@@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...
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.
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
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.
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!
@@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??
@@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.
Gutting social rented housing and buying as an investment (not a home) has wrecked the market. This needs reversing and will be the only effective way of fixing it.
Believe it or not; the social housing market has been expanding as fast as possible, (under the current system) as the behest of government for 15 years now. The issue is, demand is constantly outpacing increase in capacity. If you can speak to people who work in social housing, theyll tell you the size of their patches and the number of homes they are responsible for has doubled just in the last 6-8 years.
@@jgomo3877 But that is only playing catch up. The sale and disposal of stock for decades reduced what was available, with the money going to the exchequer and not councils to replace or expand provision. So it does still need reversing before expanding. The need never went away and current private landlords have pushed more onto those lists. There was a time when renting from councils massively outnumbered renting from private landlords to the point where as home ownership and incomes rose, private renting was close to becoming extinct.
There are many empty properties around the country. Most of these are not exactly in a habitable state with the owners just sitting on the land ownership (many of these being investment firms) while the supply of rental properties continues to decline. As such I think the government should start taxing empty properties to encourage these owners to either sell up or open up their properties to tenants.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
Want to fix it.. Equalise it.. If you miss 2 months rent or damage the property or antisocial behaviour should automatic right to be able to evict. End no fault but when the risk of not being able to remove bad tenants, all tenants will pay higher rent to cover the risk.
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)
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...
Why not have government-built mass housing that can be rented out, like Austria? It would solve the supply problem, push down market prices and can be profitable for the government in the long run. The profits can be invested in repairs and even more housing built. Neoliberalism really did a number on the US and UK.
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.
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.
All I am hearing is, a reduction in the rental supply, and ever higher prices due to that lack of supply and increasing demand. Red-tape is not going to help. It will hurt the renters more than anyone. Short sighted people think all the bureaucracy will help, but only end hurt hurting the people they claim to want to help
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
To people worried about these changes causing problems, a lot of them are already in place in Scotland, and have been for years. For example, in Scotland, evictions need to be justified, there are no minimum tenancies and rates can only be increased once per year and are capped by the market rate. Definitely doesn’t solve the whole problem of cost, but does mean that tennants are better protected from the whims of landlords, which is a major positive.
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
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.
@@JasonAtlas Landlords can lose money for no reason, have you ever considered why they choose not to? Have you ever considered that both parties need an incentive to actually take part in an exchange? Please tell me you don't vote
Regulations created the problem in the first place. The planning system artificially restricts supply. This is the main reason why prices are unaffordable .
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.
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
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.
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.
Remove building limitations and regulation. Stop printing money. Stop eating £20 billion a year in bureaucracy. Stop price fixing and rent freezes. Let the market sort itself. Increasing government intervention will worsen it
Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit follows The Minister's Millions to find out how he built a half a billion dollar real estate empire - on a thirteen thousand dollar salary. Saifuzzaman Chowdhury, a close ally of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, bought hundreds of luxury properties in London, Dubai and New York, but failed to declare any of them to Bangladeshi tax authorities. Former Lands Minister Gives Guided Tour of His $14 Million London Home; he owns 360 in the UK only. Now Bangladeshi authorities have frozen his bank accounts and are investigating the claims😢😢😢
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?
Frankly, the vast majority of good people never have a problem letting or renting. All these new rules do is enable the very worst of the renting pool to take landlords for an absolute ride.
Every time we make it less desireable to be a landlord we push up prices further. This bill, though sounding nice, will just drive up rents. There is only one solution, build more homes so that landlords have to compete for tenants rather than the other way around.
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?
Building additional houses is not as simple as is sounds, unfortunately. Without building the infrastructure around them (upgrading the sewers for example), and ensuring access to services like dentists and doctors, shops, and community spaces, ensuring good public transport links etc., new housing creates more problems than it fixes. While building houses is part of the fix, the better fix is to build homes that people want to live in and will feel safe in.
So the problem is not enough housing supply and Labour's answer is to put into place whole sets of rules that would reduce existing supply while increased interest rates makes it harder to build more housing. That should work out well.
