Jeremy Corbyn wants to scrap ‘No Fault’ evictions in England and Wales

Reply to the comment left by loretta wight at 29/12/2017 - 10:13
Well said & I agree. But additionally if a landlord wants his investment back, providing some reasonable time scale is allowed, say three months, then I see absolutely nothing wrong in this.

Corbyn is a moron! Like the young Milliband before him, who proposed a rent cap, they target the easy touches in law abiding landlords instead of doing the correct/difficult thing by coming down on rogue/illegal landlords!
Corbyn and Labour cannot blame the country's housing problems on Landlords, it's the fault of successive governments not building / creating anywhere near enough houses.
I was a lifelong labour voter until milliband starting spouting complete nonsense and have kept clear even further with Corbyn. He wants to house and give away money to the never do Wells with the money he will rinse from the hardworking /entrepreneurs.
In a capitalist society, we should be able to work our nuts off to reap the reward, not to get taxed to oblivion because the welfare state has gotten out of hand.

Fact: After only 4 months into an AST, a tenant's security of tenure is just 2 months.
Fact: If I were a tenant living in a property that I called home, I would feel very vulnerable.

Whilst there is plenty of legislation and tax-law that the honest, hardworking, professional landlord has every right to feel aggrieved about, it is naive/bigoted to believe that tenants have it all their own way.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Cognito at 29/12/2017 - 19:26
But you can bet your life that if, say, 3-year tenancies became mandatory then this would only be expected to be one-sided.

I’m more than happy to let a tenant take a property for a guaranteed three years -hell…I’d give them ten years, but don’t come crying when a change in their circumstance/work/income just 7 months in and they want out. This is the unspoken part of security of tenure!

And I reckon I’d be right in thinking this has gone over the heads of almost ALL of those that advocate for such unbalanced nonsense. With rights come responsibilities.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 29/12/2017 - 20:32
Agree 100%.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that there are no upsides to the flexibilities offered by renting, but feel that JC's remark regarding (lack of) security of tenure is valid.

Of course, a one-sided agreement which gives the tenant a right to stay for as long as he/she pleases and the landlord nothing in return is totally unaceptable.

It cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise a fair and equitable compromise.

The Scottish legislation allows for an annual rent increase, allows the landlord to get possession if they want to sell and the lender if any mortgage is in arrears , if that happened in rest of the UK I can’t see it’s a massive problem

I am looking to sell next year got two vacant ones going up in jan. After that I will be looking at others as I’ve had enough and diversifying into develop to sell. As a decent human being I see no issue with giving a tenant 3 months as that gives them time to find somewhere else in fact I don’t need these fools in London to tell me I would like to think most decent landlords would see this as a minimum notice period if the tenant wasn’t in any arrears etc ?

As a Scottish landlord I am not that concerned about the change in legislation as it tackles a problem that didn’t really exist.

Landlords are not throwing good tenants out on the street for asking for repairs. Landlords like good tenants and want to maintain their properties. I have heard that 90% of council maintenance is done on 10% of their housing stock which may or not be true.

Where the new legislation is going to be a problem is that Student lets can’t be for a fixed period of time meaning that it could be problematic to relet in advance as is the norm. Also anti social behaviour by the tenant would require the landlord to prove it and this would require neighbors to come forward which may not work in practice.

What you will not hear any of the left wingers talk about when they discuss Scotland is the effect that all the various pieces of legislation introduced in Scotland over the last five years have had on rents. Rents in Edinburgh in particular have rocketed making it very expensive for people to rent. Many landlords have moved over to the unregulated short term rental market. Prior to the interventionist policies rents in Edinburgh had been rising below inflation for about ten years. If you surveyed tenants then their main concern would be the cost of renting not the no fault clause.

At the end of the day housing social tenants in the private rental sector was a daft idea and changing the private rental sector to meet the needs of social tenants is a daft idea. Better for councils and housing associations to house social tenants and for the private sector to provide the flexible housing solutions to transient tenants.

The corrupt Power hungry Corbyn is Complicit with Tories on Clause 24. He has been ignoring clause 24 for two years and raised the Universal Credit issue only in PMQ's as it gets him votes. He is encouraging Rogue Tenants. He just wants to give his voters (including Rogue Tenants) unlimited tenancies. Why is he not talking about clause 24 or Rent Payment history of tenants or Inflation adjusted rent increases in Tenancies or Cap on rent payments etc. Come on Mr Epitome of Honesty, Where are your morals now ? I guess the old man has become impatient and selling morals to become PM ASAP. God help the private landlords whom everybody is demonising and abusing.

Reply to the comment left by John Frith at 28/12/2017 - 13:52
you would be surprised at number of mps and peers who have controlled tenancies--many granted after 1987