotel, I'll smash the place up and tell them they need to factor that in.
I know agents will have to evolve, if not they will die as many have done already. This is true of any business. Tech is always out-teched by someone else, its the way of the world.
These are all facts of life, so I am not sure why you are so aggressive in your assault of the lettings industry. It would appear your personal vendetta is blinding your ability to be constructive and work with the industry.
I hope that the lettings doesn't die, not just because part of my business involves lettings, but because that would mean thousands and thousands of jobs are lost, and that's not good for the people involved or the economy. But you seem to revel in the fact it may one day happen?
You appear to have interesting morals for someone trying to impose their view on the world.
And as for your comment about Woolworths, Ceefax, Virgin Music Stores, Jessops, Borders, almost HMV and now even Taxis, these operations provided products, products that could easily be transferred into the www and delivered just as easily.
Replicating estate agency isn't quite the same as ordering a DVD online at £9.99, when the worst that can happen is that is doesn't arrive, letting or selling your property could end up costing you £10's of thousand, as has happened to a LL that contacted us about all her tenants not paying rent and she has now lost £70k as she tried it herself.
But as I know that cuts no ice with you Adam, how about this.
If your dream comes true and letting agents are eradicated from the face of the earth, who will look after the tenants? The majority of rouge landlords tend not to use a proper agent as they inspect the properties and ask questions. They also insist on things like gas safety certificates and any decent agent that happens to get a poor landlord on board would report them and dis-instruct them. Most agents actually keep Landlords in check, because no one else is doing it.
I want to get rid of rouge landlords and agents that don't want to do the right thing, you seem to want all of the industry dead?
One last thing concerning the Taxi drivers, it was 3 taxi drivers that came up with the Hailo app. A good example of an industry evolving and a good example that any Tom D.I.C.K. or Harry can come up with an app. So I think you will find Taxi driver's were already thinking about their industry and making changes to it to turn it on its head.
As for Uber, the issue isn't about an app, its a about regulation, deregulation and one rule for one and one for another. Apps in the taxi industry are not a new thing and Uber's app isn't going to kill off Black Cab's. There will always be work for people that can get you from A to B without the need of a Sat Nav!
And with apps to make apps, we won't need the app people anymore and that industry will soon be dead, but I wouldn't want that, it's not my style!
Generation Rent
Hi Adam, not sure if you will get to read this as its old news, but hopefully your Google alert will pick up generation rent and along you will come.
I thought I would comment, as you quoted me in one of your posts.
Whilst I feel for you, given your unfortunate experiences, my issue is that I do not agree with the rhetoric that is being spewed by shelter, generation rent etc.
Why don't you and your friends go about your business working with the agents in this industry that have been banging on about regulation and accountability for years.
Why not pitch that you want to work with the majority of decent agents and support their many attempts over the years to bring regulation and fairness to the industry?
For example, all that I ask for is for someone to tell me who are we trying to secure these 5 year agreements for. Who is pounding down the doors of Whitehall to demand 5 year agreements?
In the "real world" where we talk to and agree 1000's of terms with tenants on a daily basis, tenants are not demanding 5 year agreements. In fact, many will not commit to longer term contracts and if they can not get a break clause put in the agreement, then they will not proceed with the let.
The tenants we deal with want the flexibility to move when personal circumstances change, relationships break down etc etc.
Interestingly, you point out that you had to break a contract due to personal reasons, a fine example of why not to sign a long term contract as things change.
When you signed that contract, did you do so in the knowledge that you had entered into a legally binding contract, because that is what it is. You have agreed to pay rent and stay there for the full term.
Or are you saying that tenants should have the right to break a contract without recourse or penalty? You obviously agreed on the 3 year term but then failed to fulfil your obligations (and I am sure for very valid reasons).
Would you take this stance with any contract that you signed?
A mortgage
Car Lease
HP agreement
Credit Card
Loan
Furniture Purchase
A bit of interest free
Would you not expect these companies to take action against you if you wanted to get out of the contract?
