The Renters Reform Bill Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лис 2023
- Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Be well informed. Download the free Ground News app at: ground.news/tldr
The UK's renting situation is facing many challenges. To address these issues the government proposes the Renters Reform Bill. This video explores the problems it aims to fix and assesses its potential impact on Britain's renting crisis.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
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!
1. publications.parliament.uk/pa...
2. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati...
3. england.shelter.org.uk/housin...
4. www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pro...
5. www.gov.uk/guidance/privately...
6. www.gov.uk/guidance/renting-w...
"It's fair to say that the housing situation in the UK isn't exactly ideal."
That's a very British way of describing an absolute clusterfuck.
and that's an understatement!
Look to Sweden to see how not to do it.
Spot on
@@301081anthonyswedan has its own real state issue.
To be fair you could say that about most countries lol
This bill changes nothing, especially not the fact that renting a house costs half your monthly salary!
@@user_whatever212 i found the landlord parasite
@@user_whatever212 Jobs in cheaper areas pay less
Yeeep there's nothing to prevent landlords from having rent costs be whatever height they find to be possible for them to not spend more than a few weeks without income from that property. I wonder as to why not have such a prevision with it basing the maxim rent per month for that property to not be more than an certain percentage of that home's market worth from it's last evaluation (with limitations on how often it can occur and has to occur) or off maybe council tax banding.
But these are just my instant and not well thought out thoughts.
@@user_whatever212 bruh, I live in the countryside (one of the cheapest areas in the UK) and it’s no better here. Houses are cheaper but you also get paid way less
When I was renting it was more than half my salary. Thankfully I got an inheritance and as such managed to buy a house outright which is the only way I could get on the housing ladder as a single person on low wages in my 40's.
this bill just feels like a way to pander to younger voters without actually implementing anything
Can you blame the poor Tories? In the 18-24 age group, Tory support is 1% - that's ONE. It's almost as if constantly belittling them and screwing them over and calling them snowflakes and gaslighting them have consequences (!)
Youre exactly right, the bill is completely ambiguous and it's not clear whether it will help renters. I wouldnt trust landlords to pass any meaningful laws regarding housing.
@@hg82metalmost like it's in our media and school system or something...
Bingo
@@SaintGerbilUK Oh no, the schools are teaching kids to have an analytical mind, to question things, to ask for evidence. Whatever will the Tory party do to eradicate this scourge?
If a landlord want to evict a tenant, all they have to do it put the rent up dramatically.
Without rent controls this is toothless.
Even the "reasonable reason" clause to deny pets is so open to interpretation, that it's practically useless. Do Tories expect every petowner to go to court just for this?
If the tenant doesn't want to pay rent. They simply don't, trash the place n landlord can't do anything
@@ashkay780this ain't America.
Tenants can be held legally responsible for acts of extreme damage, because the laws view them as unlikely to be accidental
With the exception of fire, flooding, and infestations
While tenants aren't punished for living the premise down, stealing and destroying everything inside.
Makes sense if you want to "redistribute"
@@OurLordandSaviorSigmarwhy should you force a landowner to have a pet in his property?
There's no right to a pet, and you are the customer.
The whole bill feels like lip-service. Nothing is going to be dramatically change here.
Same with portuguese bill. In portugal it's 1 more door for corruption.
This bill will do little. Rapid house building is what we need, not the poor house building targets the Tories set themselves and then fall to reach.
The biggest change will be the change to how mortgage interest is calculated in landlords profits making small landlords (who don't use a limited company) less profitable. Not surprising limited companies can still write off mortgage interest as a cost against profits, so we will see small landlords sell up to be bought up by corporate investors. This sounds designed by Tory corporate interests :(
@@rmgaminguk7079 it isn't 1 party design, that's where they catch u: by making it about party aligience while the interest groups, the limited companies, aren't either.
What is needed is an a-partisan lobby group to counter those big corp lobbies.
@@puraLusa I agree to some extent, we need to hold both parties to account. While the housing crisis has been getting worse since the big council house sell off, a far greater proportion of Tory MPs receive rental income and/or are landlords, they are the party that have been in power for the last 13 years and they have pledged much lower house building.
@@rmgaminguk7079 Labor could easily capture my vote if they changed this but they wont because they're serving the same corporate interests.
A few years ago Tories refused to pass a bill that would have required landlords to make rental homes 'fit for habitation'. That's how much they value renters/people.
Typical socialist lies.
@@SaintGerbilUK Typical fascist coping. Labour government incoming cope harder
@@SaintGerbilUK It's not a lie. It's from January 2016. You can look it up. But of course you're not interested in the truth.
@@hg82metwhat was it called?
If you are talking about the "Housing and planning act 2016"
It would have significantly reduced social housing, and raised rents, but that doesn't make headlines does it?
@@arpandas2243yes by moving to the right. Imagine how effective they would be more to the right?
Nah they don’t want to fix renting. Ever.
So how would you "fix" renting?
@@SaintGerbilUK 1. Import less people. 2. Dress down NIMBYs. 3. Far more rights for renters. 4. Offer and build WAY more public housing (Thatcher got rid of them all and its been downhill from there). 5. Goverment starts buying houses on the market and co-opts them into the public housing system with affordable rent for public servants, nurses, cops, teachers etc etc. The more public housing and less imported people would defs pop the housing bubble which would be amazing
@@greasybrownie
1. Agreed, most people don't seem to realise that is the main reason why house and rent costs are spiralling.
2. Be specific, do you not think people should have a say in their local area?
3. More rights for renters like what?
Anything which reduces the number of landlords raises rents.
4. Who wants to buy property near public housing? Having bought a flat in a building which was part public housing, they didn't look after the property, which raised the service costs for everyone. Who wants that?
5. Socialism then it's amazing how many people push the hand of government into markets they don't like. Almost like they know it will inevitably destroy that market.
You started off well then got a bit vague and then fell flat on your face.
@@SaintGerbilUK mate I just typed out a novel going into more but my drunk ass hit cancel so imma just leave it
immigration is definitely the biggest issue.
