Labour's New "Renters’ Rights Bill" Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2024
- Sign up to Imprint (with a 7-day free trial and 20% off an annual plan): imprintapp.com...
In this video, we’re going to take yet another look at the UK’s rental crisis, in particular Labour’s new “Renters’ Rights Bill” and whether it’ll actually work.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahE...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
"it got so bad, even the Tories tried to fix this" has to be the best TLDR line so far lol
3:42.
Yet they claim consistently to be unbiased, I get they try, but it's pretty obvious they aren't lol.
Yeah to be fair it is mostly unbiased but they definitely let it slip. Honestly even as a left winger I find it a little disappointing
@@delta8868 idk, it's pretty true to reality that tory policy (especially austerity) prefers to plaster over problems rather than address them directly
Tories trying to fix another Labour created problem.
My Grandad took out a mortgage when he was 22, with my Gran. It was worth 4 times his annual salary as a mushroom grower's assistant. In just two further generations we've got to this and we still expect young people to crack on like their grandparents did...
Having a tax on empty flats in high demand area seems necessary.
"For every 100 properties, more than 1.4 sit unoccupied. There has been a rise of 73% over that period in London. It now has more than 34,000 empty properties. "
3.8million houses in London, less than 1% vacant. This won’t solve the housing crisis but it’s a better option than hating on landlords I suppose
that seems like a transitory amount? 1.4 is pretty small
TAX. EMPTY. HOMES.
Empty homes are almost always empty because they’re being repaired or renovated. You’d just get lower quality houses for rent.
"For every 100 properties, more than 1.4 sit unoccupied. "
If a landlord spends a month refurbishing a flat after a tenant has stayed there for 6 years then that's 1.4% vacancy. So that doesn't seem to be a high number, it seems to be a low number.
I don’t see how making it more expense to be a landlord will make them lower prices and increase standards while at the same time limiting their ability to increase rents.
Wow... In Germany the rental crisis is like paradice compared to the UK
how so?
Lol speaking from experience?
We get kitchens though
@@lonyo5377 i still dont get the thing with germans having to buy their own kitchens, like, what do you even do with the appliances after you move out??
for how long tho??
My landlord served me a section 21 no-fault eviction literally as soon as this bill was announced.
I live in London and when I moved into my current flat 3 years ago, my rent was £1000 or just under 60% of my salary at the time. The gov then asked employers not to grant pay rises to avoid runaway inflation, but outrageously, did not request the same from landlords and rent, literally everyone's biggest expense by far. Whats worse they announced a major renters protection bill scheduled for March 2024, giving landlord over a year to squeeze as much out of renters as possible before new rules came into force.
1 year into renting the flat, my landlord increased the rent by 12.5%.
I tried to contest given major repairs hadnt happened all year and that the flat was disgusting when I moved in (caked dust, drains all plugged by vomit, etc...). I was unsuccessful. Second year, rent increased by a further 20% on original price. Once again unsuccessfully contested. At the end of this third year, the landlord requested yet another 12.5% increase on the original rent bringing it up to £1450. Imagine going your rent going up by nearly 50% in 3 years when salaries have only just begun to go up by reasonable amounts. Surely this immensely destructive to the economy and for young ppl like myself to be able to reach a good quality of life and be able to even consider affording children. Surely there should be no bigger priority then getting an immediate and strong grip on this crisis.
Now, my landlord, knowing that they can no longer squeeze any more out of me, have seen the government yet again, introduce a potentially viable renter's protection bill and have used it to serve a no fault eviction in order to see how much they can squeeze out of the next person.
And before anyone asks, no there is virtually nothing on the market right now and most of what is, is really terrible and waaay overpriced. And trust me, people in London are not picky. I've rented directly from a landlord that was named worst landlord in the UK one year. We couldn't care less if the flat is decent and the price is acceptable. So that landlord thing is a useless clause given the state of the market.
Landlords expenses went up massively like everything else, thats why your rent went up.
Our mortgage payments went from like £150 to £700 on some properties. We absorbed what cost we could but the rents still had to be put up as well...
Labour hitting landlords with yet more red tape and tax and expenses is not going to make us able to put rents down...
Agreed. Red tape isn't suddenly going to give land lords a conscience.
Government & Council meddling with bureaucracy, licencing/tax have increased costs to landlords. Not to mention rocketing interest rates for some Landlords as much as 500% have contributed to increased Rents. Some landlords are running at a loss because of the way the government add turnover instead of profits to the LL tax return. No other business model penalises like this. Along with lack of rental stock because of so many Landlords exiting the market put pressure on the poor tenant! Demonising the Landlord will not help it will make it worse in the long run!
