Every seven minutes a private renter in England is given eviction notice even though they have done nothing wrong.

There's a market for second-hand white goods too. They don't have to go to landfill.

DiamondLily

This won't help:

''Housing Secretary, Michael Gove, has triggered a storm with plans to scrap rules that force developers to build affordable homes.

Section 106 regulations ensure that modestly priced properties and community projects are included in large building programmes.

But proposals to be outlined in the Queen’s Speech are set to cut the number affordable homes by 50,000 over 10 years.

Mr Gove is planning to replace the scheme with a building levy which would be paid to local authorities."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/michael-gove-plans-scrap-rules-26841507

Well, it might help if the money is ring-fenced for building more social housing. "Affordable homes" were a joke anyway because they were anything but affordable. What was happening was that people bough them at a small discount, lived in them for a minimum number of years and then sold for a tidy profit. The development where I live consisted mainly of "affordable homes" 15 years ago. Some of them are now owned by a housing association, but the majority were sold and now have private tenants.

It seems sensible to me for money to be paid to local authorities to enable them to provide housing. I just wish the right to buy legislation would be scrapped so that affordable rented housing provided by local authorities and housing associations remains exactly that.

My experience of our council is that all monies seem to disappear into a black hole and not go where they were supposed to.

If the article is correct, and it will mean 50,000 fewer affordable homes, then that won't help.

In my London borough, it's eye wateringly expensive to either buy or rent privately.

I agree about the right to buy legislation GSM the money is rarely if ever used to replenish LA housing stock.

As for there being a market for second hand carpets and white goods, if they're good enough to be re sold then why replace them in the first place?

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems sensible to me for money to be paid to local authorities to enable them to provide housing. I just wish the right to buy legislation would be scrapped so that affordable rented housing provided by local authorities and housing associations remains exactly that.

GSM I agree with you!
I never agreed with right to buy.
And of course, as long as councils actually use the money for housing.

Indeed. I think all too often they don’t use money for the purpose it was given to them.

GSM ,11.47, Absolutely.

Hugely important issue.

I'm a landlord and my children have been renters at one time or another. There are definitely two sides to the equation.

I've skimmed the thread, I'll go back and read it thoroughly but I believe someone stated that some landlords can earn 15% on their rental income, I'd like to know where absolutely nothing like that!, well certainly not where my flat is in Surrey, more like between 5 and 7%, after the necessary fees for safety checks, agent's management fee 11%, flat maintenance charge, any workman's call out charges to fix a problem in the property (variable), accountant's fee have been set off against the rental income, I never take the view all of it is mine to keep. If my managing agents inform me the tenants need a plumber or electrician, then I ask that they instruct someone from their panel asap. I hope I'm a good landlord. If I have good tenants, which I have at the moment I never automatically put the rent up for the duration they are renting, as the agents suggest when the rent review kicks in after a year. I'm happy to keep it as it is until they give notice, I have Spanish siblings in there at the moment, young people often don't stay more than a few years as their situations are prone to change.

I know when one of my son's rented a flat with his then partner and young baby, they had a landlady who flatly refused at one time to fix the washing machine because a few months before that she had a call out charge for something else. Eventually she did, but not before we were going backwards and forwards with their washing to ours, they were about 5 miles away, for a while. The washing machine was on its last legs but she was totally resentful of having to stump up anything out of the rental income. When they gave notice, we went over to help them give it a thorough clean, she hadn't had it cleaned professionally, but she still got that charge knocked off out of our deposit. Oh and she said "your son and his girlfriend have left their passports behind shall I post them back to you and knock the cost off out of the deposit?" as we had provided that, so I said yes. Thinking a small parcel would arrive, instead a huge package, made up of the passports, some coat hangers, crisp packets and other rubbish. They had put a few items on a shelf in wardrobe final things to be disposed of before they finally handed back the keys, but inadvertently these got overlooked. Of course the cost of this parcel of unnecessary rubbish, sent registered I think because of the passports, was far greater than it needed to be, her final vindictive flurry, they didn't renew their lease because she wouldn't fix anything that needed to be repaired.