Also public housing used to be the norm by far before thatcher. Making it the norm is the way to go not by forcing people to hand the keys over but buying houses already on the selling market.
Immigration + Houses seen as investments are equally bad.
I fkn hate NIMBYs (Didn't get a recreation centre because of them)
@@greasybrownie the biggest issue is they haven’t built housing. Immigrants don’t come into the uk and get a house, there are no houses to give them. most of them move into private accommodation
I don't trust this government to ever knowingly do the right thing. How can they pass meaningful renters' reform, when a lot of them are landlords? How can they fix the broken housing market, when their biggest donors are the building/construction companies that want to be solely in charge of supply so they can essentially run monopolies?
Because you're a socialist that's why.
You don't believe that personal property should exist.
I dont trust any government. I was renting under labour tyring to save up a deposit, they bailed out the banks and slashed interest rates. Lib Dems and Conservatives came in. Remember Vince Cable and Nick Clegg. Nick Clegg's tuition fees pledge? And ofcours the conservatives...all the same.
What I'm saying here, I would not trust any of them.
@@SaintGerbilUK Calm down, babes.
@@hg82metthat's not a denial.
Seems I'm over target.
@@SaintGerbilUK "Over target" as in "missed the target"? I think you might be right.
"Has Sunak fixed renting?"
Short Answer: No.
Long Answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooo
Excellent
“Sunak appears to be quite comfortable in his party”
They literally just had a conference where people were lining up to replace him and he struggles to pass any laws without appealing to his right wing headbangers??
Come on TLDR
But that IS what being a Tory is all about. Appeasing rightwing headbangers while keeping an eye open for the inevitable knife in the back is in the job description.
And TLDR have done a* video on how the Tories are tearing themselves apart due to infighting.
*Maybe 2
He's comfortable *because* people are lining up to replace him. He's safe as long as the opposition within the party can't agree on a replacement.
In order to"improve"swimming pool safety they are getting a committee of sharks to consult on drawing up a"framework" of best practices.
When MP's are property developers and renters either directly or indirectly then it's just window dressing and "jam tomorrow" electioneering. Sunak thinks we are stupid.
Way too many britons are stupid enough to keep electing people who want to kill them.
Unfortunately a lot of the electorate are stupid; you only need to look at the numbers still saying they'd vote Tory to see that!
To be fair, Tories still having 25% support tells me he's not all that wrong to think that.
I've never seen a shark in a swimming pool. You mean sea swimming safety?
Interesting-In London, and I had to move twice specifically due to the landlord selling the property - only to find the flat I was renting on Zoopla while still living in the property, at a much higher price. Over 10 years of renting in London, I went through no fault evictions 6 times (the 4 other times I was not given a reason at all). I also have pets and finding flats is also a nightmare. The situation is dire, and this bill changes very little
The landlord database is emblematic of government failure. They cannot seem to grasp that the crisis is so severe, that tenants aren't able to "shop around". You can rarely get a "house viewing" anymore with the number of people who are willing to snatch up anything without even seeing the property cause they are so desperate for affordable housing!
At the end of the day, the only thing that will improve the situation is re-zoning areas near urban centers to have higher-density housing.
I say go for it, provided there is a tenants list too. If you are a black listed tenant, you are screwed.
A data base to block/ban bad landlord. The same should be of tenant as well.
Refusing payment, instant black list.
Repeated late payments with no prior heads up informing the landlord. Black list
Damage to property that is beyond ware and tear, black list.
Use of drugs and being a pain in the arse to all other residents in the area, black list.
It goes both ways
@@MinkieWinkle I couldnt find a place to live purely because of this. I had to set up viewing in soo far away that when it was about time to go they canceled because another person viewed and took the property. I was living in a hotel for 1 week before my finances crupled and someone did help me for few weeks.
@@MinkieWinkle "Use of drugs and being a pain in the arse to all other residents in the area, black list." I don't take any drugs and don't even drink or smoke, but kicking out people for drug addiction is pretty insane.
Housing is a human right. You need a house before you can savely work and improve as a person.
@@DGAMINGDE My house my rules. simple as that, i do not want drug users living in my home.
I own the home not them, they are merely paying to stay there. they agree to the rules of the house, if not they can find somewhere else to live.
Being addicted is no excuse for causing trouble.
Housing is NOT a Human right. when you are not living in your OWN home. you live in other peoples homes, you live by their rules.
Sunak hasn’t fixed anything
He's filled his pockets though
This might be the most toothless legislation I’ve ever seen.
Pets 😂 what a smokescreen
This act only applies to England and Wales not all of the UK. Scotland already has a lot of these provisions. Would have been nice for you to have mentioned this
Just also want to say, in Wales there's also Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, so it basically only applies to England as Housing is devolved :)
has it done much in scotland?
@@user48534 HA! I bet it was all because they allowed pets that made the difference
@@user48534 air b&b has a LOT to do with that shortage because greedy bastards can make more in a week than they can a month.
@@paulroberts8270Renters Reform Bill s.66(1) "this act extends to England and Wales only"
This bill will change nothing for renters.
If the database of landlords is essentially a "landlord quality score" then that's something I'm fully behind. As a tenant it often feels as though we're the subject to scrutiny and have to ensure we fit the requirements the landlord is looking for. However, I've had to deal with some shocking landlords and often landlords forget that without tenants this whole investment falls down. I would happily pay more to a respectful landlord who supports the tenant, they're not unicorns and they do exist! :)
I am victim of the loophole of “no fault eviction” my landlord issued a section 21 6a and told us he was selling, but yet we found out about a month later he already had a new tenant moving in! Our local council refused to help so we ended up moving with my parents, we’re currently waiting for another council to review and accept our application but we don’t know how long we’re going to wait.
Council would have advised you to not vacate the house and you'd be in a better position
@@dbz9393 We told them back in August 21st we’d be homeless on September 22nd but it wasn’t until roughly September 29th that they assigned an officer to our case! We’d already had put all our stuff into storage and were (and still are) residing in Peterborough!
