Andy Burnham’s Latest Commitment to Renters?

I’d welcome a publicly funded good landlording scheme. My tenants wouldn’t welcome a rent increase if the scheme was funded by landlords.

I’m proud of the houses that I own. My know for a fact that my tenants wouldn’t want councils to inspect their PRIVATE homes anymore than homeowners would welcome public servants, who have done a proper days work, snooping into their homes.

I think Greater Manchester, including Rochdale that led to Awaab’s Law, should get their own ‘house’ in order before targeting the PRS (to fund their financial black hole).

tosh, waffle and blurb. All meaningless.

Any particular political perspective can be good or bad for landlords and tenants.

This most recent Tory government has been particularly bad for landlords (and tenant) and has presided over a large increase of costs for the rental sector that has driven rising rents, and a a shortfall of PRS properties.

It has generally been poor at supporting small businesses all round - and has created a trading environment where small traders go to the wall and only large corporates survive

While sometimes labour opposition come up with some crazy ill researched ideas - they do at least support the building of more private and council housing .

Small PRS private landlords are ill suited to housing "social tenants" (most of us are now rather selective and avoid high risk applicants - the financial pressure has forced us to do this even if some of us took more risks before).

And labour are generally more willing to to publicly fund housing initiatives funded from general taxation rather than clawing it back from from fees and additional taxes targeted at landlords (and hence paid for by higher rents)

Labour might not be all bad !

Excellent idea providing it runs alongside a ‘Good Tenant Scheme’ and that the schemes include private and social housing.
Fairness for all when we have parity.

It is worth noting that the Good Landlord Scheme proposed by Andy Burnham is a VOLUNTARY SCHEME - ie landlords can still legally operate without subscribing to it.

Some of the parts of it may need looking at again such as the requirement that all properties enrolled are EPC C minimum. - this may be a little unfair for properties that can't achieve this without major work - and mean tenants nd landlords of such properties lose access to any other potential benefits of the scheme.

Otherwise it seems a well thought out scheme with good aims.

Reply to the comment left by Mark Smith at 25/04/2024 - 10:52
It will easily funded by them via taxing ' unearned income' (rental income) at higher rate

Reply to the comment left by Crouchender at 25/04/2024 - 13:19
In theory it could be by either party - but clearly Labour have already said it is NOT their policy to tax so called "unearned income" (eg pension income , income from property, investments etc at a higher rate

And as any decent landlord knows most of our is come is definitely "earned" and is payment for the hard work we put in and the services we provide.

Reply to the comment left by Crouchender at 25/04/2024 - 13:19
If you think rental income is unearned then you must be living on a different planet. Here on Earth rental income is hard earned, much harder than a nine to five job.

'getting their rented properties checked', against what objective, and legally obligatory, criteria, such things as EPCs, EICR, the functionining of a heating system etc are self evident, what else is there that a landlord must do, wouldn't do for his own interest (a leak for instance) or for which the tenant did not have some responsibility?

Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 25/04/2024 - 13:41Clearly we all know this is not 'passive' investment but Labour does see it that way plus they have a very big narrative on ' working families' that pay tax & NI but will have a narrative prepared that will talk about 'fairness' in the tax system which is their ploy to tax rental income more. i.e Even indirectly via doing away with the 20% tax credit which they see as a perk.