@@raymondjacobs1955 I’m in the USA so haven’t bothered familiarizing myself with Labour’s proposals. Here in the US, I’m constantly exasperated with Democrats proposing stuff that doesn’t increase supply and Republicans exclusively advocating for loosened building regulations rather than embracing these these other measures that would help bring supply to market.
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.
I don't recognise most of this. The government increased tax and legislation in last 8 yrs to save tenants, and the result was forcing rents up by 30% to pay for it... Then we had inflation up 10%, did no one else get a pay rise to pay for inflation? This was due to government overspending and creating inflation too. IF you want to blame anyone blame the Government for all of this. Then mortgages doubled taking away just about any profitability. A house I rent mortgage went up by £309. I raised the rent by £100, that was a year ago, now I'm raising it again another £60, but this is only half of the mortgage costs I've been paying for 2 yrs, on a property that's still £250 a month below Market value.... The Labour reforms will create another rental crisis as 10,000s of properties are sold, if you're complaining now, wait till next year.... And ALL caused by government interference try to help tenants, they've help no one, they've made it alot worse for everyone. That's why you get when you mess about with Tax, legislation and helping people. It always ends up far worse. That's why free markets work better. But you get the seeds you sow, this is what generation rent wanted
I concur. I don't believe that a market will be fully self-regulating, but many of the recent changes leave little choice other than to track the market rent, or go bust. 😣
We need to stop falling for the government’s attempt to vilify all landlords to put the blame on them rather than the government taking responsibility for the way things are with housing. Ultimately, most landlords only do things to look out for themselves, just like everyone else does. No fault evictions are so common because a lot of the time going through with a fault eviction is a very expensive process.
Breaking news, the UK adds rental laws that have been in other European countries (Germany) for decades, while also adding 1984 style checks on landlords (the 3rd point of this Bill). At least this time it's two steps forward & one back and not the other way around. Lovely place! :,)
House prices are high because houses can be rented at the maximum that tenants can tolerate. The housing crisis can only start to be solved by rent controls. Bring rents down, bring down the level of private landlords and expand council housing. Abolish landlords!
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.
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 🇦🇺
Venturing into crypto as a newbie was very difficult due to lack of experience which resulted in loosing funds......... But Lucille Friedman, restored hope shes a good woman😊
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.
The only way to make any real dent in the housing price crisis is for the government to build homes in mass at cost or slightly at a loss, flooding the market. Private developers only care about profits, now that land is so expensive, there is no way for the price to be brought back down when every developer who touches a parcel adds their own 15% cut on top of the acquisition price. Especially for property that keeps changing hands without any significant modifications, it's just profit stacking up without any added real term housing value.
Two months is plenty of time for a good landlord to find a new tenant in this market, and it gives renters the ability to move quickly when they inevitably end up in dodgy accomodation. Letting agents charge landlord to find new tenants, so this could force bad landlords out of the market.
Don't expect any big change. The market will always find its way to increase rents and keep properties below standards. Few years ago I use to rent a 3 bed house for 750pm now I pay 650 for a room landlord keeps heating off and I earn the same salary
So the house I have just bought was £103k in 2017, it's now £190k in 2024 (was £200k but lowered). With no work done to the house (back garden has actually deteriorated badly) Think if it this way, I started working in 2017, back then I would have needed £10k to put a 10% deposit on this house. I have been saving since then and have just over 10k not including the help to buy ISA 25%, I'd now need nearly 20k deposit for 10% on this same house... Had extra savings separately to make up the difference and got the house for a £175k but still, that statistic is crazy.
Many of the changes the Bill is to implement are good. However preventing landlords from selling or even moving back in for a period of 12 months plus 4 konths notice is ridiculous. Additionally, allowing tenants to be up to 3 months late on their rent but not allowing landlords to repossess seems crazy. Landlords are not banks and mortgage providers can force a sale of property quicker if the mortgage isnt paid, so why should landlords foot the bill when a tenant does not pay for 10 weeks rent? There are a number of bad landlords out there, dont get me erong and some of the changes the Bill is going to make will regulate these more. However there are a number of terrible tenants and the Bill does not provide Landlords with additional powers to evict such tenants. I think the government needs to relaose that good landlords are actually preventing a further housing crisis in this country at the moment. Good landlords are selling up because of this Bill, other landlords will hike prices to meet the additional risk they will ne facing. If yhe government isnt careful it will find itself running a country with houses on the market and nobody able to buy them, increasing uncertainty for tenants and landlords alike.
