This Is George

Hi Paul:
I must confess to being very irritated to your constant references to landlords "farming" people like livestock. We have tenants and farm sheep. Our tenants choose the property they live in at a "rack rent", i.e. a rent agreed between owner and tenant. They are free to leave with a month's notice. Our sheep have no say which farmer they belong to, or which field we put them in, or when we move them to another. In winter we choose whether to feed them hay, silage, concentrates or mineral lick buckets and when. Our tenants choose their own food and the time they eat. Best of all Our sheep have no control over their sex lives, in contrast to our tenants. Best of all for the tenants is that we do not choose when to send them off to market!

When the day comes that we have to cut our tenants' hair and toenails, worm them and administer their vaccinations, deliver their babies and pay to have their bodies incinerated when they reach the end of their natural life I'm sure we shall cease being landlords. Until then, about the only similarities I see between the two activities are the constantly-changing and increasing regulations to comply with and the poor financial return on work and capital. As you have worked on a pig farm I am sure you have not made this false comparison out of ignorance but merely for effect in your demonisation of landlords.

Our relatives who rent in Germany say conditions are very different from those you describe. These comparisons have been made in thoroughly researched academic papers featured on other threads on this forum which you would do well to to refer to check your facts. In both France and Germany there are many independent landlords with just a few properties and annual rent rises are the norm, in contrast to UK.

Regard the stick man image:

Who gave George a spine ?

I thought he was totally spineless with his silly stealth taxes.

Hi Mrs. Landlord,

Your suggestion that tenants CHOOSE to hand over their hard earned money in rent every month rather than be paying possibly far less in affordable mortgage repayments for a home they will own themselves is the problem. But it is a concept you choose to believe because it suits your argument for what I call 'people farming' and 'property aparthed.'

There are very few people who, given the choice between throwing away their money paying a landlord's mortgage on his/her 'investment unit' or 'keeping' their money in their own mortgaged home who would choose the former.

Tenants HAVE NO CHOICE BUT to rent because, thanks to unregulated property speculation landlordism THERE ARE NO AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR THEM TO BUY BECAUSE CASH RICH SPECULATOR LANDLORDS HAVE CONSTANTLYPUSHED HOUSE PRICES BEYOND THE REACH OF MOST AVERAGE WORKERS.

There are more than enough buildings for workers to live in, the problem is they are owned and controlled by a small minority of the population called landlords. As long as there are so many landlords there will be a perceived shortage of housing as tenants look for a way out of the endless trap of homelessness.

When the E.U. standards of legislated regulation are adopted by Britian and Ireland, i.e.
Mandatory nine year leases,
Rents tied to the cost of living index,
Six months notice to quit,
Six months notice for repairs,
Minimum living and storage space,
Utilities often included in rents
etc.,
Britain and Ireland will finally have become 'democracies' for all the people just like those E.U. member States which have become democratised decades ago.

Regards,
Paul.

Hi Paul

The point of my post was to address your analogy of landlords offering homes to people seeking to rent to the farming of livestock. I would never dream of being so insulting to tenants, (although I must admit a couple of our houses have been left like pigsties). My point was that tenants have the choice of renting from us or from some other landlord. as well as all the other choices I somewhat lightheartedly mentioned which livestock do not have, to show the fallacy of your comparision.

If tenants could buy at lower cost than they rent, then why don't they? We have bought properties which have languished on the market for many months and which we were told no owner/occupier would take on because of the work needed to make them presentable. Yes, am aware that some people have no choice but to rent especially since the credit crunch caused tightening of criteria. Some, however, including some who rent from us, do choose renting over buying. Some are renting because they have owned and suffered repossession, perhaps after job loss or divorce, and won't ever risk it again. Others want the flexibility of job mobility. Others again see the prospect of a mortgage as "a millstone round your neck" and don't want the responsibility of all the maintenance, redecoration etc. Some young couples openly admit they don't know how long their relationship is likely to last and say they will look to buy when/if it stands the test of time. We have found it's the people with poor credit history, no prospect of anything but a low-wage job, multiple marriages, or unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to save for a deposit who have no choice but to rent. Admittedly this may be different in the London area with its ridiculous property prices.

Regarding the matters you assert are regulated in continental Europe which you would like to see here;
1. Nine year tenancies. Buy-to-let mortgages forbid long tenancies as the lender wants to be sure of rapid eviction of tenant, repossession of property and its resale in the event of mortgage arrears. However, after the initial fixed tenancy (usually six months) if landlord and tenant are happy the tenancy just rolls on as a periodic tenancy with the landlord having to give twice as much notice as the tenant. Landlords value long-term tenants who respect the property and pay their rent. Unless they exhibit anti-social behaviour, sublet without permission, fail to pay rent or give some other good cause for ending the tenancy, landlords are delighted for them to stay as long as they wish.
2. Cost of living linked rent increases each year - I wish! Bring it on, we'll be quids in! Government moving of the goalposts is the only reason rent hikes are inevitable in the next few years. This will also result in your desired drop in the number of landlords.
3. Six months' notice to quit is subject to the lender's conditions as in 1. above for those properties which are not owned outright by the landlord.
4.Six months notice for repairs is ridiculous. A water leak or electrical fault could cause untold damage and danger if the landlord is not allowed to fix it for half a year.
5. Sadly all modern homes are small and are built with minimal storage space. This cannot be blamed on landlords, neither is it in their power to remedy. Older properties have bigger rooms and some cupboards but were designed to 'breathe'. The single skin stone walls, high ceilings and chimneys usually mean that if they are insulated to bring them up to the minimum EPC standard for letting they suffer from condensation.
6. HMOs normally have utilities included in the rent as they have shared supplies. Naturally, this makes the rents higher. For individuals, it is impossible to calculate bills because people vary so much in their use of utilities. This measure would simply remove tenants' choice of making economies while simultaneously raising rents. Where the water supply is not metered but a fixed sum is payable annually in advance, it is normal for the landlord to divide by 12 and add the cost to the rent,