@@jonathantitterton9455 the council do not have an at risk team that called you?
At least with the new bill, landlords are required to lose 3 months of income if they want to evict someone without proving any wrongdoing.
Best of luck friend, that kind of thing should never happen
So landlords will now just have to make up a fault, big deal. The extortionate cost of renting is still unchanged. Oh and tenants can now have hamsters, cos that's such a critical right.
I’m afraid it will discourage some landlords from renting properties. Good tenants are hard to find so landlords will no longer take a punt on potentially dodgy tenants or will increase rents as protection. If the rental market tightens and landlords sell up then either the home owner market increases, possibly reducing house prices and/or landlord’s respond by screening potentially problematic tenants. These will be forced into the public housing sector, which is already overstretched.
This is a short term, knee jerk policy aimed at tempting young people to vote Tory. Without properly thinking through the consequences.
What on earth does this actually change
It just puts off a few people from becoming landlords and thus causes rents to raise even higher.
That database could be a powerful agent for competition if rent hikes and reviews from tenants are allowed. Landlords can and should compete on the quality of their service not just the value of their property.
So what stops a tenant who has trashed a house and been forced to pay out from leave a bad rating?
Sounds fine as long as people are honest but they aren't.
@@SaintGerbilUKstill a big step up from what happens now where landlords screw over the general public by holding a necessity for ransom whilst providing no value themselves. What you are describing is an annoyance for landlords. What’s happening now is a crisis in which a few are holding the rest of the country for ransom.
@allergy5634
Annoyance? What are you talking about? Having place thrashed can costs well into thousads of pounds. Where do you think money for putting things right will come from? One way or another it the cost will be borne by subsequent tenants or other tenants of this landlord.
@@SaintGerbilUK So what stops a landlord from leaving a house trashed and renting it out like it wasn't, because there's no goddamn ability for people to shop around?
Oh, that's right, nothing.
Poor people just have to suck it up and die for your beloved landlords.
@@Speedkam most tenants aren’t like that. And as it stands, landlords extort more than enough rent to cover these costs if need be
Landlords can refuse pets because they’re bound by restrictive covenants. I own my flat but I’m not allowed to have a pet as this would break the terms of my lease. If I were to rent out my property, my tenants also wouldn’t be able to own a pet. A lot of people are in the same situation so the pet legislation won’t change much unless the government deals with restrictive covenants first (and ideally abolishes leaseholds altogether). It’s shocking that most people in the UK don’t even fully understand what leaseholds are!
sounds like advanced renting scheme, not an ownership
@@xxxMrBadExamplexxx that’s the UK unfortunately. Most people don’t really own their properties.
Rent caps need to be a thing as well. It’s not fair that you get to take half someone’s income passively because thatcher gave you a council house. If you feel like your landlords gunna put your rent up. Just pour oil down the pipes.
Rent caps = no rents
Or at least much fewer, why rent a property you cannot make money on, and the few who are left can charge what they like since the market will demand it.
@@SaintGerbilUKah yes, your right to make a fortune at someone else's expense without lifting a finger. In case you're wondering, I happen to rent out a property to some very good tenants......so good in fact that their rent has not gone up at all since they moved in 5 years ago........not your ideology I'm sure.🙄
@@iandennis7836 and you've done nothing for them in 5 years?
No replacement mod cons, plumbing etc
If so it sounds like you're the slumlord you claim to be above.
@@SaintGerbilUK oh contraire 😁. New double glazing, New patio doors, New storage heaters, oven repaired, fresh decorations throughout prior to tenancy, oh and they have pets too. They were a bit short of income in lockdown, so months off the rent for Xmas a couple of years ago. So I rather think I can VERY smugly tell you to feck off and research properly before posting dumbest comments 🤣🤣
@@SaintGerbilUKLadies, please,
You’re both leaches on society to begin with.
lmao i like how it wasnt important to make it fairer for when it was mainly a young people thing. Shows how little they care about making young people capable of founding families.
The main reason for the "no-fault eviction" was to allow landlords to evict tenants to sell their property, there has to be a way for landlords to evict tenants when they are selling a property and unfortunately, the sales don't always go ahead, so if an unscrupulous landlord wants to abuse this provision and absorb the cost of a 3-month void (period with no rental income).
So rather than this being a loophole it is better described as an essential part of the law to allow landlords to conduct a normal business function.
The pet thing is already covered by the Unfair Terms & Conditions Act. The advice on this act specifically covers “blanket no pets clauses”. So the government isn’t actually adding anything here.
As a landlord , I have only had bad experiences with pets. Due to the reduction in the size of bond allowed, it does not cover the mess to clean-up. My rent levels are very fair but if pets were asked would be okay, the rent goes up. Why take an unnecessary commercial risk.
I own a terraced house next door is a rented property. over the last 40 years i have had to sleep in my car many times because of neighbours ie a dog that just barks a few times in the night but is enough to make sleeping imposable. Thats the milder kind of disturbance upwards of 50 people at a party was not uncommon in the past. Which ever party,s bill you like it is going to make my life and even bigger night mare.
I can definitely sympathise with the barking dog problem :(
Grow up mick 😆
I dont know what I was expecting from a government that that are almost exclusively landlords and land owners themselves but its still somehow disappointing
If they benefit landlords they would be called out for "only helping their base" and if they make it worse for landlords more houses will be sold off and rents would be even higher, about 1 in 3 property which was rented before the pandemic now is not.
@@SaintGerbilUK _"about 1 in 3 property which was rented before the pandemic now is not."_ source?
@@Snugggg TL;DR News about 2 months ago called "Rental Crisis: Why are Landlords Selling Their Properties?"
@@SaintGerbilUKwho did they sell to?
@@Snugggg You'd have to ask TLDR
The right to own a pet, waiting for the landlord allowing tenants to own one goldfish
What "right to own a pet"?
