Manifesto from Generation Rent Et al

The only surprise is that Shelter are missing from this unholy alliance of anti-landlord pressure groups. This manifesto is the perfect prescription for causing a mass exodus of private landlords from the sector. Then, when their accusation of "Landlords... restricting access to housing" is actually fulfilled, they might finally realise that all along landlords have actually been the ones providing housing. "Landlords have monetised the human need for shelter" is another ridiculous accusation. Basic economics monetises shelter, because the provision of shelter costs money. Do they imagine their rental properties cost the landlord nothing to buy and maintain? Or that the costs in time, stress and tax and all the risks involved should voluntarily be shouldered by landlords as a sort of charitable hobby? And how on earth will creating a national database of landlords and rents "put a stop to the financialisation of housing"?
This is just the politics of envy. On the basis of these arguments I might as well complain that supermarkets have restricted my access to groceries by charging "ever higher" prices.

“Landlords up and down the country benefit from and contribute to the country’s acute housing crisis by restricting access to housing through ever higher rents.” Reducing rents does not add a single house to the total number of houses in the country. If anything rent restrictions will lead to fewer properties being available.

"In the absence of rent controls they have monetised the human need for shelter and turned homes into assets. Restricting supply of a universal need at times of crisis is profiteering. This needs to change. ..."

By this logic Sainsbury's have monetised the human need for food, Primark have monetised the human need for clothes and Thames Water have monetised the human need for drinking water. So what?

Landlords would rather rent out their properties but if the rule is to be: the instant you sign up a tenant the tenant can stay for life if he chooses, guess what happens?

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 04/11/2019 - 15:35
Perfectly said Ian.

I completely agree with the two previous commentators to this thread. As a landlord in Lincolnshire, I have never been able to increase rents, even if I wanted to. I started renting out in 2008, and three of our six properties (very small 2-bed houses, new builds) actually rent for less now than they did then. The other three (2 flats and a bungalow) are achieving the same rent. It is a market, driven by DEMAND, and SUPPLY that causes rents to rise - or fall. Clearly supply is the issue in many parts of the UK, and that is hardly landlords' fault. The PRS has increased supply!
So, what is to be done? Clearly a greater supply of social housing would be hugely beneficial to renters. Will a new government deliver? Possibly, but most unlikely. But allowing renters to stay for a lifetime, or to offer them a 'right to buy' is clearly going to cause landlords to sell up en masse, and quickly.
A better idea for all is surely to give renters more security, but not for ever. I hate it when a tenant leaves, as voids always cause me a loss. Lost rents and more costs, time and hassle. My proposal is for EASTs. These are Evergreen Assured Shorthold Tenancies. In effect, they would be rolling twelve month (or possibly a different term) tenancies. So both parties would always have to give this level (12 months) of notice. I would also write in a penalty clause for earlier determination - six month's rent for landlords and three months for tenants. So get rid of ASTs, and bring in EASTs. There - a landlord can't be fairer than that!

When will the left wing parasites understand that Landlords are a "business not a charity", to get into this position we have saved gone without and taken risks. Strange that the HMRC will take taxes if we sell and make a profit, however will not give refunds for loses!

Good idea Charles Holt. If we have to mess about with the laws and regs in the PRS, this could just work.

How do rents linked to 30% of local income even work?

Should rents be linked to one person’s income or if there are 2 incomes in a household, then do they look at two incomes?

What about variables in housing stock. Are they saying a 3 bed flat house or flat should cost the same as a 1 bed flat?

How on earth can intelligent/intellectual, supposedly, persons write such a naïve manifesto none of which is realistic. It's so simple, there aren't enough houses available social or otherwise made worse by large numbers of immigrants coming into this country, not a racist comment, net immigration to year ending March 2019 was 226,000, that's a lot of extra houses needed in just one year. It's supply and demand, build lots of social housing and rents eventually will level out. The PRS are providing a desperately needed service that no-one else is and that's it. Taking out capital gain which could depending on who next runs the country, easily go either way as in 80's, my return on investment after everything is just under 4% and then taxed. I am the one taking the risk of my investment using my hard earned cash to house people, no-one else. If this election goes the wrong way then I'm out, sorry tenants, but of course I will get the blame for the increase in homelessness its a no win situation for us whatever we do.

Reply to the comment left by Dennis Leverett at 05/11/2019 - 10:06
That net migration figure also has a considerable environmental impact.

Reply to the comment left by JJ at 05/11/2019 - 12:00
You do not need to worry, EU migrants are leaving in droves, they are fed up with Brexit, crap pound, hostility and a general attitude here. That is why the number of EU nurses' applications dropped 95%. That is of course a desired effect of Brexit.
I also anticipate a new wave of immigrants from the countries who offer us a FTA in exchange of free movement. That is of course also a desired effect of Brexit.