They are Matt Downie (chief executive of the homeless charity Crisis), Polly Neate (chief executive of campaigning charity Shelter), Sam Stewart (interim chief executive of the Nationwide Foundation, which funds the coalition); Matthew Upton (acting chief executive of policy and advocacy at Citizens Advice); the policy team at the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health; and Ben Twomey, (chief executive of Generation Rent.)
Beadle’s letter centres on what he calls “the divine rhetoric” used by some in the coalition.
In the letter, Beadle singles out tweets posted X (formerly Twitter) by Tom Darling, whose profile describes himself as campaigns manager of the Renters Reform Coalition and an occasional contributor to Labour In Communications, "the fast-growing network of Labour supporters working in the communications, public affairs and media industry.”
The letter from Beadle says in one part: “In a thread on X, Tom Darling from he Renters Reform Coalition implied that all grounds for repossession should be discretionary. This is not a stance the NRLA agrees with, but we would appreciate the opportunity to understand your respective organisations; position on [it].” Beadle then asks a series of detailed questions about the organisations’ views on repossession.
In another part of his letter Beadle says: “We note again however that Tom Darling, speaking on behalf of the Renters Reform Co- alition, has said that if tenants want ‘a pack of Great Danes’, living in their properties, ‘that should be their right.’ Given this comment, we would welcome your proposals as to when a property might be unsuitable for a certain type or number of pets. For example, would a large dog in a small flat without a garden be suitable?” Again, Beadle’s letter asks supplementary questions to tease out what the organisations want.
Beadle also writes at length about the association’s long-standing position on courts reform, and ends the correspondence with a request for a joint approach by the NRLA and the coalition on the need to persuade government to reverse the freeze of Local Housing Allowances.
Here is Beadle’s letter in full:
I write to you as your organisations are leading members of the Renters Reform Coalition.
As you will know, the NRLA has never shied away from accepting the challenges that tenants face in the private rented market.
We agree that tenants need to feel confident to raise complaints about poor quality housing; that councils need the resources to take enforcement action against rogue and criminal landlords; and that tenants should have access to proper legal support where posses- sion cases end up in the courts. Likewise, we support calls for the unjust freeze on LHA rates to be reversed.
However, alongside this, reform of the rental market needs to carry the confidence of responsible landlords. After all, greater security for tenants will not mean much if the homes to rent are not there in the first place. Rightmove, Zoopla and others all point to the demand for private rented housing already outstripping available supply.
Over recent years, debate about the future of the private rented sector has become increasingly polarised as a battle between the needs of tenants on the one hand and those of landlords on the other. We do not think this has to be the case and are concerned at some of the language which gives the impression that someone can be pro-landlord or pro-tenant, but not both. This is simply not true.
Landlords and tenants mutually depend on one another and reform of the sector must work for both parties.
In view of this, I would welcome your response to the following points.
-
1. Court reform
As you know, in response to the LUHC Committee report on the private rented sector, the Government made clear that it “will not proceed with the abolition of section 21, until reforms to the justice system are in place.”
We understand how frustrating this is. We are equally frustrated that it has taken so long for a commitment to undertake these reforms to be made, when their necessity has been clear for several years. Practical steps could and should have already been taken in preparation for the Bill.
We have long argued that the need for an improved court system to handle section 8 re- possessions was an essential pre-requisite for the replacement of section 21 to work. In 2020, we highlighted the need for the courts to reduce the time to process legitimate pos- session cases in our proposals for the new system to replace section 21.
Likewise, as far back as 2018 the then HCLG Select Committee called for the develop- ment of a specialist housing court, whilst in its report on the private rented sector in Feb- ruary, the current LUHC Committee warned that: “It is not clear whether the Government fully appreciates the extent to which an unreformed courts system could undermine its tenancy reforms.”
We want court reforms that would benefit tenants and landlords. Tenants need to be able to access legal advice and support much more easily where possession cases are being considered by the courts. Likewise, where landlords have a legitimate reason to repos- sess a property, whether that be for serious rent arrears or anti-social behaviour, it means ensuring the courts process such cases much more swiftly than at present, as called for by the LUHC Committee.
We believe that there is potential to build common ground on the issue of court reform and would be grateful for your thoughts on the following:
- What time frames do you think the courts should be working to when processing legitimate possession claims such as those related to tenant anti-social behaviour or rent arrears?
- Would you be prepared to work with the NRLA in making a powerful joint call for reforms to the court system to benefit both tenants and responsible landlords? If not, we would welcome an understanding of your concerns.
-
2. Grounds for Possession
In a thread on X, Tom Darling from the Renters Reform Coalition implied that all grounds for repossession should be discretionary.
This is not a stance the NRLA agrees with, but we would appreciate the opportunity to understand your respective organisations’ positions on:
- Under what circumstances do you believe that it should be permissible for a tenant to build eight weeks or more of unpaid rent?
- Under what circumstances would it be acceptable for a tenant found guilty of anti-social be- haviour to remain in a property?
- Under what circumstances would it be ok for a tenant to remain in a property if they are found not to have a legal right to rent property?
