Britons ‘to be priority on council house lists’

It’s only viable for a housing association or local authority which can take a long term view. It’s certainly not viable in the short term.

Sorry but I've only read part of this thread, surely subsidised housing should be given to those in greatest need? Does it matter if they are British born or if they have been accepted as a legal immigrant? Doesn't the "need" matter most? Surely children matter more than time serving?

Foxie48, join those of us who share your view.

Germanshepherdsmum

Housing Association tenants don’t have the right to buy, thank goodness, though it has been suggested.

There is very little private affordable housing. The vast majority of the affordable housing built as part of private developments is transferred to housing associations or local authorities. There is considerable resistance by developers to provision of social housing for rent on private developments because - and working for developers I’ve seen it before someone calls me a snob - the behaviours of people buying shared ownership housing and those renting social housing, and the way they look after their properties, can be very different.

My daughter lived in a terrace of 5 properties, new build, rented social housing GSM, as a single parent it was all she could afford. All beautifully kept and they all got on well, I think yes, that is being a snob and tarring a specific group of people with a very broad brush

I speak from experience, having bad to threaten a housing association with litigation because of the behaviour of some of the occupants of rented housing on a large ongoing development. They had been relocated from slums and continued to behave as though they were still living in slums, not brand new homes with gardens. The gardens were untended and used to dump rubbish. Imagine buying a new home off plan and when it was ready finding that next door.

What has happened here is people have moved further and further out from the city centres because property is cheaper. Lo and behold, all those cheap properties have now doubled in price whereas the city ones have dropped or remained the same. There isn’t much of a sense of entitlement towards housing commission houses, you can’t get one so you have to be independent or share houses.

Germanshepherdsmum

I speak from experience, having bad to threaten a housing association with litigation because of the behaviour of some of the occupants of rented housing on a large ongoing development. They had been relocated from slums and continued to behave as though they were still living in slums, not brand new homes with gardens. The gardens were untended and used to dump rubbish. Imagine buying a new home off plan and when it was ready finding that next door.

This is what has happened in our small market town. A new development has attracted occupiers from some considerable distance away. Moved on from the city they previously lived in, and it’s easy to see why.

These brand new homes now have gardens that resemble Steptoe’s yard, anyone local who was rehoused there ( I’m thinking of one family with several children who needed a larger property) must have thought they were so fortunate to get offered one.

I bet they rue the day they moved to this ‘no go’ area which keep the police busy with drugs and related incidents.

If I sound judgemental, I make no apologies. It’s fact.

We in the UK have long been big drinkers/substance misusers. It’s now an epidemic and at the root of many of the problems listed here, with neglected homes and scrap yard gardens. A group of mavericks who contribute little positive to the country/their community and take disproportionate resources.
12 years of austerity has done nothing to change this. The separation between those who do and those who dont gets bigger

I really don’t know know what’s going to happen to the renting sector when Section 21 is scrapped in 2023.
Landlords are selling in record numbers.

Indeed. Not a good move IMO.

In 2021, according to Kim van Sparrentak, an MEP, and some un-named OECD experts, the whole of Europe is facing a housing crisis.

Access to housing is a fundamental right, and one that is guaranteed at EU level. But it has become painfully clear to me that today, European rules are often better at protecting those making profit on the housing market than people who need a roof over their head. This has to change. (The OECD Forum Network)

We, together with Greece, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, and Romania, are the most overburdened by the cost of housing.

It's quite obvious that unless affordable accommodation is built - accommodation that cannot be snapped-up for investment opportunities, the crisis will simply get worse.

All the short-term schemes by governments to help first-time buyers, and the tacking-on of so-called affordable housing to new developments, are just fiddling around the edges of the problem.

We need to build houses and apartments that people can afford to buy or rent. There is no other solution. IMO.

MerylStreep

I really don’t know know what’s going to happen to the renting sector when Section 21 is scrapped in 2023.
Landlords are selling in record numbers.

No, nor do I. I think it would be far better to look at the reasons why Landlords use Section 21's. If it is to increase the rents, it wouldn't be above the wit of the law to make it illegal to move your tenants on and then increase the rent beyond the "reasonable" amount you could legitimately charge the last tenants. If it is because tenants are complaining about legitimate problems, it could be made illegal to use a section 21 Notice.
As far as I can see, scrapping Section 21's is meant to give tenants more security which I am not against at all. When we rent out, we are keen to let our tenants know that we consider this is their home for as long as they want it providing they stick to the terms of their contract. I have only ever had to write to a tenant once but only after we had done everything to help them find a way forward with the noise problems the neighbours were complaining about including sound proofing. I would like to see a 3 counts and you're out with bad landlords for unreasonable behaviour rather than hurting the good landlords.

