Will Ed Milliband lose 1 million landlords votes over this?

They may lose a million Landlords but gain 3+ million tenants?

Quote

“Some are told to accept huge rent rises or face eviction."

If memory serves me correctly, some landlords holding BTL mortgages have been systematically selected at West Bromwich Building society and told

"Accept a large increase in your mortgage payments or will will call in the mortgage"

Did not see Milliband jumping up and down then did we

His heart's in the right place, bless him, but his head . . . ok dear!!!

@Neil - too right! Although it seems boroughs such as Enfield are finding that their Housing Department is so short of work, they've set up their own work creation scheme to ensure they get lots and lots of lovely tenants, of all income brackets, applying to their housing register - their staff will be so pleased!!

What if the BTL lenders refuse to change their T&C and just call in all BTL mortgages due to the landlord granting a tenancy over 6 months long?

PS.

I don’t think he had a million landlords’ votes to lose, as he is yet to convince me that he is able to do anything apart from create sound bites. But he does have lot of tenant votes to gain, so maybe we should not be publicizing this.

Reply to the comment left by "Mandy Thomson" at "01/05/2014 - 11:14":

What happens when the tenant decides they want to move before the 3 years is up?

If tenants are contractually bound to pay the landlords rent for 3 years that could be a good thing for landlords.

However in practice it will probably be all to easy for tenants to walk away in a "have your cake and eat it scenario".

I was just writing a blog about this Mark!!! I think the Labour Party are wonderful at shooting themselves in the foot. Absolutely, everytime any of them speaks he alienates another section of society with a silly soundbite The majority of buy to let landlords are not multi millionaires; they are people who have invested for their future in property which they willingly let to people who may be looking for accommodation. Rentals are a contract between two willing parties and if Mr. Milliband really wanted to help he and his party would have done something over the last 20 years when they were in power for most of the time to do something about the critical lack of social housing.

Mr. Milliband has not taken into account that there is a very big difference in the rental market for houses and the one for flats.

With houses where renters are often families who settle in an area and want security of tenure for a reasonably long period, the market can accommodate them as Mark has suggested.

The suggestion that rent rises will be very restricted is a bit short sighted because what will happen is that every landlord will price his property from Day 1 to take account of the lack of opportunity to increase the rents. This will have the effect of raising rents

With regard to the market for flat rentals a large proportion of the market seems to be with people who need/want flexibility and tying them into a three year contract makes no sense.

As far as I can see this proposal will do the following:

1. Push up rents
2 Further restrict the number of properties available to social housing tenants as fewer landlords will want to risk being stuck with a tenant they cannot move on.

One final question how is this going to work? Does every current tenant have to be offered a three year tenancy whether they want it or not?

I doubt that the three million renters will be impressed with this.

I also notice Mr. Milliband does not seem to have any solution to the problem of how to deal with problem tenants with a three year tenancy. How are they going to be evicted?

Also what happens if a landlord's circumstances change and they want to sell the property? Having a tenant in situ for up to three years will surely reduce the value of a property substantially.

Back to the drawing board Mr. Milliband.

Reply to the comment left by "Annette Stone" at "01/05/2014 - 11:39":

Some excellent points Annette. My tenants are very happy for me to make a financially backaked promise to them not to evict them unless they are in default. However, if they were to realise that Mr Milliband will be insisting they sign up to staying in my properties for another 3 years I doubt very much they will be voting for him either!
.

Reply to the comment left by "Neil Patterson" at "01/05/2014 - 11:22":

@Neil - according to the report in The Guardian, tenants could still give one month's notice after the initial 6 month probationary period.

It then goes on to say that landlords would retain their existing rights to serve notice under section 8, or if they had good reason to need to sell or move into the property themselves. Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/30/ed-miliband-labour-rental-market-reforms-property#footer-nav

It might even have brought him some credibility from the PRS community if he'd conceded on reforming the eviction process, but now I'm just being naive...

Here we go again with Labour 'power to the people' politics. Surely, 3 terms in power culminating in our worst recession in living memory, would have taught them something about housing economics.

Most landlords are fair and reasonable, and look after their tenants. We would all welcome good tenants who want to stay for 3 years, but I've only ever had one. In return, my rent increases at kept at the average for the area, because it saves me time a money. Also, this policy takes no account of regional differences.

It's the bad landlords which cause the headlines, so focus on hitting them hard and quickly.

Baby and bath water!