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

Signed.
I do think if someone is making a 15% return on their property they can afford to lower the rent. Private rentals are much higher than council housing and leave many with little to live on.

Signed. I don't think people should be vilified for owning properties I do think there should be a system which ensures that fair rents are charged and families are not priced out of property. It seems very wrong to me that some people should be making huge profits whilst others can't afford to live anywhere and are forced into inadequate emergency housing for years. It seems very wrong to me that there are companies making huge profits from public money for providing substandard accommodation www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/13/private-landlords-profits-housing-crisis-homelessness-councils-england

MerylStreep

Callistemon
Tell me about it ? I had money in Equitable life and Robert Maxwell took a shine to the company pension fund where I worked.
My money was certainly safer in property ?

Yes, my SisIL's pension went overboard with Maxwell.

I've completed and signed that OakDryad; it's more constructive than villifying ordinary people for having the audacity to believe that they legally own the properties they bought and paid for and then let out to tenants.

Can I urge people to read this please and to join the campaign:

england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/social_housing_deficit

Callistemon21

The bottom line is that there is a serious lack of decent social housing which is not being tackled.

Exactly! What I said earlier.

Callistemon
Tell me about it ? I had money in Equitable life and Robert Maxwell took a shine to the company pension fund where I worked.
My money was certainly safer in property ?

The bottom line is that there is a serious lack of decent social housing which is not being tackled.

Exactly so. Tackle that and the private rental sector will largley become a redundant commodity because its market will have shrunk. Once long term social housing is available, the only requirement for the private sector will be student accommodation and people who only need/want short term tenancies. Start lobbying for more social housing instead of viewing all landlords as greedy and exploitative.

The bottom line is that there is a serious lack of decent social housing which is not being tackled.

Callistemon21

I hope I can see both sides, growstuff.

growstuff is right though, it should be run as a business not a pension investment or an asset

People were encouraged to buy to let 15- 20 years ago because of the uncertainty of pensions. Some bought one property, others acquired a portfolio.
If those who did that are now retired, perhaps in their 70s or older, should they be castigated for wanting to liquidate their assets?
Should they be expected to keep running a business into their 80s, 90s? They may need to convert those assets into cash to pay for their own care.

The government decided it would change the law - not members of Gransnet. Everyone who buys an investment in a "market" - wine, paintings, buy-to-let - knows "the value of investments can go down as well as up".

If you bought into a contrived market which buy-to-let was, you must have thought the bubble - created by the government - was bound to burst when either this government or another decided their priorities had changed.

Chewbacca quite rightly describes some of the most recent issues affecting the housing market. Callistemon highlights what happens longer term when a body of people are encouraged to invest “pension pots” in rental properties.

What I despair of is the lack of forward thinking by governments, both central and local, about the long-term consequences of their policies and actions.

Much of the housing situation we have now can be directly linked to Thatcher’s sale of council houses, the “flexibility” of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regarding “affordable” homes, the privatisation of social care, the 2008 financial crash and a government which consistently fails to meet its promises on housebuilding.

No and I love you too

Yes, I can see that point of view too.
The problem was that there was a lot of worry about future pensions and pension misselling at that time and I suppose working people, not necessarily wealthy at all, thought bricks and mortar would be more secure as a pension fund. Mortgages were readily available too.

Callistemon21

I hope I can see both sides, growstuff.

growstuff is right though, it should be run as a business not a pension investment or an asset

People were encouraged to buy to let 15- 20 years ago because of the uncertainty of pensions. Some bought one property, others acquired a portfolio.
If those who did that are now retired, perhaps in their 70s or older, should they be castigated for wanting to liquidate their assets?
Should they be expected to keep running a business into their 80s, 90s? They may need to convert those assets into cash to pay for their own care.

They bought property that would have gone to people in their 40s and 30s and even now 20s in that period. I don't believe it was ethical and has contributed to the problems with a shortage of affordable housing for people in those age brackets .

I am sorry if that upsets you as I am actually quite fond of you but I feel differently

We have houses to rent out. We have never evicted a tenant in all the years we have been renting but we have been treated appallingly by some of them. We've had a beautifully decorated, newly carpeted flat destroyed by a tenant who unbeknownst to us had cats who tore the new wallpaper off the walls, ripped and stained the carpets whilst her boyfriend put a fist through every brand new door. We had been stupid enough to think that if we provided a beautiful home, it would be respected. They did a runner owing rent. The deposit did not go anywhere near the damage they had done and you can't insure that sort of thing.
We only ever charge what the local authority rents are in the area and once we have let the place to someone, we are happy to let them stay until they want to leave. If they are going to be around longer than a year, we are happy if they want to decorate to make the home they want. If they are having problems paying the rent for any reason, we try to be accommodating so we've never had to evict anybody for non payment of rent which we would try to avoid wherever possible.
I think we are good landlords but, if we were in a position where we had to raise capital for any reason or all the different things we have to do to keep the properties maintained and legal became too onerous, we reserve the right to sell our properties with vacant possession. We'd do our damndest to make sure it was stress free for the tenant and give them plenty of time but I don't think we would be doing anything wrong.

