Every seven minutes a private renter in England is given eviction notice even though they have done nothing wrong.

You said houses are homes, not income generators. They are assets. You have seen evidence above of good landlords who charge a lower rent than they might in order to keep a good tenant. Not all landlords are grasping villains. But it’s unreasonable to expect any landlord to be unable to lawfully evict a tenant in order to sell their asset. It may provide a decent home for others for a long time but not for ever. Everyone has to be able to access their assets no matter what form they take.

You are completely right of course GSM
The owner of a property is fully entitled to reclaim his or her house whenever they want provided the tenant is given sufficient notice.
Threads about landlords and rented properties always follow the same course with landlords inevitably portrayed as grasping evil capitalists!

What some people seem to forget is that all the expenses connected to the upkeep of the property is down to the landlord.
White goods, central heating boiler, decorating, replacing carpets etc etc is all covered by the landlord, which is one reason why a lot of people prefer renting.
It also gives them flexibility in lifestyle.
We had a couple once, both in well paid jobs who admitted they could afford to buy, but they loved living in different parts of the country. They didn’t have children and apparently they could find work anywhere so that’s what they did.
They rented from us for a year then headed off up north somewhere. That would be virtually impossible if they were buying somewhere.

I agree Jennifer. And the expenses that landlords can offset against taxable income have been restricted. I don’t know if it’s still the case but at one time landlords were taxed on rental income whether they had received it or not as what was taxed was the right to receive that income.

Unfortunately lots of people live in private rental homes whose landlords do not do the upkeep so it isn't a cost at all.

Jennifer, my sister works for a property management company and she said 95% of landlords are awful/rubbish, wont spend money etc. So it is good that you are a good landlord but you are in the 5%

Germanshepherdsmum

You said houses are homes, not income generators. They are assets. You have seen evidence above of good landlords who charge a lower rent than they might in order to keep a good tenant. Not all landlords are grasping villains. But it’s unreasonable to expect any landlord to be unable to lawfully evict a tenant in order to sell their asset. It may provide a decent home for others for a long time but not for ever. Everyone has to be able to access their assets no matter what form they take.

So you agree that one person's home is just an asset to others?

Why should everybody be able to access their assets? Who says they should?

Letting law in Germany:

housinganywhere.com/Germany/tenant-rights-in-germany#:~:text=As%20a%20tenant%20in%20Germany,longer%20the%20notice%20period%20becomes.

A better link:

www.iamexpat.de/housing/rentals-germany/rental-contracts-housing-rights

growstuff

Germanshepherdsmum

You said houses are homes, not income generators. They are assets. You have seen evidence above of good landlords who charge a lower rent than they might in order to keep a good tenant. Not all landlords are grasping villains. But it’s unreasonable to expect any landlord to be unable to lawfully evict a tenant in order to sell their asset. It may provide a decent home for others for a long time but not for ever. Everyone has to be able to access their assets no matter what form they take.

So you agree that one person's home is just an asset to others?

I think that was quite clear! the rights to assets trump those to people's homes

growstuff

Why should everybody be able to access their assets? Who says they should?

You would be rather annoyed if you had a savings account and the bank wouldn’t let you take your money out when you needed it I assume. Without a private landlord how many would be homeless? I’m grateful that I didn’t put my money into buy to lets even though I might have got a better return. There is such hatred in this country of anyone who has money.

Yes, we know there are good landlords and bad tenants, and those who aren't greedy in what they charge, but generally speaking private rentals are much more expensive than council housing, because landlords want to make a good income.
As Growstuff says the possibility of eviction is hanging over private tenants all the time. That is stressful, and impacts on people's health. As does the high rent.
Of course some folk prefer to rent, and that's fine. there is nothing wrong with renting, my son and partner do, although they could afford to buy.
But those who can't afford to buy should be able to get a property at a reasonable rent, put down roots and call it home. Especially if they have children. Stress caused by not having a home that they can make their own and live in as long as they want, is detrimental to people's health and bad for society.

I feel our government encourages and promotes home ownership, as it suits their agenda.
It is not the governments responsibility to help people buy homes. If buy to let was regulated more homes would be available to buy at a lower cost.
It is the government's responsibility to make sure those who can't buy can rent at affordable prices, long term, by having a plan to build more council housing asap.. (Not forcing people with a spare room to move out of their home, or pay more rent)
This government has no social conscience.

Why should everybody be able to access their assets? Who says they should?

Well.....the law for one. Think about you having a savings account, or some ISAs or stocks and shares, with several thousand pounds invested in them - they are your assets. One day you decide you need some money and you go to drawdown from your assets. How would you react if you were told "Why should you be able to access your assets? Who says you can?" No doubt you'd be a tad miffed that you were being prevented from accessing money, that you'd invested in good faith, from being released to you when you needed it.

A property - whether residential or commercial, is simply another asset and the process of buying and selling them is, in law, purely a business transaction. If you were to introduce legislation that prohibited private landlords from selling their properties (assets) when they needed to; you would end up with very few people, such as Teacheranne, MerylStreep or Smileless2012, being willing to let out their properties to tenants. So then you've created another housing shortage.

Cross posts Germanshepherdsmum! You type quicker than me!

JenniferEccles

Yes there are cases like that Chardy as well as dreadful tenants who stop paying rent and then trash the property for good measure before they are eventually evicted. Also extremely stressful for the poor owner.