@@revorocks123 If you don't own the house don't rent it out... simple
60%??? Thats intense 😳😳
Rent is very bad in the private rental sector in the UK, which is a long term issue that needs to be resolved
population has exploded in 20 years. this has been the primary driver for house and rent prices. Net 8 million more people since 2004 (60million to 68 million). ~4 million units built. many units falling into disrepair that means a net gain of properties ~3.6 million properties Max. More people are in single residency than historically did.
Its just a numbers game. either more houses or less people. If we have Zero migration for 20 years, we will have a renter deficit as the birth rate is 1.5 per woman meaning a 25% population decline in a single generation. If we build more houses the infrastructure around the town will struggle even more.
@@anthonylulham3473 Time for re-migration, then.
@@anthonylulham3473Wrong. It's commodification.
I notice none of you neoliberals will mention migration
1. Fix the supply problem.
2. Heavily tax buying of 3rd property reducing property investors and thus speculation.
3. Stop overseas companies and people of buying property as an investment.
Except point 1, how to ruin an economy further 101
If your economy is absolutely dependant on the housing market and its profitability then you already have a massive problem. That’s what happened to Spain in 2008, when the much of the income of its population relied on the housing market being an ever more profitable asset, and subsequently threw the country into an over 15 years long economic stagnation and having one of the largest unemployment rates in Europe (which they still haven’t fully fixed).
BS
Stop illegal immigration so supply can have slight chance to catch up
Blaming the "investors" or "speculators" is getting it exactly ass-backwards. It's investors that inject the cash needed to increase supply. The problem is a simple case of demand exceeding supply. Regulations, zoning, councils, fees, etc, that block development means that the UK is dominated by only a few giant building companies, because you have to have very deep pockets to survive the hazard of investing in properties that cannot be easily developed. This is just basic economics. It's amazing how many politicians are confused into blaming the demand rather than the failure of supply.
Gutting social rented housing and buying as an investment (not a home) has wrecked the market. This needs reversing and will be the only effective way of fixing it.
Believe it or not; the social housing market has been expanding as fast as possible, (under the current system) as the behest of government for 15 years now. The issue is, demand is constantly outpacing increase in capacity.
If you can speak to people who work in social housing, theyll tell you the size of their patches and the number of homes they are responsible for has doubled just in the last 6-8 years.
@@jgomo3877 But that is only playing catch up. The sale and disposal of stock for decades reduced what was available, with the money going to the exchequer and not councils to replace or expand provision. So it does still need reversing before expanding. The need never went away and current private landlords have pushed more onto those lists. There was a time when renting from councils massively outnumbered renting from private landlords to the point where as home ownership and incomes rose, private renting was close to becoming extinct.
There are many empty properties around the country. Most of these are not exactly in a habitable state with the owners just sitting on the land ownership (many of these being investment firms) while the supply of rental properties continues to decline. As such I think the government should start taxing empty properties to encourage these owners to either sell up or open up their properties to tenants.
They already have higher council tax, which varies locally in how much higher it is. It helps.
A lot of people can't rent an entire flat and can only rent a room of a flat in London, people who only rent rooms seem to have even fewer protections than people who rent flats. Are sub lets going to be overlooked in this again?
come to new york, its worse
Not enough flats for everyone. More people should share. Rwmove the housing benefit completely to force more people to share.
@@davidcooks2379everyone should share except you
Get out of London then. Or demand UK government to do spatial planning of London to fit 90% of the UK population
@@DummyUseless-er3dn new york is worse
The idea of 'retiring' from a passive income is very funny to me
Why? This is exactly what I have done at the age of 34. I have been saving and investing for 15-16 years, and now I am reaping the benefits.
Its the fault of the government for not keep up supply of housing.
@@rationalis5867 don't have anything against it in that context, just the idea of retiring from not 'working' in the most common literal sense seems like a funny use of the word, though I'm not sure if there is a word that would more specifically apply to the context.
@@rationalis5867 Mad how people just magically know how to invest. Don't have a clue
@@rationalis5867you actually have to have savings to invest to begin with.
Not everyone is born with a silver spoon up their arse.
"Unless it is implemented cleverly" Yep that's f***ed it then lol
In the long term they're all good, so it's worth going through anyways. It'll do badly in the short term unless done cleverly, so I guess we'll see how a labor government can do (or not do) smartness.
I think forcing landlords to maintain their flats up to a standard + regulate rent increase are definitely a positive. But no fix term contract and tenant can leave anytime is a bit mad. There should be harsher punishment for bad landlords, but you should also leave protection clause for landlords against bad tenants.
Why?
@@wta1518 One reason a bad landlord may not try to maintain a particular flat is if they have a particularly bad tenant who keeps trashing the flat. Don't know the statistics on how often this happens, but if you can't raise rents on a tenant who keeps damaging the flat to cover the new cost you could just not maintain the particular flat as much and let them live in the damage they caused.
@@water2770 Eviction still exists.