@@SaintGerbilUKconsidering that the Conservatives/Commiservatives* have a few convicted or under investigation members and supporters, likely is related to some variation of petting, either with heavy handedness, and or with animals, children or unconsenting persons..
*Commiservatives ..a mixture of religious style of belief in their own Soviet/Trumpist levels of 'one partyistic' propaganda and proselytising gaslighting talking points to the dumber members of the public whom are easily distracted and callously shallow minded, along with the darker, insidious aspects of capitalism & greed for power and profiteering at everyone else's expense for their own individual profits above the wishes and benefit of the nation & her citizens they claim to represent.
..while using religion(s) and the religious dogma(s) to appear caring, moral and good, while the scam everyone, while selling off & destroying national defence, strategic industrial infrastructures, institutional offices and services of state etc.
..& accepting foreign 'donor' monies from rivals & enemy nations via.. gifts, holidays, bribes/lobbying, and a myriad of shell-companies to evade detection, taxes and political laws and regulations.
Yes, owning a pet will definitely fix my housing situation. Can't wait to live in shared flat with pet in every room. And all the corners marked by cats on every single flat
On the down side, without a fixed term in the contract, the landlord can increase the rent at the drop of a hat. Under these amended rules, couldn't a landlord could just force a tenant out by unreasonably increasing the rent and waiting for the tenant to default, before evicting them?
Sure and then they have an empty property which is costing them and not making any money.
Why would they do that?
@@SaintGerbilUK Who knows - possibly to upgrade the property / get someone else in to pay a higher rent? Can't do that as abruptly if the tenant has a fixed term. At least with a fixed term the tenant has some security for that fixed period, and potentially some advanced warning of any rent increase. I don't know if it's already a thing but there should be some restrictions on how steeply and how suddenly rent can be increased. I'd like to see some form of rent control as well. But most of all councils should increase their affordable social housing stock. Thatcher really screwed renters.
According to the pre-existing rules for a rolling tenancy, the landlord can only increase the rent once a year and it has to be in line with average local rents.
thats the point of it
@@nathanaelsmith3553 what is wrong with any of the examples?
rent control leads to no one renting, just look at NYC and rent controls to see how that goes.
So if you look at the small print (like everything the Tories do) it doesn't do what they say it does.
Literally the bill
You have you're own pet! (except when it's inconvenient for the landlord)
You won't be evicted for no reason!(unless your landlord is willing to wait 3 months)
What an incredible bill this fixes all the problems with renting
Complete waste of space tories plan is to kill us off end of in unfit rooms at double and triple rents for what a bed in a dingle claiming it s a double in a filth tipm. You re only classed as human if you re a student or young professional. The rest can suffer
Those are absolutely brutal rules hurting tenants, even with the "reforms"
For example?
@@SaintGerbilUK allowing tenants to be evicted in a sale, not allowing tentants to keep pets that aren't destroying the property, not having rent controls, locking tenants into leases years over years, etc
@@joshuahillerup4290 is there a rule that says Tennant's can't be kept on during a sale? If I was buying an investment property, existing good Tennant's would be a selling point.
@@1Mutton1 there's a rule saying that selling is grounds for eviction, which is what I was referring to
@@joshuahillerup4290 as it should be if the buyer intends to move in.
The problem isn't the rule, it's the notification period.
Well a friend of mine has just rented a new flat at £850pcm. 12 months ago, it was advertised at £500pcm. This is the interest problem and lack of rental property problems compounded. So, based on that anecdote, has Rishi fixed it? Has he bolox.
So Rishi should make the market less favourable for landlords and reduce the size of the market driving up rents.
Or make the market more favourable for landlords and then is roasted for just doing it for his base, and pushing money up to the wealthy?
@@SaintGerbilUK If more properties were in the market for sale, housing would be cheaper, meaning fewer people would need to rent in the first place. Stop kissing the backside of landlords.
@@SaintGerbilUK You are coping hard throughout the comments😆😆
@@SaintGerbilUK Have you drawn the short straw at CCHQ today? Commiserations.
@@SammyInnit Sounds like he is a landlord, hence the lashing-out and the desperate flailing-about.
An entirely hollow bill designed to show that the conservatives do actually care about us normies.
Here in Vancouver (I’m British) we have rolling terms as standard but landlords can perform a ‘renoviction’ where they just need to say they need to do major works (no proof needed) or that their immediate family is moving in and well… off you go
5:40 the current law doesn’t FORBID people to having pets in rented accommodation, it’s currently at the discretion of the Landlord. So nothing actually changes on that front nor does anything else on this bill!
I don't remember what nation i heard of this from, but there is a place where, if you rent a place to live, once you have paid enough rent to match the place's value, you become the legal owner. This *has* to spread.
What is the incentive for the landlord to rent their properties out if it results in the eventual loss of the the property? In situations like this, it would be much better to sell property and get the full value instantly rather than in monthly installments, which would enable the landlord to invest the proceeds and get higher ROI than receiving simply installments without any returns on them.
@@rationalis5867 If you have enough money to buy a whole-ass building to rent out, you have enough money already. Renting is a terrible fucking investment for those who do it, so let's give a little back to those poor bastards.
The base problem is a shortage of housing. Market forces are applied and both rents and selling prices reflect that shortage.
Buying is a better long term for most but the required deposit is high and they need to save. So they rent but the rents are so high they can not save for a deposit. Catch 22.
thats kind of the point though. when a person buys their own home sure the bank makes a bit of money off them, but for the most part a lot of the owners salary goes towards building up their own assets. How does that help the rich get richer? It doesn't. But if people are stuck renting then a lot of the renters salary goes directly into the bank account of the landlord. And since you have to have enough money to own more than one house to start with to become a landlord that automatically insures the transfer of wealth from those with less money to those with more money. That is how the current system is intended to work, and that's how it is working. What's the point of this thing happening if wealthy people can't make a profit off of it? That is the question neoliberalism always asks
@@WhichDoctor1That's why renting is parasitic and only serves to funnel more money into the rich. Theres a reason why we left feudalism. Buying more than one single family housing should be illegal and renter's should be in control of rentals.