As regards your assertions about rental conditions here vis-a-vis in continental Europe, I recommend that you download Towards a Sustainable Private Rented Sector by Professor Christine Whitehead and Kathleen Scanlon, respected and very experienced housing researchers, available free as a pdf, which has a thorough comparison of renting in the UK and other western economies. You have said I choose to believe certain things, as you yourself do. I would like you to know that the things I believe are based on evidence, research and a lifetime's experience.

As this thread is supposed to be about George Osborne I shall not be replying to you again, but I urge you not to compare tenants to cattle, to think for yourself and examine evidence with an open mind rather than trying to make every situation fit some preconceived, pseudo-Marxist, cliche-ridden, prejudiced view of society. Unfortunately, life isn't fair and never will be. Neither politics nor revolution have the answers. We all have to come to terms with that.

Regards, OM Landlord

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Newsome" at "06/02/2016 - 16:18":

"There are very few people who, given the choice between throwing away their money paying a landlord’s mortgage on his/her ‘investment unit’ or ‘keeping’ their money in their own mortgaged home who would choose the former".

Then why, pray, is there so much demand for Council/HA properties? Presumably all such renters are stupid?

I have tenants who could buy but because of job mobility find renting more attractive; their business lives unhindered by maintenance issues and a certainty of occupancy costs. I have international executives and students who could not buy, at least not viably so, and who bring valuable fx to George's coffers, would you send them all home?

With just 16% or so of total housing stock in the PRS the notion that private landlords control the housing market is without foundation.

I am not unmindful of the hurdles that aspirant homeowners face but a one size fits all viewpoint is neither effective nor helpful in a highly fragmented arena such as this. You may remember that the financial crisis in the US was partly as the result of no-hope NINJA (no income, no job or assests) borrowers being suckered in to buying a home which they subsequently lost, the same could easily happen here with your "all should buy" mantra.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Newsome" at "21/02/2016 - 14:14":

Paul, you finally came up for air.

You obviously feel the situation intensely and possibly from a personal perspective but in that intensity also miss some basic points. One contributing factor to that fall in owner occupation, despite the longest period of ultra lower interest rates, is the FSA inspired MMR leading to tighter lending criteria and the now near mandatory repayment mortgage both of which measures were seen as protecting the consumer from their own folly, that's not any landlord's fault.

Secondly, the idea that aspirant owners will be showered by reduced price properties as some private landlords sell, even if assuming that location and property characteristics are a match, a big if, is likely to prove the cruelest of the Finance Act measures.

As announced by Grainger they have every intention of buying existing stock (which will then be lost to the resale market longterm if not permanently) and not adding to it and it is quite likely that others will do likewise. Ergo, OO'ers may well find more properties on the market but also a great deal of demand from incorporated buyers with deep pockets and finance in place. That shower is likely to be a cold dose of realisation of Osbourne's deception.

I think Paul has been issued with a s21. He might be found on HPC, though.

HEALTH WARNING
The above posting is to provoke, ie a troll.

By all means comment on matters of general interest, IE security of tenure etc, how it might impact on mortgagors, hence availability to the rental sector and thus to tenants. Etc.

But don't waste your time trying to inform Paul of the basic facts, he is on a mission, a 'frolic of his own'.

Hi Paul,

I see you're back and still, with absolutely no sense of irony, applying a Middle Ages model to twenty-first century conditions. Also, ignoring my personal experience described on another thread of the differences between farming animals and providing accommodation for fellow human beings, you still describe landlordism as "people farming". How insulting to people who rent their homes! If you insist on this analogy then I would say that the corporate landlord model you so admire of large blocks of identical flats compared to individual landlord owned houses equates to the difference between battery hen farming and the free range system of egg production, with the major exception that the corporate model results in a higher priced product in order to give a sufficient return to their investors.

As a landlord of 11 years experience, with some properties whose rents have not increased in that time and with tenants who have been happy with us for many years, I object to being classified as an "amateur fly-by-night speculator" involved in a "racket" and not subject to regulation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Leaving aside your preposterous statement that landlords charge whatever they like, in fact until Clause 24 of the housing bill in last summer's budget very few landlords raised rents annually by as much as with inflation, which you set out as a desirable limit to be legislated for. As for the desired legislation for security of tenure, why on earth would a landlord wish to evict a tenant who treats the property properly and pays the agreed rent on time? It costs time and money to change tenants and is never done without good reason.

I should be interested to hear how the new tax regime will result in more tenants being able to buy their own homes. As has been demonstrated repeatedly on this forum, the inevitable rent rises will only make it more difficult for them to save for a deposit.
As you say, time will vindicate either your point of view or that of the professional landlords who post on this forum.

By the way, Mr Alexander is leaving the "landlordism racket" because his business model has been rendered unviable by a stroke of the pen of George Osborne. His many tenants will be seriously inconvenienced and he has been obliged to leave the country to avoid bankruptcy.

Reply to Chris Byways,

I understand how you feel about Paul Newsome, but he is not incapable of learning. At least he now spells apartheid and demesnes correctly!