@@wta1518 and how easy is it to evict someone? Don't know about the UK but in the States it'll take at least a month which is still a decent amount of time that the landlord may be losing money on the upkeep not to mention legal expenses.
Depending on the ratio of bad tenants that aren't doing anything particularly illegal it may be easier for a landlord to just let the flats get into disrepair than to go through numerous eviction processes if they can't raise the rent.
@@wta1518eviction is very expensive and takes a long time.
The problem is simple, even though the solution is difficult. The problem is entirely an issue of supply: There aren't enough rental units.
On paper these are great, but realistically all it does is make renting for those who aren’t already renting harder.
On paper these sound terrible, just more costs and loopholes for landlords that will do everything but reduce rents lol
One thing you've missed is that getting rid of fixed term contracts has essentially taken a wreaking ball to the student lets market, if a landlord can't be certain this years students will leave how can they advertise for next years students. Some cities already have a crisis with a lack of rooms for students this isn't going to do much to help. (I should mention purpose built halls of residence are exempt)
Labour has not, and likely will not, address the wider housing crisis that has been caused by significantly increased demand.
Almost 5% population increase since 2000 ( now officially over 67 million people), plus 3.4 million visas granted in 2023 alone. If we go by grocery data, we likely have more than 90 million people unofficially in the UK, with a 700,000 net population gain in 2023 showing there’s no sign of stopping.
All these people need to stay somewhere. Improving renting conditions is a good thing to attempt, but it will not fix the demand problem.
It's a good start but empty homes tax, land tax and an independent board for market rates need to be implemented next. Otherwise a landlord can still sit on an empty home to push up demand until their profits come back up. Incentivising investing in business instead of housing with land tax would be ideal, actually strengthening the economy while making more homes available rather than inflating productivity numbers while people starve on the streets
Apparently England wants higher rents
Messing with the market is not going to work. These measures will increase the price and/or reduce supply. The only truly effective policy would be reducing restrictions on building houses and flats to increase supply.
I'm a renter, so would welcome more security and guarantees of liveable properties. However, what we don't want is an exodus of landlords from the market, because of ill-thought-out policies. There is currently a wide gulf between the rental sector and those who can afford to buy, so a shortage of properties at this time would mean an epidemic of homelessness.
All in all, the government needs to get a grip on the housing shortage, and solve it quickly. It's insane that we have a situation, where having a job is no guarantee of being able to find a place to live.
The gulf is due to supply, which is directly caused by landlords using housing to make money rather than being owned by those who live in them.
They flee -> they have to sell -> properties flooding the market -> prices are going down until people can afford to buy.
Just commute for 1.5 hours a day each way. rents are more affordable, a motorbike is cheaper than the trains. oh wait you don't want to be wasting 3 hours of your life for a 30K job (typical for a graduate in a stem field)? [8 hours work + 3 hours commute makes it 11 hours dedicated to the job, making the 30k job actually prorata a 22k job with 3 hours overtime.]
It can actually be more cost effective to work a menial job locally and build up experience to get into management than to commute until you get the same experience. you also don't need to pay for travel out of pocket.
Have you noticed that perhaps wages are too low?
Ideally local councils could offer to buy rental homes off landlords who want out. Then they could rent them out at market rates (i.e. they would not be "council houses" as such), and use the profits to fund building new council houses.
But the councils would need the money to buy them in the first place, and I don't suppose they have enough.
@@Psyk60 or they could put in a law that says councils have the right of first refusal.
Mr. Ditkovich would be proud.
Tell me about it I rented a 2 bedroom terraced house for just under a year in 2015, payed my rent on time every month and never turned to housing benefit for the money. Got lumbered with ridiculous energy bills from having no insulation and the central heating packing in from no maintenance by the landlord, it took them almost 3 months to fix it and we had to rely plug in heaters in place of that in the meanwhile..... not cheap.
To top it all off in spite of the landlord not re-investing the money in the property like they were suppose to they wanted to raise the rent anyway for next term of contract; I stated my objections on the grounds the economics and the expense's I and my now ex had incurred and wanted some guarantee that the upkeep of the condition was going to be maintained.
Like some thug a month later the landlord started harassing us by getting their friends to visit the property unannounced at random times of the day causing all sorts of trouble, by the next the month they issued a 1 month notice of eviction with no reason given.
That was then things have only gotten worse since and people like me will never see justice for what was taken from us.