That pales into insignificance in comparison to my other son, whilst at university in a student house the landlord without any consultation or permission had workman complete with bulldozers turn up unannounced one Monday morning to extend the back of the house, so he could pack more students in. He knew he was taking advantage of a bunch of naive kids. When he wouldn't back off we, the parents, had to get a solicitor's letter off to him pointing out he was in breach of the lease and threatening him with a Court Order if the workman didn't down tools and remove the machinery right away.

So yes there are some horrible landlords, although having seen how some tenants trash properties, I can only imagine how devastating that must be, it would be curtains for me as a landlord if that happened,

Germanshepherdsmum

*growstuff*, how can you expect all the carpets to be changed after five years and still want a low rent to be charged? Have you never heard of having carpets professionally cleaned?

I agree, how many owner occupiers change their carpets every five years? If carpets are dirty and ruined so quickly, then they have not been looked after.

However, maybe landlords tend to fit very cheap carpets which don’t last as long as better quality ones and factor the price into the rent.

I put brand new carpets in the flat about 6 or 7 years ago, I have them professionally cleaned between tenants, they don't look worn anywhere. I had the smaller bedroom carpet replaced when one tenant, who owned up to putting a wedge shaped iron burn right in the middle of it, not malicious intent, just careless, but was happy to replace it when his tenancy ended. It was kind of funny because he was called Mr Burns

Good for you TB

Unfortunately not all private landlords behave so well.

The private rented sector may need more regulation, but that will not solve the problem of homelessness.

We need to build more homes and upgrade the quality of our old housing stock.

With the attitude currently taken by local councils tenants who are served an s21 have little to lose by making it as difficult, as time consuming and expensive as possible for the LL to evict them. So even if they have packed up they sit tight and wait for the bailiffs. Otherwise the council regards them as having made themselves intenionally homeless.

Johnson's latest wheeze is to bring in more "right to buy" for those in HA stock.

That'll help no end with the affordable housing shortage...?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10773705/Boris-Johnson-plans-revive-Right-Buy-scheme-help-young-people-housing-ladder.html

We can do without that.

I'm so angry. And just before elections too.

Germanshepherdsmum

We can do without that.

As he has only worked on this new right to buy for two weeks, I would guess it is because of the election. It's not aimed to get your votes but those of generation rent. As I have said before this government is all and only about staying in power - not about policies that help the country.

Why are you GSM and others think houses are assets rather than homes and believe in making money from them (I could be wrong and am happy to be told if I am) against this sell-off? Do you think it will affect your income?

Quite simply, the stock of rented affordable housing is already woefully inadequate and this proposal would further deplete it.

As you say, just about staying in power. When will voters see through them?

GSM is right about housing stock. I'm not sure how it would affect BTL landlords.

Sorry, that was for DaisyAnne.

I suppose the counterargument would be that the stock of houses to buy affordably is also "woefully inadequate", GSM.

Both of those arguments are each half of the overall issue. I agree that selling off affordable rentals is not going to solve anything. Selling off affordable housing didn't improve the overall market when Thatcher did it and I can't see how it will now.

We probably need a major review with some out of the box thinking. However, this government goes for borrowing ideas from elsewhere (other countries usually) and doesn't cost, plan or trial them, as far is I can see, so I am not hopeful. No time for that when fighting an election though and here's a ploy that won votes for Thatcher. It's all very sad.

As far as I know, and I haven’t read up on it, the proposal relates only to housing association properties. I doubt a government of any colour would try to extend right to buy to properties owned by private sector landlords - they all announce ideas that they think will keep them in or get them into power. This one seems rather ill judged and the number of votes it might win is dubious. Anyway, at present just a proposal which I hope won’t proceed further.

I think this idea was first thought up by Mr.Cameron in April 2012 (going off to Google)

Right to Buy was Thatcher GG13.
Can't see any government trying to extend it to private landlords.

Apparently Cameron reintroduced it. I didn't know it ever stopped.