Its a shortage of affordable houses. There are plenty of homes, the landlords have bought them all.
@@reheyesd8666what's driving that?
If only that were true. There are less homes than people wanting them. The way the financial markets have operated means that it has become easier for those with capital to become landlords.@@reheyesd8666
Here's a wild idea:
Instead of planning new towns and ending up with more Stevenages, the government can just give away reasonable plots of the same sort of Crown land as Stevenage's and let people (not corporates and developers, should be allocated only to private individuals; preferably younger folk and families) build houses and villages and towns like the olden days. It'll feel considerably more natural and people would actually build up where they'd want to live in; Not some soviet style beehive. It'll also absolutely crash the housing and land market; For that there shouldn't have been such a market around it anyway.
How are people going to build their own homes? It's going to be a lot more expensive because of the lack of economies of scale for materials and builders (which we lack) and it creates more opportunity for dodgy builders to scam vulnerable people who know nothing about construction!
That aint gonna happen. Environmental cry babies will cry they lost a rabbit or two in the process.
@@jommydavi2197 It's more expensive but it's also a price you pay once for a home you own for the rest of your life.
It'll also be an economy of scale once people just flood the government with these claims and start build a fuck load of houses. We, the people, also have got to toughen up a bit and get our hands dirty as well. For too long we've been living in this heavily service based economy inherited from the empire that we've forgot how to paint a wall ourselves. We shall learn, do, fuck up and redo it again.
@@reheyesd8666 sad state of politics it is
Should have the old Welsh tradition of tŷ unnos where if you could build a house between dusk and dawn you'd get the land it was on. Probably easier with prefabs.
Rents are too high during this cost of living crisis 😢
The loophole could be fixed by exempting the property (on the new database) from being rented for one year upon the declaration of intended sale. Nobody wants to lose a year of rent.
Wow, this bill changes everything. I mean, for landlords having to disclose information and take a further step into their grave of losing home ownership.
You'll thank the gov later when it's companies who will be majority homeowner ship and the average domestic citizen will be renting all as seemingly convenient.
I still recall Sunak's ~"affordable housing act" which made things less affordable ironically enough. He can't seem to get enough of doublespeak.
All these changes may discourage people from becoming landlords (lowering supply, though they may sell which would increase supply of housing) or will encourage landlords at the moment to increase prices to offset what they may have to deal with which is unreasonable tenants that you cannot get rid of easily or pets in the household. Frankly, this solves nothing.
I think the point is to discourage landlords. If one person buys up all the properties then what's left for everyone else?
The problem with the right to pets clause is that, as an estate agent so eloquently told me last year when I was trying to find a new home with my pets (despite good references from my previous landlord), there’s so much competition for housing that a landlord can just choose someone without pets and claim “they’re a better fit”, and thereby not have to even consider accepting pets.
And as a legal professional working in the UK, I have seen many people simply not tell their Landlords and move in their pet later. You can have a pet in the property for years before they find out and even then it is notoriously hard to evict you over a pet - this new legislation will make it impossible.
@@animalhaven42exactly. If the competition is that stiff, just don't tell them about the pet. This bill provides a right. People don't need to provide notice of their intention to use one of their rights.
Pets can cause considerably damage to a property. Cats tear up carpets as most people never buy them scratch poles and dogs scratch wooden floors with their claws. It costs thousands to repair the damage done by pets.
Pets in rented property is no issue if the tenant agrees fee to renew carpets their pet has made ransid and smell of urine.
This could be adjudicated by an impartial party and funds can be drawn to suit the repair requirements the pet has created.
@@bogstandardash3751 that can already be done. In my experience as a tenant, the few that do accept pets already require you to pay extra on the deposit to cover cases of damages. Carpets need to be in good condition (less normal wear and tear for the amount of time, as with any other tenancy), and you have to have proof you paid a cleaning company for a carpet cleaning with pet treatment before you can get your deposit back. If you and the landlord disagree it’s settled by the deposit holding company. However, we never had to question it as we got ours back without issues after we left, and actually had good references from our landlord specifically for our pets, but it made no difference to the estate agents. We ended up with a private landlord in the end, who also has pets and was happy for us to have ours.
None of these changes are to get more people owning their own residence, just making it more comfortable, not even cheaper.
Do they really think this bill is going to get renters on side? All this is going to do is piss off the landlords that make up a large amount of their base. I don't see what their strategy is here.
If anything, it will cause rents to go even higher, landlords are choosing to leave the market, so there are too many people chasing too few houses.
The only fix for this is supply and demand, increasing the number of homes
@@MinkieWinkle That would lower house prices and be an absolutely assured way to lose the home-owner vote. There's no way the conservatives would do that.
Considering a lot of the MP's are landlords on both sides, and I think a good few of Lords are. I would say this isn't really to help tenants, depending on whether they follow the whip that is as Labour have to be party of the working class however much they dont want to be, and those loopholes are not probably going to be fixed. We will see though.
less private landlords, more corporate landlords. Forever renting, as uncle Klaus said 'you will own nothing'
Absolutely 💯% !
This had me wondering about public housing in the UK, and one quick wiki browse about the history of public housing mentioned Thatcher and told me, nuff said.
To answer your question: no, Sunak has not fixed the renting crisis…
He’s done fuck all to help people out of the perpetual cycle of renting.
It's because people don't care about renting otherwise they would get out of the cycle.
It's too easy to justify, that you don't want to commute, or your friends are here, or some other excuse.
In Switzerland, if you buy/sell a property, all rental contracts are taken over. A landlord can claim needing the property themself, but with the option for a grace period for the tenant.
I think that’s quite a fair and balanced system…
Or to empty the property to perform renovations or alterations.
yeah, true forgot to list that, but that at least 1. costs the landlord something so there's a hurdle and since following renters can demand to se previous rents and you are only allowed to increase the rent so much (it is for example regulated how much you can increase it for say a 20k new kitchen - barely anything btw if the kitchen was 20y old already), and it also incentives a well maintained set of infrastructure unlike what I've seen in the other countries where I've rented...