Eventually a landlord may want, or need, to sell. Unless they can get the tenants out they can only sell at a substantially lower price. If this becomes impossible they will of course look for alternative forms of investment.

Rental property isn't the attractive investment it used to be and getting rid of the section 21 is making it less so.

Germanshepherdsmum

Eventually a landlord may want, or need, to sell. Unless they can get the tenants out they can only sell at a substantially lower price. If this becomes impossible they will of course look for alternative forms of investment.

True, but that is why I think we should keep Section 21's but change the law to better protect tenants from unscrupulous laws. I am, though, wondering who protects the Landlords! My Mum had tenants who would have done anything to get a Housing Association Property because they were convinced they would be better off. When the Environmental Officer came out for the third time after spurious complaints, we explained why they kept making complaints and he went back to them pointing out that if there were problems with a Housing Association property, they would have no recourse to him and the standards were much lower. The tenants just wrecked the place when they left which cost us far more than they'd ever paid for in their deposit or any profit.

I don’t understand what you’re proposing icanhandthemback, perhaps you could explain. What are the ‘unscrupulous laws’ to which you refer? Don’t you think a landlord should be entitled to take back possession if they want to sell?

I don’t know about unscrupulous laws, but it’s difficult to see how the rights of renters and private landlords can ever be successfully aligned. A tenant has a right to plan ahead and know where they’ll be living in years to come, and landlords have a right to liquidate their assets by selling up.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t understand what you’re proposing icanhandthemback, perhaps you could explain. What are the ‘unscrupulous laws’ to which you refer? Don’t you think a landlord should be entitled to take back possession if they want to sell?

Must proof read! Sorry, I meant unscrupulous landlords...my brain did a hop, skip and a jump. I do think landlords should be entitled to take back possession but maybe under limited circumstances. Not just so they can raise the rent.

The trouble is, though, that limiting the circumstances in which a landlord can sell will reduce the number of houses available to rent. Suppose I were working abroad for a limited time. I might decide to rent out my house while I was away, to cover the accommodation costs in my new area. If I knew that when I came home I couldn't move back in easily, or decide to sell if I wanted to stay in the new job, however, I might not bother. It makes sense to me that people should be able to come to mutually agreeable short-term agreements - maybe with someone who is working in my area short term and needs somewhere to live - but also that rents should be controlled.

Maybe there should be different arrangements for different types of tenancy - short-term ones for those who might want to sell at short notice, longer-term ones with more security, and a really push for state-owned property that can be rented with lifetime tenancies (but no right to buy). I think that rents should be controlled in all cases, however.

At present one of the cases in which court must grant possession is if before the tenancy starts the landlord has given the tenant notice that he may want to take back possession in order to live in the property again, provided he demonstrates that he genuinely intends to do so. I can’t think anyone would say that’s unreasonable.
I believe that any further restriction on landlords’’ rights to take back possession will end in far fewer private rentals being available.

Germanshepherdsmum

At present one of the cases in which court must grant possession is if before the tenancy starts the landlord has given the tenant notice that he may want to take back possession in order to live in the property again, provided he demonstrates that he genuinely intends to do so. I can’t think anyone would say that’s unreasonable.
I believe that any further restriction on landlords’’ rights to take back possession will end in far fewer private rentals being available.

That may be but it is misused by some unscrupulous landlords and from my experience of the law in other areas, the foreseeable future is limited and if the person changes their mind, there is no recourse available. Once the Notice to regain possession is issued by the Courts, who polices the reality?

That’s why I think there could be separate arrangements for differing needs. ‘You can stay here until I need to sell up’ is different from ‘this house is for rent because I have several of them and want to make a profit’. Tenants should be able to go into the first with the right to end the lease at short notice on both sides, and the second with the knowledge that they can make it their home.

The landlord is put to proof as regards their intentions ican. And I mean proof!
The trouble is, Doodledog, the costs which landlords can offset against rent have been pared back and what was once a profitable venture becomes far less so. Works will now have to be carried out by landlords to achieve a minimum energy rating. Landlords will be selling and I can’t say that I blame them. There is as much uncertainty for them as to whether they will be allowed to make any profit as there is for tenants on short term lets.

Surely investment in their properties will be to their own advantage though? I’m not speaking from experience here- I don’t rent or rent out - but I think that something needs to be done to make life better for tenants without reducing the number of available properties to rent.

It’s difficult to see how a balance can be achieved. The landlord wants to make an annual profit after all his costs are taken into account - mortgage interest, work done on the property, fees charged by managing agents and so forth. And he may need to sell at some time, when he will pay CGT on the increase in capital value whilst the property was let. The tenant naturally wants a home that is in decent repair at the lowest rent he can negotiate and for as long as he wants to live there. Letting is being made far less attractive to private landlords in order to improve tenants’ conditions and security. The interests of the two are diametrically opposed.