@@delta8868 idk, it's pretty true to reality that tory policy (especially austerity) prefers to plaster over problems rather than address them directly
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...
People used to commute, buy instant coffee and drive and save up. Now, people want to live in central London, spend £10 per day on coffee, renew their car every 3 years for a new one, have 2-3 holidays and spend around 10% of their income on impulse buys. Yep, sure is tougher than grandad's day.
@@A190xx No, we've created an unsustainable and unfair system that intentionally keeps people poor and desperate so that the government and corporations can extract the maximum amount of value from them in exchange for a modicum of peace, security or comfort. Take your outdated 'pull yerself up by the bootstraps' BS and shove it, grandpa.
@A190xx bullshit, but its good to see your opinion of people though. Funny thing oldheads always say this and its rarely true. Some of us are literally being squeezed and live like shit workin hard jobs biking home only to eat crap out of a can because you cant afford it.
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.
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).
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.
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. "
"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.
@@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??
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.
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...
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!
I think the main issue is the rental property management companies, who are greedy, do nothing, middle men. They're the ones demanding in depth background checks/references, 4 months+ rent upfront, no maintenance, no responsibility, driving rental prices higher and higher (they're real estate agents after all) Rents also go up because everything is being price gouged and it gets passed on to the end consumer
Most people I know had been in the same property between 2013--2021. They hadn't had a rent increase in that time or it was miniscule. Why? because interest rates were low, govt wasn't taxing heavily and these helped landlords offer lower rents and keep them low. But the govt needs money, the only way is push up costs of property so they can cream off the rent, the sale, inheritance, and everything inbetween. Land is the only thing the govt can realistically tax.
Vacancy tax, vacancy tax, vacancy tax. Bring supply to market. Subsidize construction of affordable housing units too, obviously, but that takes a lot of time.
@@SigFigNewton Okay, but making renting less attractive to landlords also helps, does it not? 1. There are more houses available to buy, which is what most renters want to do (62% according to Aviva study) and these are cheaper because of increased supply from landlords selling up. 2. Transitioning to owning is easier because you're not locked into a fixed term contract 3. Housing is cheaper overall as a result of the reduced rental sector because landlords make 5-8% profit on average after costs (including mortgage) 4. Former tenants are now building their own equity instead of their landlord's = a reduction in inequality I don't buy that increasing supply is the only way to improve the housing situation. Increasing the percentage of people who own their homes means more money in the pockets of low and middle earners, more wealth for them in assets and more housing security. All of these things have benefits for productivity, economic activity and birth rates. Vacancy tax could help a little if done well (difficult), but I think the changes labour are proposing are very positive and much more impactful than what you're suggesting, which would result in a maximum 1% increase in supply in the absolute best scenario where we get every long term vacant property back on the market.
@@SigFigNewton Nobody wants to build them. The govt (I know they would never do it) should pause all private developments that haven't started even if their application has been approved. The focus should be on council housing which is where the biggest demand is. People do not want to be mortgaged up to their eye balls in this job market.
@@nauxsiCouncils are going Bankrupt. They won’t be building or buying housing. Have people not learned the government and councils only make the problems worse so why expect them to do the right thing. Watch this spiral into more homelessness and even higher rents as properties for rent leave the market. Also another problem will be rentals from the banks who will hike the rents to their highest point within the market value AND increase year on year.
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.
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?
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
Housing shouldn't be viewed as an investment and it clearly hasn't helped having billionaire property investors in the country over the past few decades because look at the state we're in. Housing is a social need and people who look on it as a financial opportunity are simply parasites
Thank you Brian. You would think someone with Oxbridge degree would understand this?? The govt want private individuals to spends 10-15k on improvements with 0 way to recoup it. No one will do that.
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
Vacancy tax is the single best measure, not even close. All of a landlords power over tenants vanishes when tenants have tons of options. It’s all bs except for supply.
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.
Tax the hell out of vacant properties. They’ll be sold. If they are in bad shape they will sell for a low amount, good. That lets the renovator make profit while BRINGING SUPPLY TO MARKET.
There should be a time period after which the tax should be very high, so it is painful for landlords to keep the property vacant unnecessarily. (With some exemptions made for doing building or improvement works)
@@SigFigNewton I think this ignores the reason that most of the properties are empty. Around 1% of housing is long term empty, of these only about 10% (0.1% of total) are empty as second homes or investments. The rest are empty because they are uninhabitable or needing renovation (25 - 30%), under legal / ownership disputes (20 - 25%), delayed because of planning issues (5 - 10%) or in an area where demand is very low (10 - 15%). You say houses in bad shape can be sold for a low price and then a renovator can make profit on them, but presumably your hope is to get more houses on the market and reduce house prices - so where is the profit for the renovator? It will take years and a lot of money to renovate the property, by which point prices might fall enough that they end up losing money!
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.
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.
The issue with the market rate is that rents are going up really fast. That does not stop my landlord from asking me a shit ton of more money every year
@@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.