I find it interesting that people seem to easily detach signing a tenancy agreement, from any other type of financial commitment.
A good agent would normally try and negotiate an early release as amicably as they could, re-letting the property and trying to minimise the landlords loss as well as the tenants costs.
With regards to living in fear, as I mentioned the average stay is now 22 months and tenants often bring those agreements to an end. I have landlords that have been letting for 10, 15 and 20 years. They are in it for the long term and have no interest in churning tenants, they want to find decent tenants that pay the rent and look after their properties.
As mentioned, if landlords are not fulfilling their obligations, then lets go after them and fine them and not represent them. I certainly don't try to do business on behalf of these landlords.
You appear to have more bad luck than most, but there are millions of happy tenants living in nice homes with good landlords. We do have deposit resolution the property ombudsman, ARLA and ultimately the courts to bring any dispute to a satisfactory conclusion for whichever party is in the right.
I think that the underlying problem is that some of the powers that are in the hands of some of our local authorities is not being used enough or correctly. When you live in a land where parking tickets can bring in more money than clamping down on rouge landlords, you have a problem!
There are also lots of good agents trying to do the right thing, but lets not lose sight of the situation.
Blaming Agents for the deficiencies in the housing market isn't the answer, working with the good ones is.
I get the feeling that your anger comes from your personal experience and not one that reflects the views of tenants across the land.
I understand that tenants will want security, that's natural and working with an agent to source the right place with the right landlord, will end in that security becoming a reality.
However, as much as a tenants circumstances can change, so can a landlords and to be brutal, landlords don't owe tenants a roof over their head. What they do have to do is provide them with accommodation that is fit for purpose, respond quickly to issues and let them have quiet enjoyment of the property, but only after they sign a legally binding contract with the tenant, not before.
An agents job is to help tenants on their quest and they will charge what they feel is reasonable for the work they provide. A tenant can choose not to use an agent that they feel are too expensive; no one has a gun to the tenants head.
You appear to be very upset that you have not been able to afford a home here, but is that the fault of letting agents and the fees they charge?
You want landlords to deal with loss of rent and bad tenants, which to be honest, I don't have a problem with, because they are in business and they do have to deal with it, but what needs to happen when they get in to that position, is that the law allows them to quickly and efficiently deal with the issue, unlike the current state of play with out court system.
However, I could just say to you Adam, the UK housing market is the way it is, if you can't get on the housing ladder or afford to buy a home, tough luck, deal with it.
But that's not my style….
What I would say is this, you can't interfere in the free market. The market sets its levels and people will only go where they want to and pay people what they want to. The free market provide choice for consumers.
As for regulating landlords, bringing property standards up and championing the excellent service of agents…..
BRING IT ON!
Morning Adam/Robert, just catching up with this conversation… Adam, you said:
"Ok, so if an agent is paid solely to look after their clients best interest then you agree that the agents client is the landlord. If this is the case, like in most business transactions, then the client bears the cost of their services. Why is it then the tenant that must pay the fees?"
To that I ask: what would your view be if you approached a private landlord to rent his property (a nicely presented and legally compliant property, at a reasonable rent) and then he said to you that he is going to incur costs in having a suitable tenancy agreement drawn up; engaging a referencing agency to carry out professional referencing; and the services of a professional independent inventory clerk; and that he would like to ask you to contribute towards that. Let's say around £150-£200 in total, as an example. These are unavoidable costs in setting up a tenancy (if you're going to do the job properly!) and apart from the referencing they equally benefit both landlord and tenant. Do you not feel this is reasonable? And if not, do you believe it to be likely that landlords will seek to increase the rent they charge (especially those charging "reasonable" rents) if they have to bear all of these costs on their own?
