Keir Starmer: Not all landlords are evil

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 02/07/2024 - 12:04
I think you are right. Even the Reform Party couldn't sanction a 1960's style renting policy that was "...no dogs, blacks or Irish." 🙂 I've never let to somebody who was obviously Irish, but that doesn't make me a bad person.

I have had a number of black tenants, most of whom were reasonably good (from my perspective as a landlord). If my agent presented 25 tenants to me and I said "...weed out the black ones" that would clearly not only be illegal but also wrong; although if it happened verbally, e.g. over the 'phone, nobody would ever know that I'd said "...rent to Nigel, not to Patrick or Kwame."

An agent with 25 applicants for a property has to find some way to narrow the list down and in just the same way that universities have to weed out university applicants on the basis of A-level grades, and A-levels that mean something versus those that don't, an agent has to have some means of selecting from the growing pool of ever more desperate tenants. It's better if that selection process is objective.

Lots of landlords don't like renting to tenants who have dogs. My experience of being a landlord is that children do more damage than dogs...but I have had families with both children and dogs who both did more damage and increased my costs. So if my agent gave me a choice of half-a-dozen tenants who all met the affordability criteria for a set PCM rent for my property, one of whom had a dog and another had children then I would select out of the remaining four that had neither dogs nor children because this would decrease my risk and cost.

However, if I remain free to taking the highest bidder and was advertising at £2,500 PCM + I would let to the family with children and dogs who were offering me £3,000 PCM because they needed to be near schools, regardless of their skin colour or beliefs. The reason I would do this is because that would increase my chances of a long-term tenancy and reduce my risk. And I would happily take the extra £500 PCM with a clear conscience knowing that in a market in which I am only permitted to take a 5 week deposit I would need it to cover the extra damage that possibly their dog, but more likely their children, would probably cause.

And if I had a choice between two families with kids and pets (one family black, one white) and the black family with kids and a dog had two working family members but was offering £3,100 PCM I would probably go for the black family, rather than the white family with a dog and kids but only one working family member....because this would decrease my risk. To me the black or white criteria would be irrelevant....it's just can they afford to pay the rent on time or in full, will they look after the property, will they get on with the neighbours. The only thing I can do to mitigate my increased risk incurred by housing dogs or children is to accept more rent, if offered.

Mostly politicians aren't evil, just incompetent, ignorant and sometimes arrogant. The difficulty with politicians is that because of these characteristics they either don't learn or they choose to ignore the lessons of history.

Nicola Sturgeon just demonstrated with her rent controls in Scotland the damage that can be caused when a political party is pursuing an agenda that is nothing to do with protecting their electorate. SNP rent controls made the housing situation in Scotland worse but there are plenty of examples around the world where the same mistakes have been made.

If Keir Starmer thinks that financial criteria, such as who is both able and willing to pay a higher rent, should not be valid criteria for selecting from a large pool of tenants then he needs to be very careful indeed; because the market will find other ways to select their tenants, and he won't be able to control this without doing far more damage. Just as Nicola Sturgeon did.

It's tenants that are bidding up rents, not landlords or their agents. The reason they are doing this is the fault of government.

listed my place for 2800 a month, first guy to view offered 3k and I said yes, did I do something wrong 🙁

I suspect it's agents suggesting people offer over asking but I can't be sure in my case.

By the way Sir Keir,
I am probably one what you call one of your “evil” landlords.
However, I will, as always be working through the weekend for my tenants, no guarantee of a Friday finish at 6.00 pm, might have to deal with call-outs or emergencies over the weekend, deal with anti-social behaviour or a tenant with mental health issues needing assistance and I get absolutely nothing extra for doing so. Oh yes, I do this 365 days a year as well…… including Christmas Day.....as and when needed.
It seems running the country is much easier…..
Have a good weekend break.
See you Monday.

Reply to the comment left by Mike Geo at 02/07/2024 - 23:11
You didn't do anything wrong. If the tenant offered £3,000 PCM that will be what the market rent is and initially you were advertising at a discount.

It's tenants who are bidding rents up in an attempt to secure a property.

If I offered 210K for a house that was advertised for 200k and the seller agreed has anyone done anything wrong ? No. It's called doing business and this goes on every day of the year. Each and every one of us has ceiling prices for everything and if my ceiling price happens to be higher than yours then I'm afraid that's life so you'll have to look elsewhere.

Reply to the comment left by PH at 03/07/2024 - 10:49
You wouldn't have done anything wrong. It's normal under the Scottish system of purchasing houses.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 03/07/2024 - 11:19
I'm not a fan of that system but hey...that's life.