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
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 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?
Regulations created the problem in the first place. The planning system artificially restricts supply. This is the main reason why prices are unaffordable .
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.
i sold mine this year as has my dad and sister zero reason to be landlord and i know lots and lots of others all doing and done the same as costs too high and it hasn't helped to reduce house prices either all theses ten of thousands of ex rented homes going on the market
Its funny aint it a lot of seaside towns have unemployment issues as the towns have a long period of non seasonal shutdown. All those out of work workers could literally be put on patrolling those very shore lines for illegal boats 24 7 and watch for them call the authorities have them carried away. You have a huge workforce in the best spot to catch people coming in on small boats but nah we just pay everyone not working a bunch of money and watch them smoke shit and bum around til it's peak time again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
False. The correct solutions are ANY policies that increase supply. A large vacancy tax would obviously help a lot. As would subsidizing the construction of affordable housing units.
I don't agree - when a landlord sells a house, it doesn't disappear from the market. Its owned by someone who used to rent. The number of rental properties has decreased by 1 and the number of people looking to rent has decreased by 1 - prices have not increased because the supply and demand is still balanced.
@@SigFigNewton Developers want nothing to do with affordable homes as it hurts the prices of their luxury units. It's clear that the demand for council homes is enormous and the govt should until the end of the decade only build council homes and get people into them. But ring-fence them by law that they can never be sold to the public.
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.
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 🙄
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
The Conservatives moved the goalposts on the definition of what it means to affordable to keep developers happy. Problem is most people on average salary cannot get a mortgage that big. Why would you?
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.
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 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?
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.
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 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
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.
THe govt is hungry for money and land is only thing they can realistically tax. It wouldn't surprise me if everyone had their steps measure and if you did more than 10000 you get taxed at this rate.
Because without the theory of some _other place_ educating people for the specific jobs available here and sending as many of them as we need to maintain perpetual economic growth they'd have to acknowledge and address a fundamental flaw in capitalism
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)
Rising intrest rates aren't supposed to take money out of the economy directly, they're supposed to reduce the velocity of money. High intrest rates increase the marginal value of saving vs investing, and thus are intended to reduce investments. This is directly related to why high intrest rates are less helpful for those who cannot afford to save.
Yeah but morgage rate repayment are based on the intrest rate, so landlords needed to rise rent to be able to repay the loan or not to contribute from other income sources.
I am all for the Long-term vision. If a country is in bad state, you don't fix it in a couple of months with empty promises. So if these are sensible measures that look to fix things in the long run, they're more than welcome to me. Inequality is what's breaking the country, so solving the issue is the right path. Also, while some of these measures might cause rents to increase temporarily, it must be remembered that the governments has also measures in place to increase housing offer by building more.
A promise they won't be able to keep. land has to be found, planning permission sorted, material bought(if you can), manpower to build them, working days off, weather and the list goes on. They would need to build 820 houses a day all year round. It won't happen. With any luck they might start building these in a year so the day target has just increased.
Imagine you are a landlord of a property in a protected area and can’t fit double glazing nor solar panels etc. And the tenants keep the windows closed causing condensation and mould? What is the solution?
Use a positive input ventilation system, and permanent supply to extract fans with PIR sensors and humidity sensors. Places can still go mouldy though if heating if off, or radiators are switched off.
@@notDelere They're literally a net negative in terms of how much the government spends on them, and that's the case in literally every europen country that has data on it, including my own country
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
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?
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
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...
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...
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.
A vacancy tax has been suggested often. Although that would be a likely improvement, the capabilities of that are limited when it comes to boosting the existing housing supply. (But yes, “don’t let ‘perfect’ be the enemy of good” and all that.) What is more effective is a tax on _all_ properties scaling with value. More than vacancies, this strongly counters undersupply by underdensity as well. Scaling with value has the additional benefit of encouraging more central development, thus counteracting sprawl (though I am not aware of the extent of this in the U.K compared to the U.S).
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 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
It's not only about building more but the quality of such places. New builds are too small currently that people who live in them are having to rent self-storage units. Because insulation takes 5" minimum homes should be wider, but instead they're building them like in old days, adding insulation on inside to have even smaller rooms.
The root cause and the reason rents have shot up in the last 5 years is because the country is adding 700k new people every year while supply is largely static. All of these problems are downstream of the overpopulation problem.
The government is squeezing landlords and increasing their costs in ridiculous ways and then scratching their head when the landlords have to increase the rent to pay for all the expenses
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.
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.
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.
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
As a landlord who give property in rent, what will happen now we only give rent to people who earn good, stable job, and suspect won’t cheat. Which means people who is doing basic job they will be rejected straight in most properties, also we have lots of bias that these people might cheat, so we won’t give them, basically judging them by their looks and background.
This happens, also if all landlords refused most tenants, those left would have more supply than demand, so landlords would either sell or give tenancy on more favourable terms, if you all sold up, the housing crisis would end and with it the renting crisis too.