My housing association is HUGE, I became a Tennant by proxy. That is how they operate. No housing association should be so large
The biggest problem with the rental system is that over the years the governments have made makeing houses available for renting unattractive for landlords by gradually reducing the returns so landlords are selling their houses adding to the rental shortage.
Very true
Indeed mine will be sold once the mortgage term is finished, by which time the interest will swallow most of the profit.
I'll just put the money in the s&p 500 and make similar money without having to lift a finger.
I'm not really sure who will be silly enough to provide flexible rental property in the future, perhaps the bankrupt local authorities? With high interest rates and high property prices there simply isn't enough profit to bother with it anymore.
@@bogstandardash3751But that's perfect, now someone can buy that house instead of paying your mortgage
The bill comes across as a way of making landlords lives slightly more difficult. While I understand the intent, I worry that doing this will push landlords out of the market and could actually increase rental costs. Schemes like this worry me.
Exactly that will happen. Current increase is rents is actually because a lot of landlords are selling up to avoid new legislation. Best thing government can do to improve situation is by providing fresh stock of social housing so landlords have actually some competition
@@Speedkam would it not be best to reduce the legislative burden on landlords so that competition amongst landlords increases organically without government intervention?
@@nickpllNo. because that will only attract landlords who are in it to do the absolute bare minimums. The answer is to abolish landlordism and build tenant collectives.
ow no poor landlords how will they cope?
Already a huge amount of private landlords are quitting - c.30% have sold over the last 4 years due to the taxation changes. Also most landlords are aged 60+ and ready to “retire” from being a landlord, you hardly find any young people getting into it. I’m a relatively younger landlord (42) with 4 rental properties and the % return from rental income is now far less than a simple savings account so makes more sense putting the money in the bank and a lot less stressful / risky with unpredictable tenants. With the house prices coming down it and mortgage rates going up dramatically it makes sense to cash in and get out - if you can - I tried but couldn’t sell there are hardly any buyers due to falling house prices. Any landlord with a 75% mortgage is now making a loss every month with the interest rates so high and all the other costs of letting agent fees, insurances, maintaining and repairing the property, the new landlord licenses, accountancy fees, etc. This new bill is just another reason to quit. Soon as the house prices start rising again a huge amount of landlords will be selling - wait and see.
if everyone tries to sell when prices rise, prices will fall :)
@tldr news, have you thought about showing a "Ground news" coverage perspective on the news that you are covering in the video? I would be very interested in such an integration. Overall, I think ground news is a great product but for the average person, it is too time consuming to go and check the bias of every article or do such analysis. But if in the end of your videos, you showed the biases and perspective of the news that you just covered - I would be very thankful. For example, I would be interested how left/right media is covering the Renters Refor bill. Or any other TLDR video I clicked on because I am interested. thank you!
How about a bill allowing landlords to throw out people not paying their rent quickly and with minimal fuss.
Seems like a tiny step in the right direction. The rental sector props up house prices, which the older Tory voter base is dependent upon, so making any real change is not going to happen any time soon.
No it’s not. This will have horrendous side affects, landlords are just going to sell up or put the rent prices up to account for the aggressive policies.
Hi landlord here. I'm pulling out of single lets and converting to HMOs and serviced accomodation. So are lots of other landlords. To hell with the continuous rules and making landlords increasingly vulnerable to rogue tenants. There is nothing to protect against if a family stops paying rent tomorrow, I'm out of rent for 8 months. Imagine someone squatted in YOUR house or YOUR car for 8 months. AND the government supported it.
I'm allergic to dogs and cats by the way :)))))... actually nah changed my mind, just dogs. (I love dogs, just not changing the carpets of a whole house when someone's terrier has pissed in EVERY SINGLE corner).
If there isn't a rent control mechanism built in, it does it really matter if you switch month-to-month after your original lease term? In Ontario, you're only permitted as a landlord to raise the rent by a maximum of 2.5% every year (if your building was built before 2018). If your landlord can say "you're going to pay another 200 bob a month" at the end of the lease who cares about the added bureaucracy.
Simple fix:
The rent shall be no more than the 1.2 times the monthly mortgage payment the landlord is paying for the property.
If the landlord owns the property in full, a hypothetical monthly mortgage payment will be calculated baed on 10% deposit.
If the tentat can find a mortgage that would he cheaper and can prove it, the landlord should be forced to lower rent in line with the lower mortgage payment.
So when the washing machine or plumbing goes to pot can the landlord put a cap on the costs and push the rest on the tenants?
Typical communists not understanding that housing requires maintenance too.
@@SaintGerbilUK Ah we've got a landlord on edge. Don't worry Tories will continue to put your interests first. Always. Rest assured. You don't have to lash out in the comments section, dear.
@@hg82metanother socialist without a point.
Why can't you address the argument?
Because you're unable to address the argument.
Lol. Then you’ll have zero landlords. You’re going to have to live with your parents in their house your entire life.
@@CosmicBrain21 Who are the landlords gonna sell their properties to to get out of the business?
This has Zero rent controls and is more or less toothless...
UK housing policy is not designed to fix problems with housing, it exists to keep these problems present but ever so slightly not awful so that the renter/house buyer never truly, completely breaks, and the bubble pops.
It is very much however the intention for the bubble to continue, and to get bigger. The state however only wants 95% of your blood to be sucked, since you need some minimum remaining.
How would you solve them then?
@@SaintGerbilUK The way that is blatantly obvious and has been done before very successfully. The state should mass build homes and become a non-profit landlord.
It will not however do this because that would solve a problem, and it likes the problem. This problem makes a lot of money for people who vote Tory, and for the high % of parliament that are landlords.
