By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.


Major landlord supports three-year tenancy plans

Many buy-to-let landlords may have reacted angrily to government proposals that will give tenants a minimum three year contract, but one prominent residential landlord backs the government’s proposal regarding longer tenancies.

With rents increasing by less than inflation and average rents lower than mortgage payments, many people are opting against home ownership, which is currently at a 30-year low, and are now renting, and this trend looks set to continue, according to Neil Young, CEO of Get Living.

“It is increasingly common to rent, rather than buy, with the likes of Netflix, Spotify and Uber leading the way and now homes set to follow,” he said.


As the CEO of Get Living, the build-to-rent trailblazer behind East Village in London, Young believes that any plan to impose minimum terms to rental agreements of three years would benefit tenants seeking security of tenure, as well as landlords looking for a stable rental income.

He commented: “We are proud to offer three-year tenancies as standard and wholeheartedly encourage the rest of our sector to do so.

“Renting shouldn’t be a second-rate choice to homebuying. With three-year tenancies and resident-only break clause after six months, residents have the reassurance of long-term security while having the flexibility to follow their careers or their thirst for adventure, without being tied in to a home.

“With more than 20,000 Build to Rent homes complete across the UK and almost 100,000 more in the pipeline, our sector is starting to show that, done right, renting can offer much more than it’s given credit for.

“At Get Living, we’ve never accepted the ‘norms’ of renting. Last year we scrapped security deposits and have returned millions of pounds to our existing residents.

“Abolishing deposits made sense as we have great relationships with our residents and know that they look after their homes. It’s also taken away a real cost barrier to renting and helped build trust.”

Johnny Caddick, managing director at Moda, which is creating a £2bn portfolio of build-to-rent schemes across England and Scotland, also believes that it “makes sense” that residents are given security of tenure.

He said: “We fully support these moves provided people have flexibility if they only wish to stay for a year or two.

“We need a customer-centric rental market if people are to grow confidence in the property sector. That has to mean encouraging more rental development through the planning system that is willing to provide better homes with no risk of eviction because the landlord wishes to sell or move back in.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    all very well, but what happens when we get a non paying tenant? yes we can go down the section 8 route, but we have to wait until the rent is over due by 8 wks, then we await a court hearing and then we wait for the bailiffs, all expensive as well, section 21 is quicker, cheaper and easier, but we won't be able to use section 21 in the first 3 yrs of a tenancy when this new ruling comes in.

  • icon

    Bet you any money these BTR companies will have a different procedure to evict non payers the government will make sure if it to put another nail in the coffin for our industry

  • icon

    Of course new builds are happy to do this but what about landlords who may need to sell within that time due to all the new Government taxes and legislation - can they promise these won't change for three years? I think not!!!

  • icon

    company lets exempt?


    Perhaps, but lenders terms may insist on ASTs.

  • icon

    This does not sound right at all. Either Neil Young is very naive which I doubt or he has found a better way to legally reference tenants. I know that I can reference my tenants more accurately the my letting agent does but I would be jailed if i did it my way.

    I can well believe he has scrapped deposits. They are a pain in the rear and a months rent is very little when a lot of repairs are needed. Far better to put a small potential loss against the advertising budget.

  • icon

    1 month is very little? When the majority of renters are younger that’s a lot of money to them and makes them treat our properties with much more respect than if we didn’t have deposits. You will see more trashing and annoying repairs because they won’t have anything to worry about if they get rid of them. Anyway what the hell is wrong with a damage deposit?


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up