The solution is simple: make it illegal for anyone to live out of the fact that workers need a house to live (aka illegal to be a landlord as a profession) and force landlords to sell homes they do not live in. The market is flooded with new properties, price goes down, and young people can buy instead of renting. Done.
Funny enough you guys don't mention that landlords are being taxed a lot more than they used to be a few years ago. Interest rates are much higher as well
"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
Having a tax on empty flats in high demand area seems necessary.
"For every 100 properties, more than 1.4 sit unoccupied. There has been a rise of 73% over that period in London. It now has more than 34,000 empty properties. "
3.8million houses in London, less than 1% vacant. This won’t solve the housing crisis but it’s a better option than hating on landlords I suppose
that seems like a transitory amount? 1.4 is pretty small
TAX. EMPTY. HOMES.
Empty homes are almost always empty because they’re being repaired or renovated. You’d just get lower quality houses for rent.
"For every 100 properties, more than 1.4 sit unoccupied. "
If a landlord spends a month refurbishing a flat after a tenant has stayed there for 6 years then that's 1.4% vacancy. So that doesn't seem to be a high number, it seems to be a low number.
I don’t see how making it more expense to be a landlord will make them lower prices and increase standards while at the same time limiting their ability to increase rents.
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
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.
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 😳😳
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??
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
"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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Very biased reporting
Yes not really any of the real solutions. Vacancy taxes and subsidies for builders.
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
It’s not a supply issue but lack of affordability. Less people can afford property and this prevents investors building new homes
Want to fix it.. Equalise it.. If you miss 2 months rent or damage the property or antisocial behaviour should automatic right to be able to evict. End no fault but when the risk of not being able to remove bad tenants, all tenants will pay higher rent to cover the risk.
How high do you believe vacancy taxes should be?
One thing you've missed is that getting rid of fixed term contracts has essentially taken a wreaking ball to the student lets market, if a landlord can't be certain this years students will leave how can they advertise for next years students. Some cities already have a crisis with a lack of rooms for students this isn't going to do much to help. (I should mention purpose built halls of residence are exempt)
Labour: "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.
Why not have government-built mass housing that can be rented out, like Austria? It would solve the supply problem, push down market prices and can be profitable for the government in the long run. The profits can be invested in repairs and even more housing built.
Neoliberalism really did a number on the US and UK.
Apparently England wants higher rents
If they don’t implement a huge vacancy tax and subsidize construction, yes, apparently.
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.
How about adding a clause that prevents corporations from owning houses??
So who will own rental housing?
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.
All I am hearing is, a reduction in the rental supply, and ever higher prices due to that lack of supply and increasing demand.
Red-tape is not going to help. It will hurt the renters more than anyone.
Short sighted people think all the bureaucracy will help, but only end hurt hurting the people they claim to want to help
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Mr. Ditkovich would be proud.
Whenever you remove a rental property from the market, you also remove a renter by turning one into a buyer
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.
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.
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
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.
To people worried about these changes causing problems, a lot of them are already in place in Scotland, and have been for years. For example, in Scotland, evictions need to be justified, there are no minimum tenancies and rates can only be increased once per year and are capped by the market rate. Definitely doesn’t solve the whole problem of cost, but does mean that tennants are better protected from the whims of landlords, which is a major positive.
The bias on this channel recently has honestly upset me
Because it didn’t advocate for hefty vacancy taxes like any reasonable person would?
Need something where derelict and abandonment of commercial property can be used for residential too.
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
Market rate is what people are willing to pay. So if you can rent it out for more, you've de facto proven market rate...
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.
"Won't someone *please* think of the LANDLORDS?!" - Local Landlord who owns 90% of a small town
Why do you think punishing landlords with more tax, expenses and red tape will make them able to put rents down?
Landlords already can. They choose not to.