I don't think it would end, there would need to be a casecade of multiple sells with downward price trend. It would just futher consolidate market. Land tax woild be a ideal solution.
So 1,600 landlords left the industry which increased prices, so the solution is to remove the rights from landlords, give them more regulation, limit how much they can charge and they expect more people to become landlords with this? Or are people going to be homeless for the next 10-15 years while they save up to buy?
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.
A good reform suggestion to toss in there would be to make it illegal to ask for more than 1 months worth of deposit from British citizens but legal to ask for 2-3 months for asylum seekers/refugees and 3-6 months for settled dual nationals. We used to charge more for deposits where a customer was deemed a flight risk. British citizens with nowhere else to go aren't really going to run off anywhere, they will have to pay so it shouldn't be a concern.
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.
When interest rates were lower, I didn't see people complaining too much. Then they went up 1000% right at the same time Russian gas got sanctioned and we all feel the price rises from all sides.
@@nauxsi when interest rates were low they stored up the problems to bail out the banks and mortgage holders in 2008. If they didn't get involved we asset prices would have come down and the country would have been in a much better shape now.
From $37K to $65K that's the minimum range of profit return every month I think it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family.
YES!!! That's exactly her name (Lucille Friedman) so many people have recommended highly about her and am just starting with her 😊from Brisbane Australia 🇦🇺
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.
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
There should also be a clause that commits tenants to heat and ventilate houses adequately over the colder months and if condensation damp is found not related to a building fault, the tenant should be liable for the costs of the damage. The problem is that as the cost of living goes up. Adequately heating a house is low priority. Cooking , breathing drying clothes inside generates water that just settles in a cold house. I have got around this by having bills included rent only.
So you blame mould on tennants? Most places I lived in had mold. I have no idea how to prevent it. If it was that easy why Landlords just tell temants how to prevent mould, the way you said(
It is interesting that you show this from a renters side, but you should see it from a landlords side. There are more than ever landlords getting out of the market and that can only be a bad thing for renters. My understanding also is that as a landlord just because someone hasn’t paid their rent isn’t a reason to evict. So now as a landlord the tenants can leave at anytime and there is quite a cost to landlords when they do leave. On the converse side landlords can’t get bad tenants out regardless of what they even not pay rent for 6+ months. So is the bill good for landlords no, is it good for tenants no, it will only make the market tighter and more expensive
There are many unscrupulous Landlords who prey on good tenants. Even if the tenants are paying the rent and keeping the property in good order they will tell the tenants their rent is going up by 20%, if they don’t agree the landlord serves a no fault eviction to vacate even though there was a contract in place. The entire system is loaded in the landlords favour. Tories did this as loads of their MPs and members are Landlords. They basically want the right to hike the rent whenever they like regardless of contracts but also don’t let tenants leave easily so the property isn’t empty. Its scandalous. Everything in this country is stacked against young people and in favour of the elderly.
@@TW19567 that would be good if the biggest landlord in parliament wasn’t a Labour MP, who had ants and rot all through his houses. As for many unscrupulous landlords, yes and there are many more who are good landlords. These changes affect the good landlords and I suspect won’t impact on bad ones as there are plenty of laws they could be caught on now, it is just that local authorities are either corrupt or incompetent
@@TW19567 not sure i follow... it's their properties, why can't they rise the rent? and if they go against the contract, the renters should go the the court. Is there a case that wasn't the case? if yes please provide link, i'll look into it. to your point "Everything in this country is stacked against young people and in favour of the elderly." Everything? that's a bold statement.
That is very true, which is worsened further by the down sizing of older generations so the renter's don't even get the benefit of reduced purchase prices for homes via local supply increase. The bill is mainly intended to sound to renters like labour is taking a stand against "evil" landlords. When in reality it hurts the renter's just as much and means the private rental sector gets more consolidated into larger companies (who are more difficult for individual tenants to hold to account).
And I think this narrative that property is a safe investment has damaged both landlords and tenants. It would be safer if mortgages for investment property had low leverage and prospective landlords didn’t expect that rent would cover the majority of repayments. We all know that buying assets on borrowed money is a very risky thing to do, yet we forget about that in the context of housing or real estate.
Can we all imagine what water would cost if that were left to the market. No, if a market isn't functioning properly, then government needs to step in. This initial turmoil is only to be expected, but the long-term prospect is a more healthy housing economy.
Something I never understood in the UK is why am I the renter the one that needs to pay Council Tax and not the owner of the property? This is only seen in the UK as most other European countries the landlords pay it themselves. I get that making this a thing would increase rents probably but it just should be something me as a renter would need to be worried about.
@@trevorb5978 Thanks for not reading everything I just said. Yeah rent would increase and we would end up paying it but its not on me to deal with all the bureaucracy around that. It should be included in the "renting service", when you rent a car you don't pay road tax on it, you pay the car renting company that then, deals with all of that.