I hope we all know that it doesn't matter who is in the 'top job' because this is a systemic problem -- greed. We have allowed many of our economic sectors, to take advantage of the American people. It's disgusting and frightening for the future of our country. My husband and I will be retiring in the next two years n another country. We are absolutely worried that SS! will no longer be funded. we'll have to rely on his pension, a 403 (b) and a very prolific Investment account with Stephanie Janis Stiefel my FA. Our national debt is bloating and expanding every month. Our government needs to get spending under control and cut the federal budget
I know this lady you just mentioned. Stephanie Janis Stiefel is a portfolio manager and investment advisor. She gained recognition as a former employee at Goldman Sachs; a renowned investor she is. Stephanie Janis Stiefel has demonstrated expertise in investment strategies and has been involved in managing portfolios and providing guidance to clients.
How can i reach her, if you don't mind me asking?
Well her name is 'STEPHANIE JANIS STIEFEL'. Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
Been debt free for two years thanks to Stephanie Janis Stiefel. So sad to see my friends in their 40s with car loans, mortgages and credit card debt.
Thank you for putting this out looked--up STEPHANIE JANIS STIEFEL, her consuIting page came up at once, she seems highly grounded
Very biased reporting
How about adding a clause that prevents corporations from owning houses??
Scotland have tried rent controls. They now have the fastest growing rental costs anywhere in the UK. Another example of attacking the man not the ball. Blame a landlord for offering a service that is desperately needed. Drive those same small landlords away with excessive punitive measures, then wonder why the few remaining that are willing are upping the fees to account for the increased administrative costs 🙄
Bullseye 🎯
I believe this has been the year that a lot of landlords have left the business. changes to the law, tax incentives have meant some don't even break even. If you have the money now might be the time to buy as they let them go at reduced prices just to get rid of them. what happens if you are near retirement and want the money from the sale to let you do that, but the tenant does not want to move. You are locked in. So far all this has helped is the tenant whilst the landlord just get clobbered time after time.
Evidently they didn't try very hard, because if they had rent controls, increasing rent at these rates would be unlawful.
@@PCDelorianrent control is one of the few economic policies that economists unanimously agree do not work.
It discourages the construction of new rental housing and destroys local rental markets.
@@harrydamien6346 We need to make being a landlord less profitable, that's the reason for the housing crisis. Housing is a profitable asset and it needs to stop being profitable if we want to do anything about it
Labour: "lets increase landlords expenses, taxes and red tape"
Also Labour "why arent the landlords putting rents down?"
Genius
They want to make the situation worse so they can grab more power and involvement for the government. I've never seen a politician who actually believes in price controls since the 70s
Short term, you are right. If the money is given back to the people via lowering income tax, this is still the right thing to do long term!
There are many many countries where landlords are held accountable and they still turn a profit. I'll save my tears for the people struggling to find a place to live in the first place. You know, mazlow's heirarchy type troubles...
@@Abzuhuzwn Please excuse yourself from the discussion of economics when you clearly don't understand any of it, don't vote either
@@jonasastrom7422 circular ad hominem, now that’s a semiotic nightmare. Please explain yourself, I’ll assume English is your second language.
The bias on this channel recently has honestly upset me
Want to fix it.. Equalise it.. If you miss 2 months rent or damage the property or antisocial behaviour should automatic right to be able to evict. End no fault but when the risk of not being able to remove bad tenants, all tenants will pay higher rent to cover the risk.
Private industry without regulation and caps goes array... WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THAT ONE COMING?!
Rest of the people here seem to think that regulations will destroy the housing market further.
The UK economy is among the most regulated in the western world lol, you think Singapore has these problems?
Regulations created the problem in the first place. The planning system artificially restricts supply. This is the main reason why prices are unaffordable .
So the problem is not enough housing supply and Labour's answer is to put into place whole sets of rules that would reduce existing supply while increased interest rates makes it harder to build more housing. That should work out well.
I wonder what will happen to on going contracts if this goes through. We have two months notice for both sides for example. Will that be scrapped automatically?
We have enough housing in the country, but there are too many people in London. There should be investment incentives for businesses outside of London
They're just going to make it so private landlords have no incentive to rent and have to sell up to more big corporations who can get a monopoly on the rental sector.
You’ve left out some key things here. Landlords can no longer deduct interest as an expense. This means, with rising rates, profits are seriously lowered. In fact I’m currently paying 300 a month to let people live in my rental. That’s how much I lose after paying tax and mortgage. With renters moving out in Labours two month window, that another 900 paid to the property agents, plus missed days rent. This is forcing people to sell their rental properties, as I am doing. This will reduce property availability and drive yet higher rents. Labour has not thought this through.
And here I am complaining that they increased the time of notice to move out from 14 days to 28.
You guys are aiming to eventually be twice as bad...
I don't recognise most of this.
The government increased tax and legislation in last 8 yrs to save tenants, and the result was forcing rents up by 30% to pay for it...
Then we had inflation up 10%, did no one else get a pay rise to pay for inflation?
This was due to government overspending and creating inflation too.
IF you want to blame anyone blame the Government for all of this.