Wish they’d prevent landlords ramming the rent up by 30% making tenants destitute or making them homeless. And wish they’d have a landlord reporting scheme where you can report atrocious maintenance of the property or treatment of the tenants, with an some way of enforcing change
This issue is everywhere though. I'm British and living in the Netherlands. We rent out our spare bedrooms to students, and I get just as many requests from 30-40 year olds, as I do from students. And rooms here can easily cost more than 700 euros - FOR A ROOM! We don't charge that, but we see it. It's always sad when we have to say no to 50+ desperate applicants, because we have only 1 room available. Protecting tenants is a good move. I don't think landlords should be forced to accept pets. Dogs and cats can horribly soil a property. With deep soiling that will stink forever (if it's a wooden floored/gips board property). Large aquariums can be too heavy for old structures and if it breaks then the water can permenantly damage ceilings below. I would never say no to a hamster or a small fish aquarium. But do I want my property full of big dogs or millions of cats? No way.
The pet situation seems ridiculous when they haven't addressed the soaring rent prices. My mortgage on a three bed house is less than the rent I was paying on a two bed flat before that.
Pets aren't necessary, affordable rent prices are. Fully agree pets should be down to the landlord.
It wasn't until I started watching TLDR that I realized how extremely right wing the UK is and has always been
Then you're an idiot, since you haven't noticed that they just don't criticise Labour, unless they really have to.
Just about the only thing we've got going for us is "At least we're not the US."
@@alansmithee419 as a Canadian I feel that pain
Some landlords are terrible. While I am a landlord (not out of choice, I’m not able to live in my house due to working over 100 miles away and would rather have someone living in it), it’s not hard to be a good one. Listen to your tenants and look after them. I don’t need the money so I’ve got no plans to put rent up even with inflation. Even happy for some decorating as long as it’s nothing crazy
I'm not so sure that these changes wouldn't "massively" discourage people from becoming landlords. Surely losing more control over their own property (rightly or wrongly) could lead many to think it's not really worth the hassle, especially if something like rent control was introduced further down the line?
That's the issue, if it helps landlords, critics will say they are pandering to their base.
If it hinders landlords you get fewer landlords and higher rents.
It was always going to be a damp squib.
You can already earn more money on interest on a bank account than going theough a hassle of renting out
If a Landlord wants to get rid of a tenant for whatever reason, why should they not be able to?
Sure they need to give notice, but apart from that.
Tenants are customers at the end of the day and are living in a property owned by someone else.
Because of how much of an expense and a hassle it is to move and to find a new tenancy, the fact that it's an essential service and how long term it's meant to be.
If you want to be a landlord that has more flexibility, you can operate a hotel or airbnb. That's the model you describe, where the landlord is providing a service to the customer and can afford to deny service.
A tenancy agreement is supposed to be long term and therefore more akin to a long term contract between businesses. If you run a toy manufacturing business and contact disney to use their IP, they agree and you write up a contract that they sign allowing you to produce a certain amount of toys for a certain period of time, they can't just revoke your right to use their IP halfway through your production run, even if they do still own their IP, unless there was a breach of contract.
Imagine one day everyone found out about the tripe you post on here and they were outraged. Should food vendors be obligated to serve you, or could they object on the basis that they find your opinions reprehensible? After all, you’re just the customer, looking to purchase something owned by them right? I suppose you’d be okay with dying of hunger. The roof over your head is only one level up from food and water, i.e the things you literally need in order to stay alive.
Ok, SaintHeadass...
@@FranciT98 yes and that's why you get a notice period as set out in your terms.
You're claiming it's a breach of contract but there's always termination clauses.
@@bobi6191 pubs, and restaurants have the right to refuse service if you are drunk, aggressive with staff or customers, or otherwise disruptive.
If they serve alcohol they don't need a reason to deny service.
Your example goes against your argument, you have no rights to another persons private property.
The biggest issue with renting is the high prices that is not going to be resolved by allowing renters to have a pet fish.
On a rolling tenancy, can the landlord raise the price of rent outside of preset inflation? For example, if the rent is £1000 per month after a year of 3% inflation rent would be £1030.
Or can the landlord still choose to hike the price well above inflation as they have been?
Yes they can. I’m on a rolling tenancy (as are a lot of people after their initial 12 months expire) and have bee for years. Last may my rent went up by £100. Last October another £100 was added, meaning £200 increase in less than 12 months, which was an increase of just over 15%. And, from what I hear from other renters, this is completely normal.
As a landlord I’m selling out, the government a few years ago abolished landlords ability of offset mortgage interest payments from their tax bill and now more regulations. If you think you had a problem wait till you see what landlord selling up will do. Most renters can’t afford mortgages so landlords are in the right and in a high interest rate environment they deserve to be able to offset that mortgage otherwise the only other way to combat this is to increase rent. So when you get a rent increase blame Rishi.
Oh no the parasite is selling up his cash cow boohoo. If you lot quit buying all the houses and renting them out we could all afford our own homes mind blowing stuff
cry me a river
So, to be clear, as a landlord, you're now intending to sell your property to homeowners? Good!
@@dbz9393 that’s not true. The UK doesn’t build enough homes and demographic shifts because of Iron woman’s right to buy in the 1980’s.
@@yurisei6732 To the person that doesn’t understand the economy and financial markets. If I sell you still won’t be able to afford a home. Not my fault.
Minute 3:49: The Renters Reform Bill does not create rolling one month tenancies, that already happens under the 1988 act (actually its technically a function of the common law). Assured Shorthold Tenancies don't need to be in writing, so at the end of the fixed term unless the LL evicts or the tenant(s) give notice, the tenancy will become rolling.
This is easily the most balanced, informed and helpful information on this issue that I have seen anywhere. The least useful and worst informed, biased and propagandised version, comes not unexpectedly from the BBC. Why pay a licence fee for propaganda? Thank you TLDR, there is no better place to get proper, quality unbiased information on important subjects like this. Defund the BBC, fund DLDR. Thank you very much.