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.
Small landlords are the ones selling up. They were also the ones who as you pointed out kept rents below estate agent prices which the govt didn't like because it's trying to persuade big boys to get into property.
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.
@@jacobbarclay-evans8639 yes I watched. This is a left leaning channel and the rent control systems always end up having the same result, no surprises.
Build more homes. Until there are more, ban owning single homes for rentals or investment. There's no political will to go after the people causing the problem.
It's at the point where the Government should just ban people from owning more than one residential building. Councils should have greater control over CPO to bring back unused properties. Additionally, in the short term "holiday" homes in the shires and costal areas should be hit with at least a 100% increase in council tax as a minimum (as in some parts of Wales) and all property income should be subject to Capital Gains Tax or Corporation tax in the event of more than one property being owned by a holding company or family.
My parents had to give a bribe to the bank manager to take out thier mortgage, despite them both working and being middle class because they were brown, so didn't want to lend them any money. Why should they continue to get punished for working hard?
Housing is a right and the commodification of it is what’s got us in this mess. It’s also why productivity in this country is so shit because people with money park their money in property. I need you guys to discuss LVT. It addresses speculation and puts unused land to good use.
@@peterfireflylund Housing is expensive everywhere where it's safe. I could probably live in Siberia for cheap or in South Sudan. I would be happy to live in a small place that has one all-purpose room and a bathroom, provided it was safe in terms of my health and cost less than 25% of my income
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.
It seems silly to say you're paying 300 a month to let people live in your rental. You're paying 300 a month towards your mortgage, which is heavily subsidised by your tenant. I understand that you're not getting any cash income from it, but you are investing into an appreciating asset. Let's take the average house price growth over the past 10 years of around 5% on an average property worth £300k. Over a year, you've paid out 300 x 12 = 3600 towards your mortgage, but the value of your property has increased by 300k x 0.05 = 12,000. Even subtracting other costs like agents fees and repairs, it's hard to imagine you're not profiting significantly.
@@Atral557 This is also another hoax played by economists. Nominal values MIGHT increase, but they just about keep up with inflation. So not a real rise.
The selling pressure will lower prices, first time buyers locked out the market will move in, less people will need to rent. What you do has no value, and the buying pressure from buy to let + airbnb is what is ruining the housing market.
Unless I misunderstood the bit about the rental price cap, that sounds like it would do absolutely nothing to bring rental prices down. Renting is already far too expensive.
@@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.
@@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.
"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...
Your grandparents probably had an average job these days an average job will get you a shoddy 1 room flat
People used to commute, buy instant coffee and drive and save up. Now, people want to live in central London, spend £10 per day on coffee, renew their car every 3 years for a new one, have 2-3 holidays and spend around 10% of their income on impulse buys. Yep, sure is tougher than grandad's day.
@@A190xx No, we've created an unsustainable and unfair system that intentionally keeps people poor and desperate so that the government and corporations can extract the maximum amount of value from them in exchange for a modicum of peace, security or comfort. Take your outdated 'pull yerself up by the bootstraps' BS and shove it, grandpa.
@@zakiahmedi7083*shoddy one room
@A190xx bullshit, but its good to see your opinion of people though. Funny thing oldheads always say this and its rarely true. Some of us are literally being squeezed and live like shit workin hard jobs biking home only to eat crap out of a can because you cant afford it.
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.
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.
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??
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.
Buying property as an investment is fine so long as someone is living in that property.
If not, given the state of things, it’s despicable.
@@jgomo3877 They're managing council stock.
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 😳😳
I kicked out tenants just because this bill was coming. There are no protections for landlords if tenants are trashing your place.
I think the main issue is the rental property management companies, who are greedy, do nothing, middle men. They're the ones demanding in depth background checks/references, 4 months+ rent upfront, no maintenance, no responsibility, driving rental prices higher and higher (they're real estate agents after all)
Rents also go up because everything is being price gouged and it gets passed on to the end consumer
Most people I know had been in the same property between 2013--2021. They hadn't had a rent increase in that time or it was miniscule. Why? because interest rates were low, govt wasn't taxing heavily and these helped landlords offer lower rents and keep them low. But the govt needs money, the only way is push up costs of property so they can cream off the rent, the sale, inheritance, and everything inbetween. Land is the only thing the govt can realistically tax.
The problem is simple, even though the solution is difficult. The problem is entirely an issue of supply: There aren't enough rental units.
Vacancy tax, vacancy tax, vacancy tax. Bring supply to market.
Subsidize construction of affordable housing units too, obviously, but that takes a lot of time.
@@SigFigNewton Okay, but making renting less attractive to landlords also helps, does it not?
1. There are more houses available to buy, which is what most renters want to do (62% according to Aviva study) and these are cheaper because of increased supply from landlords selling up.