Then mortgages doubled taking away just about any profitability. A house I rent mortgage went up by £309. I raised the rent by £100, that was a year ago, now I'm raising it again another £60, but this is only half of the mortgage costs I've been paying for 2 yrs, on a property that's still £250 a month below Market value....
The Labour reforms will create another rental crisis as 10,000s of properties are sold, if you're complaining now, wait till next year....
And ALL caused by government interference try to help tenants, they've help no one, they've made it alot worse for everyone.
That's why you get when you mess about with Tax, legislation and helping people. It always ends up far worse. That's why free markets work better.
But you get the seeds you sow, this is what generation rent wanted
I concur. I don't believe that a market will be fully self-regulating, but many of the recent changes leave little choice other than to track the market rent, or go bust. 😣
Britain is still a nice place. But it is not affordable for an average person any more. Unless way more homes are built, and decent ones too, or better good ones, and at a good price, ideally by the government, there is no way out of this. Creating a two class society like this, where landlords take such a big chunk of the salaries, kills the economy, and in particular innovation. No Future Part II.
We need to repeal the towns and country planning act. There are plenty of private companies willing to build, but the ridiculous amounts of Nimbyism has basically stopped any housing construction
Wide dont you reduce migration too reduce demand. Something no politician ever seems to want to address
100%
To be fair, it is a real issue with this culture of owning your own home as a sign of success. Loads of places in Europe have good rent conditions and protections. I'd rathe rrent an apartment in Barcelona , with well managed communal space and pedestrianised areas than a grotty mid-terrace with no infrastructure or improvements
Owning your home isn't just a mark of success, it's economically useful; landlords are economic parasites by definition (the kind of parasitism they do is literally called rent-seeking). Landlords extract wealth from the economy without providing value. An economy therefore is incentivised to minimise rent-seeking by landlords.
The law is flawed. For example, if you own an apartment in central London and live there but don’t need to be there, you might want to rent it out and move to the countryside. However, you'd be required to pay income tax on the rental income (with no option to deduct the mortgage interest). Most London residents are high earners, so they would face a tax rate of 40-45%. Additionally, if you later decide to sell the property, you would have to pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) because the property wasn't always your primary residence. Now, it also seems that you can’t easily evict tenants if you want to move back into your own flat.
All problems in our society would to solved by building more social housing (30years ago). Tell me why I'm wrong. 😂
Easy, I will tell you you're wrong, since the social housing sell off. We have built significantly more homes than the number that were sold. Has it helped?.
No, why? Demand is significantly higher than the build rate, you want to to fix housing supply and demand issues. You need to look at mass immigration.
Had mass immigration not happend, uk population would be the same today as it was in the 70s.
The only reason uk population is rising is immigration. Uk birthrates have been flat for decades. So the only increase is immigration
I'll tell you why you're wrong, because the issue is demand side, not supply side. If you build 300k houses a year and let in 700k+ people, you will never fix the problem. Stop the demand and the supply will fix itself.
@@bongsound stop the demand then the ratio of retired to working ( tax paying individuals) will go up. Less tax collection and you can't fund social spending on the retired.
@@hamsatd Good, the pension system will collapse eventually anyway.
@hamsatd people should be funding their own retirement. State pension was never fundable
Ruining our country our culture and making millions of uk citizens life long renters, unable to own a home. Unable to access affordable housing just to support people that refused to support them selves.
State pension should ONLY be for those that had no choice, say a medical disability that would not allow them to work, and for the poor.
You tell me a good reason why multi millionaire pensioners are entitled to State pension.
Make State pension means tested
One thing to add, (coming from a background of family owning rental properties) there’s very high financial risks that you didn’t mention such as if a tenant doesn’t pay rent and the landlord tries to evict them it will take up to 2 years to get the tenant out which means major losses for the landlord. It already takes landlords ages to get a none paying tenant out. Already landlords are selling properties for this reason. For every rental property about 35 people were waiting but now it’s gone up to 75 people for every 1 rental property.
People should be allowed to buy their own council house but a replacement house needs to be built by the council before the sale goes through
this is completely pointless if they don't deal with the lack of supply
1. increase housing supply. 2 decrease housing demand. Prices are determined at the marginal rate; 1 person wanting a house increases the price much less than 3 people or six people.
They forgot to deal the short renting for tourists. If 20% of renting go to holiday rent, the long term rental prices increase.
There are no two ways around it. Supply needs to be increased.
Selling rented properties, or renting an existing property won't do a thing, its the same number of houses going around.
Build more housing is the obvious choice. But banning/massively reduce and regulate short lets (Airbnb), massively tax second homes not on the market (holiday homes) are needed reforms as well, since it's clear the building sector cannot keep up.
And if housing is bult, it *must* be affordable housing, otherwise it won't do a thing.
And must be 60m2 as the minimum size.