You see, what I, and many others, have been saying is that a reasonable contribution from the tenant is not only reasonable, it's the cheapest way forward. If you/shelter/the Labour Party get their way and completely abolish all charges to tenants, the long-term consequence is very likely that rents will increase (because agents will seek to pass on those lost fees to landlords, who will in turn look to achieve the highest rent possible). And that increase is a cost the tenant will have to pay every month of his tenancy. Far fairer, we say, that the tenant pays a reasonable amount towards these "administrative" costs. Therefore, what is needed, I feel, is a cap on those fees. I have heard stories of agents charging well over the odds in fees to tenants, hence the need for a cap on fees, but not an abolishment.
Hello MF
What is reasonable has to below the viability threshold for rogue agencies to exist. There have also to be controls in place to ensure that money is only spent on properties that exist and are genuinely available to rent through the Agency collecting the fees.
Agency has to discipline itself and wean itself off unjustified fees to tenants in order to control those who are simply extorting money out of hopeful tenants for properties they have no hope of ever renting.
Then I commend your work and apologise if I caused any offence. I have a google alert set up for generation rent and this page popped up hence my first visit. I was just flabbergasted by some of the posts hence my response. I'm good now, I have my own home for the first time over here, I didn't have to find a huge mortgage or deposit. My overwhelming thoughts at the time where "if I'm forced to live somewhere I don't want to why not try something totally new".
So I have.
It's just a shame the UK has to lose an entrepreneur, the jobs and the tax reciepts we generate. I certainly won't be the last. Keep up the good work looking after those at the bottom, they are as you point out, far worse off.
Adam you certainly won't cause me any offence by sharing what you have had to do to provide for you and yours. If the discussion is robust so be it. It is a shame you have gone abroad and you certainly won't be the last however I would point out that for every one of you that gets up and goes there are many many more who are getting up, coming, setting up businesses and buying homes from contries all over the world. If those migrating to the country can achieve home ownership from a start that is handicapped by povety and a language barrier why is Britain's Talent emigrating?
I have my own forum troll who will depricate my posts to you as pompous-self promotion, that is not what I am about, I want to engage with Generation rent as show them that often it is their own wants rather than their needs that are the main barrier to home ownership.
I hope now you have found us you will stick around and share a balancing point of view. When those in our industry who ought to know better are drawing battle lines between the industry and its challenged customers something has to change.
Adam, I have put 5 years work into a change of system that will provide for those trapped in the crossover between the Social and PR housing sectors and have lobbied government for those changes. I have an understanding of problems far worse and desperate than those you are describing.
When you say you can not afford to buy a home in the UK you need to be a bit more specific. The average UK home, a 3 bedroom semi detached house costs@ 3% interest about £400 pcm less to mortgage rent than to rent from a landlord at the UK average rent for that type of property.
When whole streets of properties in places like Stoke have seen properties sold off for £1 with a £30,000 repair grant made available to new owners the discussion shifts from can't afford to buy to can't afford to buy where one wants to or needs to buy.
Property Industry Eye isn't really the place to discuss the whole picture of why property has become a commodity but there are two sides to the discussion. I was well aware of Mr Wilson's plans to have anyone over 55 forced to sell up their family home and move into boiled mash and cabbage concentration camps and understand the point he was trying to make, however if he thinks the generation above him is daft enough to release equity and entrust it to the banking system he really is very stupid indeed.
Had the financial institutions proved a little more capable with investments over the past 20 years the public might have been willing to play ball. But whether it is endowments, pensions or annuities the banking system in the country has proved to be either inept of simply corrupt to the point where most anyone with spare (after taxation) money has decided to self invest their nest egg in property rather than hand it over to champagne swilling bankers and investors.
p.s.
in response to:
"A private landlord has no obligation to home anyone other than their offspring up to the age of 18. Landlords chose to invest in property because the capital growth and yields provide better return on investment than most other forms of investment at the present time."
please read as stated above:
"I left because I cannot afford to buy a home because houses in my own country have become commodities and not a place to live."
Ok, so if an agent is paid solely to look after their clients best interest then you agree that the agents client is the landlord. If this is the case, like in most business transactions, then the client bears the cost of their services. Why is it then the tenant that must pay the fees?