2. Transitioning to owning is easier because you're not locked into a fixed term contract
3. Housing is cheaper overall as a result of the reduced rental sector because landlords make 5-8% profit on average after costs (including mortgage)
4. Former tenants are now building their own equity instead of their landlord's = a reduction in inequality
I don't buy that increasing supply is the only way to improve the housing situation. Increasing the percentage of people who own their homes means more money in the pockets of low and middle earners, more wealth for them in assets and more housing security. All of these things have benefits for productivity, economic activity and birth rates. Vacancy tax could help a little if done well (difficult), but I think the changes labour are proposing are very positive and much more impactful than what you're suggesting, which would result in a maximum 1% increase in supply in the absolute best scenario where we get every long term vacant property back on the market.
@@SigFigNewton Nobody wants to build them.
The govt (I know they would never do it) should pause all private developments that haven't started even if their application has been approved. The focus should be on council housing which is where the biggest demand is. People do not want to be mortgaged up to their eye balls in this job market.
@@nauxsi they’re already built. Vacancy tax.
@@nauxsiCouncils are going Bankrupt. They won’t be building or buying housing. Have people not learned the government and councils only make the problems worse so why expect them to do the right thing. Watch this spiral into more homelessness and even higher rents as properties for rent leave the market. Also another problem will be rentals from the banks who will hike the rents to their highest point within the market value AND increase year on year.
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
Rents started to go up the more government involvement Costs will always be passed on to the tenant .
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
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.
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.
Ideally it means landlords will sell up and increase supply and maybe bring house prices down somewhat
And make new investment in building houses or renovations unatractive.
Housing shouldn't be viewed as an investment and it clearly hasn't helped having billionaire property investors in the country over the past few decades because look at the state we're in. Housing is a social need and people who look on it as a financial opportunity are simply parasites
Thank you Brian. You would think someone with Oxbridge degree would understand this??
The govt want private individuals to spends 10-15k on improvements with 0 way to recoup it. No one will do that.
>The Crown Estate is one of the largest property managers in the United Kingdom, administering property worth £15.6 billion.
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
The only good solutions are those that increase supply, pretty much all of which should be implemented ñ
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
Vacancy tax is the single best measure, not even close. All of a landlords power over tenants vanishes when tenants have tons of options. It’s all bs except for supply.
With high interest rates that will be really difficult.
1. Fix the immigration crisis
2. Build more housing
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.
Tax the hell out of vacant properties. They’ll be sold. If they are in bad shape they will sell for a low amount, good. That lets the renovator make profit while BRINGING SUPPLY TO MARKET.
Hoarding a resource that is a basic human need and is in short supply is cruel and should be publicly shamed.
There should be a time period after which the tax should be very high, so it is painful for landlords to keep the property vacant unnecessarily. (With some exemptions made for doing building or improvement works)
@@SigFigNewton I think this ignores the reason that most of the properties are empty. Around 1% of housing is long term empty, of these only about 10% (0.1% of total) are empty as second homes or investments. The rest are empty because they are uninhabitable or needing renovation (25 - 30%), under legal / ownership disputes (20 - 25%), delayed because of planning issues (5 - 10%) or in an area where demand is very low (10 - 15%).
You say houses in bad shape can be sold for a low price and then a renovator can make profit on them, but presumably your hope is to get more houses on the market and reduce house prices - so where is the profit for the renovator? It will take years and a lot of money to renovate the property, by which point prices might fall enough that they end up losing money!
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.
The issue with the market rate is that rents are going up really fast. That does not stop my landlord from asking me a shit ton of more money every year
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.
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
Students are struggling to find places to rent now because of this.
"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.
James Cleverly entered the chat.
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
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?
Please re-record the intro where your voice cracks on “bell” it’s driving me crazy (no offense meant, you do a great job)
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 .
loads of caps loads of regs u know nothing
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.
i sold mine this year as has my dad and sister zero reason to be landlord and i know lots and lots of others all doing and done the same as costs too high and it hasn't helped to reduce house prices either all theses ten of thousands of ex rented homes going on the market
The number one thing the UK could do would be to deal with unchecked immigration; shut the border, mass deportations.
Its funny aint it a lot of seaside towns have unemployment issues as the towns have a long period of non seasonal shutdown. All those out of work workers could literally be put on patrolling those very shore lines for illegal boats 24 7 and watch for them call the authorities have them carried away.
You have a huge workforce in the best spot to catch people coming in on small boats but nah we just pay everyone not working a bunch of money and watch them smoke shit and bum around til it's peak time again.
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.
Apparently England wants higher rents
If they don’t implement a huge vacancy tax and subsidize construction, yes, apparently.
Whenever you remove a rental property from the market, you also remove a renter by turning one into a buyer
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.
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.
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.
False. The correct solutions are ANY policies that increase supply.
A large vacancy tax would obviously help a lot.
As would subsidizing the construction of affordable housing units.