True, I don't have a problem with immigration but this country has tried to take in all the advantages of immigration (increased workforce, combatting aging workforce) whilst trying to avoid or forget the costs which they have a responsibility to address such as the needed infrastructure development and expansion (in housing and transport).
You can't just bring in a lot of people and do nothing, the government has a responsibility to address growing infrastructure needs through direct improvement instead of rolling their eyes.
The theory behind building new unaffordable housing is that it causes a chain of movers; the people in the current best places move into the new places, selling their previous home for a lower price to someone in the next level down, and so forth. This is supposedly a way for builders to make enough money for it to be worth it to build new houses, but I don't know how well it works in practice.
demand can be decreased. why do we need an ever expanding population? the GDP per capita isn't increasing, the people coming in are no more valuable than the people already here. the costs of a 1 bed flat in a concrete block to BUILD is about 200K in materials in labour. that excludes land costs, planning and design time and consultant fees. when a developer profit is factored at 25% minimum, is a £450k property affordable?
@Hession0Drasha Per person? per storey? or happy to have a 60M2 open box with 10 bunk beds and an open kitchen? that would make it cheaper. have a look at penny rope hotels in victorian england. Brits have suffered far worse historically.
Just tax land an yearly basis at a precetge rate of value of the land.
They need to make it so tenants receive criminal action, not civil, if they wreck someones house
And likewise criminal action for landlords for failure to make good on repairs and actions set out in the contract. Creating dangerous environments with mould, broken heating or dangerous appliances
@@themasqueradingcow91 sounds fair.
Yes provider they do wreck it, not fail to perform repairs that landlord are responsible for.
@@themasqueradingcow91 My last landlord banned use of our own kitchen electronics because 'safety', but the provided microwave used to make sparks out the back... It took a year to get a replacement microwave. I had to use the hob or oven for everything. Thankfully electric bill was included in rent lol.
@@themasqueradingcow91Why on earth is it criminal to do whatever you like with your own damn property??? Is the government gonna arrest you when you clog the sink next time?
But, nothing about overhauling building laws and just building more and denser apartment complexes?
This was already done.
Funny enough you guys don't mention that landlords are being taxed a lot more than they used to be a few years ago. Interest rates are much higher as well
They don't care about balanced news. They tend to care about the progressive agenda. :)
Explain? Is it because higher rents are being taxed under an unchanged income tax threshold more?
@@kacperpiotrowski7239errr.... in English please?
@@SgtAndrewM I edit it, I was wirteing multiple comments on my phone so it got twisted. sorry about that
A big issue is student rental. Without fixed term contracts, If the existing student decides to stay on for an extra month in to October the room is not available for the next academic year. So it will be impossible to secure accommodation until a month before the move in date and even then, the existing tenant could say they are staying for a month or 2 and there is nothing the landlord can do. This will cause havoc with students left without accommodation for the start of the year
Similar thing was tried in Turkey. Unfortuneatly it rised the rents even more since landlords were less willing to rent which limited the housing supply thus increasing the rents. If UK will go through this path I hope they would implement better than we did.
So forcing higher quality properties to rent, increasing prices further. Genius.
"Won't someone *please* think of the LANDLORDS?!" - Local Landlord who owns 90% of a small town
Why do you think punishing landlords with more tax, expenses and red tape will make them able to put rents down?
Landlords already can. They choose not to.
@@JasonAtlas Landlords can lose money for no reason, have you ever considered why they choose not to? Have you ever considered that both parties need an incentive to actually take part in an exchange? Please tell me you don't vote
Just build more houses already!
That doesnt solve the problem. They just get snapped up and rented out
The NIMBY's are out in full force already against any house building.
What, Jod? That's literally what we're on about. More rental properties.
More *affordable* houses
@@jod125even so, increasing the supply of rented houses will bring down the price (in theory)
I'm in a bad place right now. im ok physically and mentally, im just in the UK
Nationalizing all rental properties can't make anyone homeless
Need something where derelict and abandonment of commercial property can be used for residential too.
One thing everyone here can do today to improve the situation of renters is to join a renters union: ACORN, London Renters Union or Greater Manchester Tenants Union. Together, under the Renters Reform Coalition, they helped shape the Renters Rights Bill and keep the pressure on for it to be pushed through Parliament.
No, Labour will make rents worse.
Price controls I don't think are going to work, because landlords are already converting rental properties into airB&Bs. Impose further restrictions on what they can charge, and the potential reward of converting to airB&B increases. We desperately need a restriction on these sorts of short term rental properties. I also think we need restrictions on large landlord companies; these are able to keep prices high regardless of supply because they can use the profits from their occupied rentals to compensate for the rentals that go empty. Small landlords need their places occupied, so will be more inclined to lower rent if they're not finding people to rent at their initial listing price.