Its a bit like owning a website and asking every visitor to pay to use it (a model which isn't working for murdoch by the way).
The real issue is this. You do have an obligation. You really, really do.
There is no alternative, the only place young people can turn to is you. You really really need to understand that. There is no social housing, no-one wants to stay with their parents till they are 40 and therefore you have a monopoly.
Within this monopoly there is no competition to drive prices down, in fact their is just scarcity of supply due to BTL landlords hoovering everything up.
Now if landlords choose to invest for capital growth for better yields I would suggest that their money would be better invested in small growing companies (like mine, tech companies) who provide excellent long term yield prospects but thats a risk. Landlords like to be able to put their hands on their investment – literally, which isn't so risky and generates a more risk averse, smaller yield.
So when I hear of landlords struggling to evict bad tenants (equally in the minority) and how they lose potentially thousands of pounds over a 3 month eviction process then tough luck.
If you want capital growth you have to take risks. In the PRS the risk you take is bad tenants and income loss but… The asset is still yours, it's still on your balance sheet, it doesn't depreciate and you can still use it as security on another loan for another property.
I am sickened by all "we are over-regulated, it's market forces, bad tenant" argument. You're in business – as you're all too willing to tell us – so deal with it.
Guess what, we all have clients that don't pay and would cost more to chase down than it's worth, it's life.
As for the age old argument that you had it bad too with high interest rates and inflation etc etc. I will leave you with this, which I read last month and, in some way, made me really angry about this issue. I quote..
"In a controversial article published earlier this month, Nigel Wilson, the head of Legal & General, said baby boomers had "lived for free" because the capital gains they made on their homes far outweighed their mortgage interest payments. Hundreds of readers commented, many pointing out that they'd had to pay interest rates of as much as 15pc and endure periods when house prices fell. Here Mr Wilson responds to those readers.
"The biggest boost to almost anyone born before 1975 who became an owner-occupier is that housing was effectively free as capital gains on housing far outstripped the interest costs of a mortgage. House prices have risen by 4,300pc over the past 40 years, far outstripping any other necessity."
You can read the rest here but suffice to say 3 times my salary isn't enough and I don't have a small salary.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/houseprices/10840343/Sorry-baby-boomers-really-did-have-it-all.html
Evening Adam
A slight tweak to an Agent's responsibility if you don't mind. First off an agent is paid solely to look after their clients best interest, they have no responsibility to provide a home to anyone.
A private landlord has no obligation to home anyone other than their offspring up to the age of 18. Landlords chose to invest in property because the capital growth and yields provide better return on investment than most other forms of investment at the present time.
As MF has pointed out rather than unfairly lump all agents and all landlords in with those who are most definitely abusing the pressure on housing for financial gain, the apparently disadvantaged generation could possibly do well to understand that most of the property owning generation have contended with massive levels of unemployment, comparitively huge levels of inflation and sky high interest rates. Four years ago many of us were advising the House price crashers to buy while they could, providing sound and reasoned arguments why 4 years ago was the time to buy, particularly in London. One has to suspect those who were most vocal against the advice they were given are now leading lights in Generation Rent.
I'm not in the country.
I am not joking, I left and moved to Scandinavia.
Here I can buy a 3 bedroom house with a swimming pool for £200,000.
I left because I cannot afford to buy a home because houses in my own country have become commodities and not a place to live.
I moved my business and myself here – that's VAT, PAYE, corporation tax, National Insurance and JOBS out of the UK simply based on this issue.
MF – I don't think its fair that letting agents are stigmatised, everyone has a right to work in any industry without need for embarrassment. The central issue is how the UK housing market has got so many young people in a bind. Those frustrations bound to come out somewhere.
When I read things like "Strikes me that Generation Rant doth protest too much" and "Who are these generation rent people? And what are they really doing all this for?" it really doesn't help anyones case.