I don't agree - when a landlord sells a house, it doesn't disappear from the market. Its owned by someone who used to rent. The number of rental properties has decreased by 1 and the number of people looking to rent has decreased by 1 - prices have not increased because the supply and demand is still balanced.
@@SigFigNewton Developers want nothing to do with affordable homes as it hurts the prices of their luxury units. It's clear that the demand for council homes is enormous and the govt should until the end of the decade only build council homes and get people into them. But ring-fence them by law that they can never be sold to the public.
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)
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.
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
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.
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
It’s not a supply issue but lack of affordability. Less people can afford property and this prevents investors building new homes
The Conservatives moved the goalposts on the definition of what it means to affordable to keep developers happy. Problem is most people on average salary cannot get a mortgage that big. Why would you?
Mr. Ditkovich would be proud.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Moving back in or selling are two specific exemptions. Or they were in the Tories' bill.
The CGT thing depends how long you loved there first.
THe govt is hungry for money and land is only thing they can realistically tax. It wouldn't surprise me if everyone had their steps measure and if you did more than 10000 you get taxed at this rate.
Wide dont you reduce migration too reduce demand. Something no politician ever seems to want to address
100%
Because without the theory of some _other place_ educating people for the specific jobs available here and sending as many of them as we need to maintain perpetual economic growth they'd have to acknowledge and address a fundamental flaw in capitalism
Migration has been coming down and will continue to do so because the income threshold is too high.
No. The only way is to stop people buying multiple houses.
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)
From my understanding, the contract is still fixed, but you can leave at any time during based on a two month notice period? Maybe I’ve misunderstood
Rising intrest rates aren't supposed to take money out of the economy directly, they're supposed to reduce the velocity of money. High intrest rates increase the marginal value of saving vs investing, and thus are intended to reduce investments.
This is directly related to why high intrest rates are less helpful for those who cannot afford to save.
Yeah but morgage rate repayment are based on the intrest rate, so landlords needed to rise rent to be able to repay the loan or not to contribute from other income sources.
I am all for the Long-term vision. If a country is in bad state, you don't fix it in a couple of months with empty promises. So if these are sensible measures that look to fix things in the long run, they're more than welcome to me. Inequality is what's breaking the country, so solving the issue is the right path. Also, while some of these measures might cause rents to increase temporarily, it must be remembered that the governments has also measures in place to increase housing offer by building more.
A promise they won't be able to keep. land has to be found, planning permission sorted, material bought(if you can), manpower to build them, working days off, weather and the list goes on. They would need to build 820 houses a day all year round. It won't happen. With any luck they might start building these in a year so the day target has just increased.
Imagine you are a landlord of a property in a protected area and can’t fit double glazing nor solar panels etc. And the tenants keep the windows closed causing condensation and mould? What is the solution?
Use a positive input ventilation system, and permanent supply to extract fans with PIR sensors and humidity sensors. Places can still go mouldy though if heating if off, or radiators are switched off.
Why not bring another million immigrants this year, that will increase wages and ease up the pressure on lack or residences...
Immigration increases productivity. Don't fall for the conservative bogeyman. Housing is the issue here.
@@notDelere "Importing millions of people who have no houses surely won't affect the demand for housing" .....lol
@@jonasastrom7422 Those imported people are more productive than your average Brit. That productivity can go to building houses.
@@notDelere They're literally a net negative in terms of how much the government spends on them, and that's the case in literally every europen country that has data on it, including my own country
Lovely to see progress being made in this developing nation!
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
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: "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.
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...
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
A vacancy tax has been suggested often. Although that would be a likely improvement, the capabilities of that are limited when it comes to boosting the existing housing supply. (But yes, “don’t let ‘perfect’ be the enemy of good” and all that.)
What is more effective is a tax on _all_ properties scaling with value. More than vacancies, this strongly counters undersupply by underdensity as well. Scaling with value has the additional benefit of encouraging more central development, thus counteracting sprawl (though I am not aware of the extent of this in the U.K compared to the U.S).
They don't want to spook foreign investment.
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 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
It's not only about building more but the quality of such places. New builds are too small currently that people who live in them are having to rent self-storage units. Because insulation takes 5" minimum homes should be wider, but instead they're building them like in old days, adding insulation on inside to have even smaller rooms.
The root cause and the reason rents have shot up in the last 5 years is because the country is adding 700k new people every year while supply is largely static. All of these problems are downstream of the overpopulation problem.
Only sensible comment I read…
Cool it racist.
Jk of course. Labour won't address this problem either, hence why I'll keep investing in property
I'm in a bad place right now. im ok physically and mentally, im just in the UK
Landlords are squeezing blood from tenants 😢
Umm, as a landlord I've never ever even been tipped.
The government is squeezing landlords and increasing their costs in ridiculous ways and then scratching their head when the landlords have to increase the rent to pay for all the expenses
I think the bill is an excellent first step. We need far more houses built too, as Labour have promised to do
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
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.
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.