Why not have government-built mass housing that can be rented out, like Austria? It would solve the supply problem, push down market prices and can be profitable for the government in the long run. The profits can be invested in repairs and even more housing built.
Neoliberalism really did a number on the US and UK.
Way back in the day I rented a room in a HMO. Today I bought a 3 bed house. If you rent the landlord can ask for their proprty back at a whim. If looked at the rentpal prices in my local area. If it was me, I would rather do van life than rent. No government will fix the problem, and that is to stay out of it, actually tackle inflation and allow house prices to come down.
Private renting suuuuuuuuuuuuucks. It's presently the biggest societal cancer we have in the UK.
We're going to see an odd situation where house prices will drop, but rents will skyrocket, and if that trend continues, then we might actually get half an economy going again.
The number one thing the UK could do would be to deal with unchecked immigration; shut the border, mass deportations.
To people worried about these changes causing problems, a lot of them are already in place in Scotland, and have been for years. For example, in Scotland, evictions need to be justified, there are no minimum tenancies and rates can only be increased once per year and are capped by the market rate. Definitely doesn’t solve the whole problem of cost, but does mean that tennants are better protected from the whims of landlords, which is a major positive.
All of these regs and taxes make it unprofitable for landlords so they all quit and prices go up. This is not complicated to understand and more to come.
This will fall foul of basic human rights. It is a basic right to have title over the things you own. With this law no one will rent out property so prices and selectivity will rise. BUILD SOME KIN HOUSES! FFS who will invest now?
Labour couldn't solve a basic math question.
Anyone ever had a "right to occupy" agreement? They should be illigal
So we can look forward to an even bigger housing shortage? Great..
We don't have enough houses, if we build more we lack the services, if we build the services we lack the workforce, we can't rely on young Brits to do anything "they don't fancy" so we'll need to import the workforce, that workforce will need houses, but we don't have enough available houses.
and such an economy is created - where people who work in high paying jobs that can afford loans will own their homes and wonder "how the hell do they struggle"
Explain? Please.
Because the most uncharitable interpretation of this is, 'Why don’t young people just accept living in squalor?'
@@kacperpiotrowski7239 then you've interpreted with either ignorance, or an agenda. Employers and recruiters throughout the UK report people simply not being interested in jobs of all kinds with the clear evidence being labour shortages in Hotels, Restaurants, Construction, Health & Social Care, Leisure Services, Transport Services, Manufacturing, Wholesale and Retail and Education. In short, there's an extra million econimically inactive, mostly under 30 since COVID, who simply aren't applying for, or interested in, these fields. Vacancies in the healthcare sector have surged, rising from 2 open positions for every 100 employed workers in 2013, to nearly 4 now. Nothing was said about living in squalor, perhaps you replied to the wrong post.
This is what happens when the government plans the economy, in the words of Mises it's "groping in the dark"
Many US states, including California have some renter protections. There are 4 general types of tenant protections, each raising different economic issues. 1. Binding requirements for habitability of residential units. Most states have such requirements. These laws can be enacted without affecting construction of new housing. 2. Controls on eviction of existing tenants by requiring cause. California has such laws. Such laws have not discouraged investment in real estate. 3. Limits on rent increases for existing tenants to a schedule tied to consumer price index. These laws exist in California and Oregon. Although property owners may not support them, experience has shown that such controls don't seriously affect real estate investment or new construction. San Francisco has had such laws for 40 years. 4. Vacancy controls: Restrictions on amounts that can be charged after an existing tenant moves out. This kind of rent controls used to exist in New York City and some California cities. The problem is that such controls encourage owners not to maintain properties because they can never rent at market rates, it also discourages construction of new multi unit residential housing. This is why both New York and California abandoned vacancy controls. Labour should adopt habitability requirements, eviction controls, and rent controls for existing tenants, but not vacancy controls.
It took me years to finally find a job that would pay appropriate to my qualifications and experience, suprisingly it's an independent company and not corporate. My rent for the first time is lower than 50% if my income. If my company somehow went south, I have no idea how I'd afford my rent, bills or survival. It needs to change...
Whenever you remove a rental property from the market, you also remove a renter by turning one into a buyer
The only way to give renters a consistently better situation is to increase the supply. Unless more flats get built, price ceilings always have negative effects
Frankly, the vast majority of good people never have a problem letting or renting. All these new rules do is enable the very worst of the renting pool to take landlords for an absolute ride.
The fact that it's taken this long just goes to show how important the lords of the land are to *both* parties, enen though they only make up a fraction of the population.
And for the avoidance of doubt, landlords' interests have been prioritised since 1988.
We need to stop falling for the government’s attempt to vilify all landlords to put the blame on them rather than the government taking responsibility for the way things are with housing. Ultimately, most landlords only do things to look out for themselves, just like everyone else does. No fault evictions are so common because a lot of the time going through with a fault eviction is a very expensive process.