Every vital public service has a regulator and regulation. The private sectors thirst for profit has to be reigned in when it becomes detrimental to the general public. Railways, electricity, gas, water, telecoms and even TV has a regulator.
As landlords and letting agents, in this current climate, YOU provide a vital public service, the roof over peoples heads.
It needs regulation as Panorama showed last night. You could only evict your tenants on benefits when you know there are bigger fish to chase and **** the consequence to those who can't keep up.
I'm done, I found another way. It's not for everyone but works fine for me. It's your struggle now.
A
"Who are these generation rent people? And what are they really doing all this for? It can't be for the good of tenants, or for the letting industry generally. So what?"
I am one of them. Frankly some of your points here are way adrift and its 's if no problem exists at all.
It does.
My experience of renting has been horrendous and I have been stuck in it for 15 years so let me fill you in on a few things from a tenants point of view.
It's not a "handful" of landlords, I have rented 10 homes in that time and only 2 of them had decent landlords.
I have never been late with my rent, never trashed the place and always complied with all that was ever asked of me by agent or landlord.
In return I have:
• Been turfed out of a flat I loved with 2 weeks notice because the landlord wanted to sell, i was sent a letter informing me of this 2 months prior (apparently) but the letter was lost in the post (or never sent) and proof of postage apparently is proof of delivery.
• Moved into a house after paying over £3500 in deposit and upfront rent only to find on move in day the house had a blocked downstairs toilet, a gas leak and mice. It took 3 weeks to fix the gas leak, 2 months to get rid of the mice (at my own cost) and the toilet was never fixed.
• Had my deposit held back for cobwebs (which I hadn't removed as they where written on the inventory), a pair of curtains that where deemed to be uncleaned despite them having gone to dry cleaners.
• On 3 occasions had "buy to let" investors shown around my home when I was told the surveyor just needed to check structural issues, my complaints of breach of contract resulted in me being given notice.
• I have signed a 3 year contract and then due to personal circumstances needed to get out in the third year to be told there was no room for manoeuvre apart from buying myself out at a cost £6500.
During all of this I have been unable to save a deposit because the rent just went up and up whilst at the same time house prices sky rocketed.
I run a successful business, I am not on benefits nor ever have been. I pay my taxes and after everyone, including the landlord, has taken their share at times I have struggled to feed myself (I am not proud to say that)
Yes life is hard, yes you make your own luck etc etc but when you see a large proportion of your income going into a landlords pocket for a substandard and inflexible return you can see why we want reform.
Let face it landlords get tax relief on their BTL mortgages so it's not like society at large is benefiting from this rental boom.
I have always lived in fear of eviction, that's taken as read with renting, it's not a "lifestyle" choice – its a trap that unaffordable to escape.
It is categorically not "more nonsense being trotted out by people that haven't got a grasp of what is going on in the real world."
For us this is the real world.
Wages don't go up, I can't charge clients more because I am from a generation too late for an affordable housing market as hundreds of buy to let investors are snapping up "seven 3 bed, 3 bath town houses in good areas" so they can make a living based on a fortunate year of birth.
Take a breath, look around and understand the harm this is doing to real people particularly Generation Y.
Or, as I suspect, you will all be very patronising and tell me its all about profit.
A
Hi Adam – thanks for your detailed input. I have been a member of Arla for over 20 years and have watched them lobby government year after year for proper licensing. I have also watched the government year after year bring out one new piece of legislation after another, but then fail to police most of them. So much extra work for us honest agents and landlords, with not much net gain for tenants.
This seems to have culminated in the likes of Generation Rent and Shelter declaring war on the entire lettings industry. I promise you, we are not all like that! The fact that successive governments allow the rogue elements of our industry not just to continue, but to thrive, is a huge frustration/embarrassment for us landlords and agents as well. When people ask me what I do for a living, I'm still embarrassed to admit, "I'm a letting agent". THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE!!!