@@JasonAtlas Landlords can lose money for no reason, have you ever considered why they choose not to? Have you ever considered that both parties need an incentive to actually take part in an exchange? Please tell me you don't vote
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
The problem is speculation, limit specipation in family households and you fix the problem
Nationalizing all rental properties can't make anyone homeless
So forcing higher quality properties to rent, increasing prices further. Genius.
Anything that increases supply is a solution
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.
Lovely to see progress being made in this developing nation!
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
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)
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.
So, they will make thinks worse by spooking landlords away from the market and ask for higher rents....
Anyone ever had a "right to occupy" agreement? They should be illigal
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.
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.
Simple answer- increase minimum wage to a size that is big enough to actually live on.
Remove building limitations and regulation. Stop printing money. Stop eating £20 billion a year in bureaucracy. Stop price fixing and rent freezes. Let the market sort itself. Increasing government intervention will worsen it
No, Labour will make rents worse.
Private renting suuuuuuuuuuuuucks. It's presently the biggest societal cancer we have in the UK.
Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit follows The Minister's Millions to find out how he built a half a billion dollar real estate empire - on a thirteen thousand dollar salary. Saifuzzaman Chowdhury, a close ally of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, bought hundreds of luxury properties in London, Dubai and New York, but failed to declare any of them to Bangladeshi tax authorities. Former Lands Minister Gives Guided Tour of His $14 Million London Home; he owns 360 in the UK only. Now Bangladeshi authorities have frozen his bank accounts and are investigating the claims😢😢😢
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?
Frankly, the vast majority of good people never have a problem letting or renting. All these new rules do is enable the very worst of the renting pool to take landlords for an absolute ride.
Anyone else so damn tired of experiencing unprecedented events…😢
Every time we make it less desireable to be a landlord we push up prices further. This bill, though sounding nice, will just drive up rents. There is only one solution, build more homes so that landlords have to compete for tenants rather than the other way around.
Wide dont you reduce migration too reduce demand. Something no politician ever seems to want to address
100%
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?
Building additional houses is not as simple as is sounds, unfortunately. Without building the infrastructure around them (upgrading the sewers for example), and ensuring access to services like dentists and doctors, shops, and community spaces, ensuring good public transport links etc., new housing creates more problems than it fixes.
While building houses is part of the fix, the better fix is to build homes that people want to live in and will feel safe in.
Labour couldn't solve a basic math question.
Are you member of that one party that just spent many years failing miserably?
Rent controls don't work. Build large high quality affordable flats.
So the problem is not enough housing supply and Labour's answer is to put into place whole sets of rules that would reduce existing supply while increased interest rates makes it harder to build more housing. That should work out well.
1) large vacancy tax
2) large subsidies for builders of affordable units
I take it you support these actual solutions?
@@SigFigNewton They would seem to have a better chance of working that what Labour proposed.
@@raymondjacobs1955 I’m in the USA so haven’t bothered familiarizing myself with Labour’s proposals. Here in the US, I’m constantly exasperated with Democrats proposing stuff that doesn’t increase supply and Republicans exclusively advocating for loosened building regulations rather than embracing these these other measures that would help bring supply to market.
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.
No. The only way is to stop people buying multiple houses.
I don't recognise most of this.
The government increased tax and legislation in last 8 yrs to save tenants, and the result was forcing rents up by 30% to pay for it...
Then we had inflation up 10%, did no one else get a pay rise to pay for inflation?
This was due to government overspending and creating inflation too.
IF you want to blame anyone blame the Government for all of this.
Then mortgages doubled taking away just about any profitability. A house I rent mortgage went up by £309. I raised the rent by £100, that was a year ago, now I'm raising it again another £60, but this is only half of the mortgage costs I've been paying for 2 yrs, on a property that's still £250 a month below Market value....
The Labour reforms will create another rental crisis as 10,000s of properties are sold, if you're complaining now, wait till next year....
And ALL caused by government interference try to help tenants, they've help no one, they've made it alot worse for everyone.
That's why you get when you mess about with Tax, legislation and helping people. It always ends up far worse. That's why free markets work better.