Did those people you mentioned let through a reputable agent I wonder!
Unless the original rent was way below the going rate I can’t understand how the landlord could increase the rent to that extent.
In a similar way to house selling, the market is only determined by what people will pay.
We always take the advice of our agent regarding increases and we also take into account how good the tenants have been.
We would far rather keep the rent the same to keep reliable folk who always pay on time and who look after the house.

Unfortunately there are good and bad on both sides aren’t there?

Sorry Jennifer I only know the answer to your question for 1 household (regarding using a reputable letting agent), and that's a yes. The other 2 are much older households, and I would guess 2 yeses there too.

I also know of 2 landlords (through circumstance not choice) who were not served well by letting agents. One home was trashed by exiting tenants, the other letting agent lied about checking in on an empty house.

I have no objection to people working hard and passing on inheritance that has been earned. I know others have, we're all entitled to our opinion.
I do object to people taking advantage to line their own pockets.
If people decide not to let their houses they will sell and property prices will fall.

But the real problem is lack of social housing.

Chewbacca

^Why should everybody be able to access their assets? Who says they should?^

Well.....the law for one. Think about you having a savings account, or some ISAs or stocks and shares, with several thousand pounds invested in them - they are your assets. One day you decide you need some money and you go to drawdown from your assets. How would you react if you were told "Why should you be able to access your assets? Who says you can?" No doubt you'd be a tad miffed that you were being prevented from accessing money, that you'd invested in good faith, from being released to you when you needed it.

A property - whether residential or commercial, is simply another asset and the process of buying and selling them is, in law, purely a business transaction. If you were to introduce legislation that prohibited private landlords from selling their properties (assets) when they needed to; you would end up with very few people, such as Teacheranne, MerylStreep or Smileless2012, being willing to let out their properties to tenants. So then you've created another housing shortage.

If I were to invest assets in an account which I was told in advance was a "notice" account, I wouldn't expect to be able to access them at short notice.

Not only that, but there are plenty of people with assets which are virtually worthless. An asset isn't worth anything in itself unless it can be sold.

Maybe it's time that people stop regarding rental properties as "assets" and started seeing them as people's homes. My rented house is my home, even if it's not my name on the deeds. That's why I think we should move towards rental properties owned by housing associations (or similar), who know where they stand in law and don't regard the property they own as a liquid asset.

Chardy

JenniferEccles

Yes there are cases like that Chardy as well as dreadful tenants who stop paying rent and then trash the property for good measure before they are eventually evicted. Also extremely stressful for the poor owner.

Did those people you mentioned let through a reputable agent I wonder!
Unless the original rent was way below the going rate I can’t understand how the landlord could increase the rent to that extent.
In a similar way to house selling, the market is only determined by what people will pay.
We always take the advice of our agent regarding increases and we also take into account how good the tenants have been.
We would far rather keep the rent the same to keep reliable folk who always pay on time and who look after the house.

Unfortunately there are good and bad on both sides aren’t there?

Sorry Jennifer I only know the answer to your question for 1 household (regarding using a reputable letting agent), and that's a yes. The other 2 are much older households, and I would guess 2 yeses there too.

I also know of 2 landlords (through circumstance not choice) who were not served well by letting agents. One home was trashed by exiting tenants, the other letting agent lied about checking in on an empty house.

What do you mean by "trashed"? It's a word often used by rogue landlords. Did the landlords take into account "wear and tear"?

I think rental homes in estate or association management works much better

i think landlords need to pay for the dps adjudication service, they obviously waste their time and it's paid for by taxpayers

Germanshepherdsmum

growstuff

Why should everybody be able to access their assets? Who says they should?

You would be rather annoyed if you had a savings account and the bank wouldn’t let you take your money out when you needed it I assume. Without a private landlord how many would be homeless? I’m grateful that I didn’t put my money into buy to lets even though I might have got a better return. There is such hatred in this country of anyone who has money.

Of course there are assets you cannot liquidate just when and how you choose.

You would not own a house; you would own a tenanted house. You could sell on the tenanted house.

DaisyAnne

Germanshepherdsmum

growstuff

Why should everybody be able to access their assets? Who says they should?

You would be rather annoyed if you had a savings account and the bank wouldn’t let you take your money out when you needed it I assume. Without a private landlord how many would be homeless? I’m grateful that I didn’t put my money into buy to lets even though I might have got a better return. There is such hatred in this country of anyone who has money.

Of course there are assets you cannot liquidate just when and how you choose.

You would not own a house; you would own a tenanted house. You could sell on the tenanted house.

Exactly!

When my mother rented out her Mum’s home after she died, because she couldn’t bear to sell it, before the tenants left, owing a lot of rent, they smeared the walls with excrement and my Mum cleaned it up herself. That’s trashing a property.

As I've lived in this house for 8 years, I've reached the stage when the landlord knows he would have to completely redecorate, lay new carpets and replace all white goods, if I moved out, especially as nothing was brand new when I moved in. There's a sliding scale and limited life expectancy for house contents. I don't know what I could "trash" unless I broke all the windows, which I'm not going to do because I'd like to get my damage deposit back.

Germanshepherdsmum

When my mother rented out her Mum’s home after she died, because she couldn’t bear to sell it, before the tenants left, owing a lot of rent, they smeared the walls with excrement and my Mum cleaned it up herself. That’s trashing a property.

She would have to have had the house thoroughly cleaned anyway, before selling or reletting it.

Unfortunately, there are too many landlords who think they still control a property when they let it. They've signed over the rights in return for rent and need to let dispassionate professionals deal with problems.