I think part of the issue is there are houses and places to live, it's too expensive to be a viable option. So many places are empty.
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
As a landlord who give property in rent, what will happen now we only give rent to people who earn good, stable job, and suspect won’t cheat. Which means people who is doing basic job they will be rejected straight in most properties, also we have lots of bias that these people might cheat, so we won’t give them, basically judging them by their looks and background.
what do you mean by "cheat"?
Landlords already do that anyway.
Cool story.
Sell your properties then.
This happens, also if all landlords refused most tenants, those left would have more supply than demand, so landlords would either sell or give tenancy on more favourable terms, if you all sold up, the housing crisis would end and with it the renting crisis too.
I don't think it would end, there would need to be a casecade of multiple sells with downward price trend. It would just futher consolidate market. Land tax woild be a ideal solution.
So 1,600 landlords left the industry which increased prices, so the solution is to remove the rights from landlords, give them more regulation, limit how much they can charge and they expect more people to become landlords with this?
Or are people going to be homeless for the next 10-15 years while they save up to buy?
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.
A good reform suggestion to toss in there would be to make it illegal to ask for more than 1 months worth of deposit from British citizens but legal to ask for 2-3 months for asylum seekers/refugees and 3-6 months for settled dual nationals.
We used to charge more for deposits where a customer was deemed a flight risk. British citizens with nowhere else to go aren't really going to run off anywhere, they will have to pay so it shouldn't be a concern.
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.
When interest rates were lower, I didn't see people complaining too much. Then they went up 1000% right at the same time Russian gas got sanctioned and we all feel the price rises from all sides.
@@nauxsi when interest rates were low they stored up the problems to bail out the banks and mortgage holders in 2008. If they didn't get involved we asset prices would have come down and the country would have been in a much better shape now.
@@m0o0n0i0r We would have had a chance to reset but the thought spooked the Labour Party out.
How about adding a clause that prevents corporations from owning houses??
So who will own rental housing?
From $37K to $65K that's the minimum range of profit return every month I think it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family.
Wow that's huge, how do you make that much monthly?
I'm 37 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. I'm guided by a widely known crypto consultant
She is Expert Lucille Friedman
YES!!! That's exactly her name (Lucille Friedman) so many people have recommended highly about her and am just starting with her 😊from Brisbane Australia 🇦🇺
Spot-on, I would always rate her signals as one of the best ever used 100% accurate.
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.
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
There should also be a clause that commits tenants to heat and ventilate houses adequately over the colder months and if condensation damp is found not related to a building fault, the tenant should be liable for the costs of the damage. The problem is that as the cost of living goes up. Adequately heating a house is low priority. Cooking , breathing drying clothes inside generates water that just settles in a cold house. I have got around this by having bills included rent only.
So you blame mould on tennants? Most places I lived in had mold. I have no idea how to prevent it. If it was that easy why Landlords just tell temants how to prevent mould, the way you said(
What do you by breathing? You mean drying cloths inside Yes?
It is interesting that you show this from a renters side, but you should see it from a landlords side. There are more than ever landlords getting out of the market and that can only be a bad thing for renters. My understanding also is that as a landlord just because someone hasn’t paid their rent isn’t a reason to evict.
So now as a landlord the tenants can leave at anytime and there is quite a cost to landlords when they do leave. On the converse side landlords can’t get bad tenants out regardless of what they even not pay rent for 6+ months.
So is the bill good for landlords no, is it good for tenants no, it will only make the market tighter and more expensive
There are many unscrupulous Landlords who prey on good tenants. Even if the tenants are paying the rent and keeping the property in good order they will tell the tenants their rent is going up by 20%, if they don’t agree the landlord serves a no fault eviction to vacate even though there was a contract in place. The entire system is loaded in the landlords favour. Tories did this as loads of their MPs and members are Landlords. They basically want the right to hike the rent whenever they like regardless of contracts but also don’t let tenants leave easily so the property isn’t empty. Its scandalous. Everything in this country is stacked against young people and in favour of the elderly.
@@TW19567 that would be good if the biggest landlord in parliament wasn’t a Labour MP, who had ants and rot all through his houses.
As for many unscrupulous landlords, yes and there are many more who are good landlords. These changes affect the good landlords and I suspect won’t impact on bad ones as there are plenty of laws they could be caught on now, it is just that local authorities are either corrupt or incompetent
@@TW19567 not sure i follow... it's their properties, why can't they rise the rent? and if they go against the contract, the renters should go the the court. Is there a case that wasn't the case? if yes please provide link, i'll look into it.
to your point "Everything in this country is stacked against young people and in favour of the elderly." Everything? that's a bold statement.
That is very true, which is worsened further by the down sizing of older generations so the renter's don't even get the benefit of reduced purchase prices for homes via local supply increase.
The bill is mainly intended to sound to renters like labour is taking a stand against "evil" landlords. When in reality it hurts the renter's just as much and means the private rental sector gets more consolidated into larger companies (who are more difficult for individual tenants to hold to account).