Right to buy was a terrible idea. Private landlords filled the gap. Housing should be a basic human right and not seen as a profitable venture.
The problem is speculation, limit specipation in family households and you fix the problem
Whatever happens, the legislation can only be brought in if the Lords pass it. Hopefully the Lords will have enough sense not to pass it.
Simple answer- increase minimum wage to a size that is big enough to actually live on.
The gov' doesn't allow to build new housing and then imports tons of inmigrants that also need housing.
"It's the markets faults" is the dumbest take on the gov' consecuences on their actions.
The Tory government is the last 15 years. Now we have a different government trying to do different things
@lonyo5377 indeed, and if they don't change zoning and planning laws nothing will change
I think the bill is an excellent first step. We need far more houses built too, as Labour have promised to do
No. The only way is to stop people buying multiple houses.
I'm defo missing something, instead of squeezing supply more. What's the draw down of building more houses?
No money, no people to build, nimbys
we need to build a house/flat every 2 minutes due to immigration alone. Literally impossible to do.
Depends on location. So long as density remains low it's ok. But higher density could mean traffic congestion or taller buildings, all of which makes my landlord lifestyle worse.
NIMBYism and a lack of infrastructure in some places. People want homes to be built, just "not here! Build them somewhere else!"
red tape, council's blocking everything, and nimby's
Germany has pretty much exactly this model. It was implemented a couple years ago. It doesn't work.
Because it is not enforced?
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 It's a supply and demand issue, if there is not enough housing then rents will be high as there is nowhere for people to go
Then why aren't new houses build huh? If prices are so high then anyone who can provide new houses would get very rich
Answer: it is land that most expensive, so solution is to intreduce land tax to burst the bubble and ensure efficent use.
@@kacperpiotrowski7239 we also have land tax in Germany. We always had it. that doesn't work at all. On the contrary.
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 it is. It's actually a long chained mechanism. THe rent can go up as high as the average housing price. So if you built new houses in a district, sell them for a good price, or renovate houses and make them more valuable, the surrounding rent also goes up. That is called gentrification. It's a hidden process for many.
Many of the changes the Bill is to implement are good. However preventing landlords from selling or even moving back in for a period of 12 months plus 4 konths notice is ridiculous. Additionally, allowing tenants to be up to 3 months late on their rent but not allowing landlords to repossess seems crazy. Landlords are not banks and mortgage providers can force a sale of property quicker if the mortgage isnt paid, so why should landlords foot the bill when a tenant does not pay for 10 weeks rent?
There are a number of bad landlords out there, dont get me erong and some of the changes the Bill is going to make will regulate these more. However there are a number of terrible tenants and the Bill does not provide Landlords with additional powers to evict such tenants.
I think the government needs to relaose that good landlords are actually preventing a further housing crisis in this country at the moment. Good landlords are selling up because of this Bill, other landlords will hike prices to meet the additional risk they will ne facing. If yhe government isnt careful it will find itself running a country with houses on the market and nobody able to buy them, increasing uncertainty for tenants and landlords alike.
Building additional houses is not as simple as is sounds, unfortunately. Without building the infrastructure around them (upgrading the sewers for example), and ensuring access to services like dentists and doctors, shops, and community spaces, ensuring good public transport links etc., new housing creates more problems than it fixes.
While building houses is part of the fix, the better fix is to build homes that people want to live in and will feel safe in.
House prices are high because houses can be rented at the maximum that tenants can tolerate. The housing crisis can only start to be solved by rent controls. Bring rents down, bring down the level of private landlords and expand council housing. Abolish landlords!
Don't expect any big change. The market will always find its way to increase rents and keep properties below standards. Few years ago I use to rent a 3 bed house for 750pm now I pay 650 for a room landlord keeps heating off and I earn the same salary
Build more council houses and charge lower rent for long term tenants and abolish right to buy.
All I am hearing is, a reduction in the rental supply, and ever higher prices due to that lack of supply and increasing demand.
Red-tape is not going to help. It will hurt the renters more than anyone.
Short sighted people think all the bureaucracy will help, but only end hurt hurting the people they claim to want to help
honestly idc if theres a short term squeeze on the market because it means crap landlords will be pushed out, this honestly seems like the bill weve been waiting years for
Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit follows The Minister's Millions to find out how he built a half a billion dollar real estate empire - on a thirteen thousand dollar salary. Saifuzzaman Chowdhury, a close ally of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, bought hundreds of luxury properties in London, Dubai and New York, but failed to declare any of them to Bangladeshi tax authorities. Former Lands Minister Gives Guided Tour of His $14 Million London Home; he owns 360 in the UK only. Now Bangladeshi authorities have frozen his bank accounts and are investigating the claims😢😢😢