I don't think the actual issue is being addressed here, what's the point in slightly improving the living situation when the cost of renting is still so high? I also think tenants need some robust protection against landlords hiking their prices so drastically as this can effectively be used to force people to have to move - I've seen a case of a rent hike of 40% here in Manchester for example!
This is probably my favourite topic😬 and the solution is quite simple....
Limit the amount of buy to rent properties that a person or a company can own and voila the UK's biggest problem is solved.
I personally know landlords with 20+ properties... Almost every one of these listed as a shared house where a room costs about £600 a month on average... Do the maths on that...
@@user-wn2dr6zc9z you didn't think this through....
People dont rent because they want to, they rent because this greedy capitalist system leave no other option...
"We are going to fix these problems... Just don't read the small print"
What happened to the bill that was supposed to base Rent on the quality and size of domicile? Where I live, we got people trying to Rent 1 room flats (so called Studio) for over £600 a month..
There’s always a cause for why a landlord wants to evict tenants, but that is his business alone if it was agreed in the contract that he would be able to.
I'm happy things are being done to make renting better for tenants but its not a lot - I wouldn't call it a reform bill. And I'm not convinced the government will add clauses that fix the loopholes and unknowns in the tenants' favour. Even if they did, it doesn't change the tenant-landlord dynamic much at all.
At the end of the day the rent is far too high and this needs to change.
"improving the renting experience" is exactly what they want to achieve, this is all about softening up the renting populus for when the housing corporations buy up the housing stock and create a monopoly for rent only living.
5:53 "But presumably allergies of the landlord or other tenants"
So, are those landlords and other tenants living with the pet owner? What do I care if the guy living two floors above me is allergic to my dog?
They share the same communal areas, halls, elevators etc. So there is still an argument for it, especially in elderly residents.
As for the landlords alligies, it depends of the rental, if say, you were to work away for 6 to 12 months, they might place the home up for a short term lease, so that it is not just sat empty, after that term, the home will be riddled with fur. Even in the surface it may look clean, but virtual zero tenants deep clear carpets before leaving.
Hiring in carpet cleaners etc. In those grounds that landlord will be well within their rights to refuse pets
the (1) clause will only resulting landlords choosing their tenant more carefully or in other words more supporting docs to present to landlord in order to rent a place. Just complicating things up.
The central issue is that many tenants are effectively trapped by increasing rent costs, with no viable alternatives. Despite my salary tripling in a year, it's still impossible to secure a loan for a 2 or 3-bedroom house in our neighborhood. Even as a high earner, with the top portion of my salary taxed at 40%, the best I can hope for is a loan for a small studio or 1-bedroom apartment in my area which is not an option with family. This situation is absurd, especially considering the needs of families, who often require at least a 2-bedroom home. The lack of affordable housing options, coupled with the necessity to stay in a specific area for the sake of children's life, creates an unsustainable situation where saving to buy a home becomes an unattainable dream.
have you looked into buy to let mortgages and then just living in the property? my mortgage advisor told me that over half of buy to let mortgages taken out by the landlord have them living in it (Even though you're not "allowed" to do so as per your mortgage contract, the bank doesn't care, there's no body that checks. . 4 requirements: 25% deposit, good credit score, min 6 months payslip and minimum 24k salary (not quite sure on the salary part but this won't be an issue for you)
So something weird happened to us last week. Landlord said he wanted to put the property up for sale and would serve us with a section 21 when there was a sale going through. I asked him to consult with us first before putting it on the market, that we'd be interested in buying the property of him. I got a reply 2 days later saying it's no longer going up for sale.
Did he want to evict us? The estate agents, acting on his behalf, gave some bogus excuse saying ideally he wanted an investor to buy the property because of void time and so on. I don't see how any void time is involved if us, the tenants were interested.
Who can remember the crash of the rental market in the 1970s? Will a Labour govt do it again? On purpose? Supply!! Don’t believe anyone who doesn’t offer a supply solution.
I have had a tenant for two years. Her tenancy it stated she can't have a pet. She has a dog and it poo's all over the drive. She doesn't clean it up. It's even urinated on the carpet. So I'm sorry I need to put thr rent up. I am already charging way below the market vale.
The first thing we need is a damn rent cap
Video works well at 1.5x speed, even TLDR can become TLDW when watching at dinner break
Every landlord we know are gradually selling their rented properties , we sold one last year, another going next week, no ones buying houses to rent out, so in a few years time there will virtually be no private houses left to rent.
I have in my lease hold agreement that i’m not allowed to own a pet in my flat, would be interested in how you wouldn’t be able to get past this as a renter
If it’s in the lease, the tenant can’t have a pet. It’s accomodated in the bill.
Just get one and don't tell the landlord. I've had pets for over 5 years in my privately rented home.
The second point is more beneficial than you think, I used to negotiate rent with a landlord and they would say the rent increase is due to mortgage rates going up. If the tenant knows that the landlord owns the home outright they can claim bull on this.
Can we just appreciate how refreshing it is to listen to some news which is unbiased, free of rhetoric, free of dogma and free of edgy takes. (atleast as far as I can tell)
this title made me laugh out loud. thanks for that :')
Selling a property appears to be a fair reason for the Landlord to end a tenancy, but as highlighted in the video it can be used as a loop hole. Perhaps instead of 3 months before the property is listed (if it's not sold) it should be increased to 6~8 months.
It would discourage the Landlord to use the loophole he's going to lose more than half a years rent.
It will cost the landlord thousands paying a mortgage (typically interest only) and insurance for 3 months on an empty property. Now that the mortgage rates have gone up many landlords are already making a loss every month. Hence why 30% of landlords have already sold up and a large amount of the houses currently for sale were previously rental properties
Your Landlord parasite apparently can also give you 2 weeks notice if they decide to sell apparently....so it is now worst than under section 21 where you had 2 months notice...and as was pointed out, the parasite does not have to follow through with an actual sale. Additionally they can give you 2 weeks notice if they want to rent to a close relative! Not worth the paper its printed on and unsurprisingly makes things a lot worst for tenants!!!