And I think this narrative that property is a safe investment has damaged both landlords and tenants. It would be safer if mortgages for investment property had low leverage and prospective landlords didn’t expect that rent would cover the majority of repayments.
We all know that buying assets on borrowed money is a very risky thing to do, yet we forget about that in the context of housing or real estate.
Can we all imagine what water would cost if that were left to the market.
No, if a market isn't functioning properly, then government needs to step in. This initial turmoil is only to be expected, but the long-term prospect is a more healthy housing economy.
Something I never understood in the UK is why am I the renter the one that needs to pay Council Tax and not the owner of the property? This is only seen in the UK as most other European countries the landlords pay it themselves. I get that making this a thing would increase rents probably but it just should be something me as a renter would need to be worried about.
Agree. The owner should pay based on value of land of property.
So the landlord would put up your rent to cover the cost. So you would still be paying it. Where do you think landlords get money from?
Every cost will be paid by final customer. It is always a tax from government to the poorest shit rolls down the hill.
@@trevorb5978 If you weren't renting out houses you didn't own then you'd get paid from renting houses you actually own...
@@trevorb5978 Thanks for not reading everything I just said. Yeah rent would increase and we would end up paying it but its not on me to deal with all the bureaucracy around that. It should be included in the "renting service", when you rent a car you don't pay road tax on it, you pay the car renting company that then, deals with all of that.
They forgot to deal the short renting for tourists. If 20% of renting go to holiday rent, the long term rental prices increase.
So boring that every single issue has to be described as a 'crisis' to maximise social media engagement.
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.
Small landlords are the ones selling up. They were also the ones who as you pointed out kept rents below estate agent prices which the govt didn't like because it's trying to persuade big boys to get into property.
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.
That’s false, the government are planning on building 1.5m council houses which will evoke less incentive in the private sector
Bingo. And they will make the problem much worse.
@@goyakat2211 did you not see the video?
@@jacobbarclay-evans8639 yes I watched. This is a left leaning channel and the rent control systems always end up having the same result, no surprises.
@@goyakat2211 how is it left leaning?
The problem is speculation, limit specipation in family households and you fix the problem
Build more homes. Until there are more, ban owning single homes for rentals or investment. There's no political will to go after the people causing the problem.
It's at the point where the Government should just ban people from owning more than one residential building. Councils should have greater control over CPO to bring back unused properties. Additionally, in the short term "holiday" homes in the shires and costal areas should be hit with at least a 100% increase in council tax as a minimum (as in some parts of Wales) and all property income should be subject to Capital Gains Tax or Corporation tax in the event of more than one property being owned by a holding company or family.
Right to decorate next I hope
My parents had to give a bribe to the bank manager to take out thier mortgage, despite them both working and being middle class because they were brown, so didn't want to lend them any money. Why should they continue to get punished for working hard?
Housing is a right and the commodification of it is what’s got us in this mess. It’s also why productivity in this country is so shit because people with money park their money in property. I need you guys to discuss LVT. It addresses speculation and puts unused land to good use.
LVT is Land Value Tax.
Nice housing in a nice part of a nice big city is not a right. Particularly not at a low cost.
@@peterfireflylund No such thing as a "nice" big city, big cities are undesirable throughout the western world
@@THEBEEEANSS does that invalidate my point?
@@peterfireflylund Housing is expensive everywhere where it's safe. I could probably live in Siberia for cheap or in South Sudan. I would be happy to live in a small place that has one all-purpose room and a bathroom, provided it was safe in terms of my health and cost less than 25% of my income
If your not happy with landlords buy yourself and let the bank be your owner. The bank doesnt ask what when they increase your bill.
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.
It seems silly to say you're paying 300 a month to let people live in your rental. You're paying 300 a month towards your mortgage, which is heavily subsidised by your tenant. I understand that you're not getting any cash income from it, but you are investing into an appreciating asset.
Let's take the average house price growth over the past 10 years of around 5% on an average property worth £300k. Over a year, you've paid out 300 x 12 = 3600 towards your mortgage, but the value of your property has increased by 300k x 0.05 = 12,000. Even subtracting other costs like agents fees and repairs, it's hard to imagine you're not profiting significantly.
@@Atral557 I wish. It’s an interest only loan.
They have. They want you out. They want Loyds banks/Black rock etc supplying the property.
@@Atral557 This is also another hoax played by economists. Nominal values MIGHT increase, but they just about keep up with inflation. So not a real rise.
The selling pressure will lower prices, first time buyers locked out the market will move in, less people will need to rent. What you do has no value, and the buying pressure from buy to let + airbnb is what is ruining the housing market.
Unless I misunderstood the bit about the rental price cap, that sounds like it would do absolutely nothing to bring rental prices down. Renting is already far too expensive.
That's because of immigration, you want lower house and rental prices, you need to fix immigration.
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.