But you get the seeds you sow, this is what generation rent wanted
I concur. I don't believe that a market will be fully self-regulating, but many of the recent changes leave little choice other than to track the market rent, or go bust. 😣
We need to stop falling for the government’s attempt to vilify all landlords to put the blame on them rather than the government taking responsibility for the way things are with housing. Ultimately, most landlords only do things to look out for themselves, just like everyone else does. No fault evictions are so common because a lot of the time going through with a fault eviction is a very expensive process.
Breaking news, the UK adds rental laws that have been in other European countries (Germany) for decades, while also adding 1984 style checks on landlords (the 3rd point of this Bill). At least this time it's two steps forward & one back and not the other way around. Lovely place! :,)
House prices are high because houses can be rented at the maximum that tenants can tolerate. The housing crisis can only start to be solved by rent controls. Bring rents down, bring down the level of private landlords and expand council housing. Abolish landlords!
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.
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 🇦🇺
Venturing into crypto as a newbie was very difficult due to lack of experience which resulted in loosing funds......... But Lucille Friedman, restored hope shes a good woman😊
Always remember, wool grows on sheep's back. The more red tape and obstacles you put on landlord, the higher the rents will be. We won't loose out. 😉
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.
The only way to make any real dent in the housing price crisis is for the government to build homes in mass at cost or slightly at a loss, flooding the market. Private developers only care about profits, now that land is so expensive, there is no way for the price to be brought back down when every developer who touches a parcel adds their own 15% cut on top of the acquisition price. Especially for property that keeps changing hands without any significant modifications, it's just profit stacking up without any added real term housing value.
Two months is plenty of time for a good landlord to find a new tenant in this market, and it gives renters the ability to move quickly when they inevitably end up in dodgy accomodation. Letting agents charge landlord to find new tenants, so this could force bad landlords out of the market.
this is completely pointless if they don't deal with the lack of supply
Build more council houses and charge lower rent for long term tenants and abolish right to buy.
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.
Don't expect any big change. The market will always find its way to increase rents and keep properties below standards. Few years ago I use to rent a 3 bed house for 750pm now I pay 650 for a room landlord keeps heating off and I earn the same salary
So the house I have just bought was £103k in 2017, it's now £190k in 2024 (was £200k but lowered). With no work done to the house (back garden has actually deteriorated badly)
Think if it this way, I started working in 2017, back then I would have needed £10k to put a 10% deposit on this house. I have been saving since then and have just over 10k not including the help to buy ISA 25%, I'd now need nearly 20k deposit for 10% on this same house... Had extra savings separately to make up the difference and got the house for a £175k but still, that statistic is crazy.
Many of the changes the Bill is to implement are good. However preventing landlords from selling or even moving back in for a period of 12 months plus 4 konths notice is ridiculous. Additionally, allowing tenants to be up to 3 months late on their rent but not allowing landlords to repossess seems crazy. Landlords are not banks and mortgage providers can force a sale of property quicker if the mortgage isnt paid, so why should landlords foot the bill when a tenant does not pay for 10 weeks rent?
There are a number of bad landlords out there, dont get me erong and some of the changes the Bill is going to make will regulate these more. However there are a number of terrible tenants and the Bill does not provide Landlords with additional powers to evict such tenants.
I think the government needs to relaose that good landlords are actually preventing a further housing crisis in this country at the moment. Good landlords are selling up because of this Bill, other landlords will hike prices to meet the additional risk they will ne facing. If yhe government isnt careful it will find itself running a country with houses on the market and nobody able to buy them, increasing uncertainty for tenants and landlords alike.
The solution is simple: make it illegal for anyone to live out of the fact that workers need a house to live (aka illegal to be a landlord as a profession) and force landlords to sell homes they do not live in. The market is flooded with new properties, price goes down, and young people can buy instead of renting. Done.
Funny enough you guys don't mention that landlords are being taxed a lot more than they used to be a few years ago. Interest rates are much higher as well
They don't care about balanced news. They tend to care about the progressive agenda. :)
Explain? Is it because higher rents are being taxed under an unchanged income tax threshold more?
@@kacperpiotrowski7239errr.... in English please?
@@SgtAndrewM I edit it, I was wirteing multiple comments on my phone so it got twisted. sorry about that