So why are there so few rental properties? There are five main drivers behind the current lack of stock:

The increase in house prices caused by the Stamp Duty Holiday sales surge has indirectly obliged more tenants to stay renting – because they, and the all-important first-time buyers, cannot afford the larger deposits being demanded by the banks

Lockdown has driven many people into rental properties outside of London as they wished to make the move quickly and then take time to find an onward purchase. Savills note a 7% increase in rents in the past year for village properties closest to London

The knock-on effect of this being that the lack of supply in the sales market is has meant that these new renters are renting for longer as they search for their onward purchase.

With property prices rising and the Stamp Duty holiday, many Buy-to-Let Landlords are capitalising on their investments and are selling

Due to the pandemic, Landlords cannot give tenants the usual two months’ notice; landlords need to allow six months’ notice before evicting bad tenants.

Savills go on to comment that: ‘Other investors, put off by increased regulation in the sector, have also taken stock out of the rental market as they look to lock into current rates of capital gains tax, which are widely touted as a target for the Chancellor.

Together, this has meant 92% of Savills lettings agents in the commuter zone have reported a fall in the amount of stock available to rent.

Bringing in more legislation for the landlords will mean that more will leave the sector.

The estimated number of landlords in the private rental sector has shrunk to a seven-year low, according to a report. Across Britain, there were 2.66 million landlords in 2019, Hamptons International has calculated. Hamptons said it was the lowest level since 2012 when there were 2.58 million landlords in Britain.

Forcing more of them to abide by laws, that restrict them from selling their properties on when they have a sitting tenant, will result in even fewer people investing in the rental market. How do you see that as a positive outcome for families looking to put a roof over their heads? It isn't private landlords your beef should be with. Your beef is with your local authority.

The point that I've been trying and failing to make is that, if the laws on serving notice to tenants is tightened up to the degree that landlords are unable to sell their properties where there is a sitting tenant; they will view their properties as being less profitable in the long run and more trouble than they are worth. There will then be a surge of tenants being given notice to quit; the houses will be sold with vacant possession and those properties will either vanish from the rental market altogether or they will be bought up by investors who will either charge higher rents (because there will be even higher demand) or turn them into HMO, where they will see a higher income overall. This will not be good news for young families because there will be even fewer family houses available in the private sector and LEAs have not replenished their rental stock since the 1970s. Be careful what you wish for.

The HMO business is switching back again in some cities. The city I live in, many larger houses (5 or 6 bedrooms) were turned into student HMO dwellings. However, there has been a lot of building of student accomodation and as a result, there just isn't the demand for HMO that there was, so they're being gradually sold off as single homes again.

I watch property programmes and am disgusted at the number of family homes that are turned into multiple occupancy properties. No wonder there is a shortage of houses for families, you have to be single or a couple with no children to get decent housing. Local authorities should be allowed only a certain percentage of its housing to be multiple occupancy conversions.

Quite so callistemon.

I hope I can see both sides, growstuff.

growstuff is right though, it should be run as a business not a pension investment or an asset

People were encouraged to buy to let 15- 20 years ago because of the uncertainty of pensions. Some bought one property, others acquired a portfolio.
If those who did that are now retired, perhaps in their 70s or older, should they be castigated for wanting to liquidate their assets?
Should they be expected to keep running a business into their 80s, 90s? They may need to convert those assets into cash to pay for their own care.

Yes, been to council housing, it was them that told them that they weren’t homeless so couldn’t help them.

I wonder how many people that decision has made homeless? Quite a few I imagine but on reading this thread I have absolutely no regrets.
That's an interesting comment Germanshepherdsmum.
When we recently sold one of our properties in France we nearly transferred the proceeds into buying a flat to rent out. We decided instead to upsize, (not that we needed to by any means at our age), so that our new property would increase proportionately more in value without the aggro of owning 2 properties. So yes, in a way that decision meant one less property on the private rental market.

growstuff, I think you are one of the 'all property is theft' brigade. I can't afford to buy a house so why should anyone else (even if they rent it to me, more fool them because it's *my home for as long as I want*)?
I am so glad that I didn't invest in buy to let properties. Yes, I might have received a higher income on my investments but the investments I have are mine and I can cash them in if and when I please. I wonder how many people that decision has made homeless? Quite a few I imagine but on reading this thread I have absolutely no regrets.

I do agree that a rented property is the tenants home. They have a right to free, clear and unlimited use of their home.

The place that I disagree with you growstuff, is that if a tenant damages a property, that they then have to bear the effect of the impact of that, on their ability to rent again.

If you damage a rental property and the property is let through an agent, you risk not being able to rent again, at least through that agent.

I suffered that with a property I rented while my daughter was younger. The landlord replaced the carpets before I moved in (I asked him not to, my DD was an art student and notorious for getting paint everywhere) so when I moved out, her bedroom carpet was stained, despite my cleaning it.

The letting agent refused to rent to me again. Blacklisted. I should have just replaced the carpet myself.