What I'm saying is: don't fight the entire industry, instead join those of us that are honest, decent and law-abiding and add to the voices of Arla and others that call on Government to provide the correct legislative framework, and then to police it.
Where in the country are you Adam?
For the most part I believe they are acting on the very limited data they have had from the minority tenants who have had a bad deal from a landlord and/or agent. Rather than spend time and money checking whether that is common practice across the board, I suspect that they have just surmised that it is and released their propaganda accordingly.
Our average tenancy in this area is around 20 months; its rare for a landlord to limit the length of time they want to rent a property for although we are seeing a little more of that at the moment as some of the accidental landlords are now looking to sell.
Investor landlords are sitting tight however, the longer the let the more they like it. Most of ours would welcome a 5 yr tenancy but only if the tenant was bound to it; it would be pointless having a fixed 5 year term if the tenant could get out of it simply because they have changed their mind, got a new job, had a baby etc ie the normal reasons they give for wanting to leave.
The only tenants we have who live in fear of eviction are the ones who don't pay their rent.
Most of our landlords have been with us for between 10 and 20 years. In that time I think we've had 3 tenancies sign a three-year contract, around 10 have signed two-year contracts, the rest will not commit to more than one year. And most of the time it is the tenant who will not commit for longer.
But let's say that generation rent get their way and five-year contracts become mandatory. How many landlords are going to decide to stop being landlords?
Who are these generation rent people? And what are they really doing all this for? It can't be for the good of tenants, or for the letting industry generally. So what?
I currently own seven 3 bed, 3 bath town houses in good areas. my tenants have always paid on time and can easily afford the rent. They couldn't however come up with the £50k deposits needed to buy. A great surprise to me is that despite five of the tenants having been with me for between two and three years not one has taken advantage of help to buy. So much for "desperate to get on the property ladder". Maybe the fact a new integrated washing machine appears the day after the old one failed, focuses their mind on the reality of owning.
I recently spoke to a tenant who is on a month-by-month contract and told her that the landlord was happy to do a new contract for 12 months. The response? "I'm not sure, I need to think about it"??
Agreed, more nonsense being trotted out by people that haven't got a grasp of what is going on in the real world.
If tenants want these long tenancies, why are they not asking for them? Who are these tenants that need these 5 year contracts, because I'm not seeing them coming into any of my offices?
In fact most tenants seem to want to put a break clause in!
The average stay of a tenant is over 22 months now and given that the majority of B2L investors are in it for the long term, if you are a good tenant and pay the rent, then you should have security for some time to come.
A decent letting agent will know their landlords and should be able to point tenants in the direction of those landlords looking for long term tenants. Landlords don't want to be swapping tenants every five minutes.
The law needs to be changed to make it easier for possession to be granted when you have a bad tenant.
Separately, rouge landlords need to be taken to task for not fulfilling their obligations and for cutting corners, there is no place for these types of Landlord in our industry.
Lets not confuse the issues here, there are a number of things that need to be sorted out, but lets start with the real issues and not the ones Generation Rent come up with to make good headlines!
Oh and decent people in THE industry have been talking about licencing and regulation for years, but now its the buzz word in Whitehall, every Tom, Dick and Harry is well and truly on the wagon!!!!
Ha ha, I think the naughty word police at the PIE IT department need to make a slight adjustment.
If D.I.C.K is good enough for Shakespeare’s, I'm sure it's good enough for PIE 😉
That is so funny! We are constantly trying to get our "rude words" filter to be a little less Mary Whitehouse. We recently had to make changes to allow us to mention the new managing director of ARLA, David Cox!
It made me chuckle Roz, just needed to clear my name as **** could have been construed as anything!!!!
Strikes me that Generation Rant "doth protest too much". Good. Because with some of the arguments they trot out (eg renting is a "second class" option – thereby failing to wake up to the fact that for increasing numbers of renters it has evolved into a life-style choice) they will soon run out of steam and credibility. Open honest debate is what we need not some politicised ignorant hysteria.