- Under what circumstances do you believe a landlord should be prohibited from selling a prop- erty that they own?
-
3. Pets in Rented Homes
As an organisation we understand the importance of pets in providing companionship for many renters. We support the measures in the Bill that would ensure both that landlords could not unreasonably withhold consent for tenants wanting to keep a pet and require tenants with pets to have the necessary insurance.
We note again however that Tom Darling, speaking on behalf of the Renters Reform Co- alition, has said that if tenants want “a pack of Great Danes”, living in their properties, “that should be their right.”
Given this comment, we would welcome your proposals as to when a property might be unsuitable for a certain type or number of pets. For example, would a large dog in a small flat without a garden be suitable? Likewise:
- In a shared house, whose rights should prevail if one tenant wanted a pet and another did not want one in the property?
- How do you propose handling pets causing a nuisance for other tenants or neighbours? Should it be classed as anti-social behaviour on the part of the tenant? Should a landlord be able to insist on the pet being removed or would it be a ground to repossess the property?
- Would you be prepared to work with the NRLA in calling for the guidance provided to the courts about what would constitute a reasonable reason to refuse a tenant having a pet to be as comprehensive as possible, not least to prevent inconsistent judgements from the courts and clarity for tenants and landlords?
-
4. Ban on ‘No DSS’ Adverts
As you know, the Government has said it wants to bring forward measures to ban ‘No DSS’ adverts, which we support. Every tenant should be treated on an individual basis based on their ability to sustain a tenancy.
However, I am sure you will agree that a ban of this kind is unlikely to achieve much with- out also unfreezing the Local Housing Allowance.
In view of this, would you be prepared to work with the NRLA in making a joint call on the Government and the Labour Party to commit to reversing the unjust freeze on LHA rates with a commitment, at the very least, to re-link it to the 30th percentile of rents and uplift it accordingly each year?
Whilst we accept that there are issues on which we will not agree, we believe it important that as groups representing tenants and landlords, we are able to find common ground where we can work together for the benefit of the sector as a whole. In short, it is time to end the divisive rhetoric which is giving the wholly inaccurate impression that the majority of landlords cannot be trusted, but rather recognise that both parties need to work together to have a successful tenancy.
Given the importance of the issues raised in this letter, I will be making it publicly availa-ble on the NRLA website and I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Beadle
Chief Executive
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.
%20(002).png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
The far-left and their useful idiots know that lies use the lift, but the facts (the truth) use the stairs.
No the rouge landlords have had thee cages rattled ok.
Sandra, it's spelt "rogue"
@ Nick, SBR iss on a rant and has neen told numerous times that:
rouge
noun
A red or pink cosmetic for coloring the cheeks or lips. A reddish powder, chiefly ferric oxide, used to polish metals or glass.
but she refuses to be educated. She is now so rattled that "their" become "thee".
"their cages"
THEIR when something belongs to people
"they're" when you are saying "they are"
There when you are referring to a place or position
So as an example - In Scotland, they're rattled because their property rights are under threat there.
Annoyed - I have seen her corrected before. She doesn't listen. Perhaps she's a politician.
@ Nick
She is a typical leftie. Their way is the right way or, as she would write it, "There way . . . " LOL
Why do lefties think they can just take things without consequences. They think they are entitled to things.
The Renters Reform Coalition thy largest that houses no one such hypocrisy, it’s all rubbish you are all so smart you house them. All this about increasing housing Allowance do you want tax payers to keep all. Already done away with viable Family units by a System that supports and encourages Single Parent Families all on Benefits and separating for this advantage at tax payers expense.
On ITV News again last night 3 lots one with 3 kids getting put out of Hotel. Everyone fault but their own and so much stuff / material goods the moving Van was chocker full she had money for all that and ITV contacted Council on her behalf to get her fixed up. Also the had offered her a place in another area, all kind of excuses why it wouldn’t be suitable not least the Father of the kids said he objected he would be too far away to see his kids, what a brass neck you want to see them rear them you excuse of a father.
Sadly you are of an older generation who was raised with good principles. The younger generations are bought up as entitled to everything. There’s no shame in anything anymore. Being a single mother etc is absolutely fine. Not just through bad luck etc. Just get some useless man to get you pregnant and he can go… Angela Rayner was a gym slip mother all on benefits and she’s proud of it.
I watched that news article 🫣 how convenient that one of the fathers objected 👌🏻. Her kids though will still suffer from the disfunction in their mothers life.
I'd like to know how a Charity like Shelter is allowed to continually get involved in Politics when the law on Charities prohibits them from so doing? And when Shelter are going to start housing people themselves?
As for Ben's ramblings, it'll be a case of fingers in ears from Tom Darling "I'm not listening nah nah" Generation Rent and their ilk have made various bizarre claims, so any kind of constructive response is not going to be forthcoming, along with demands that everyone gets free toast in bed.
with advocado on top...
You're right they have set out their stall. Why are they going to listen to Beadle now?
Broken Families broken Society no Father figure to control, no one to help you through the pit falls of growing up.
8 weeks allowable arrears great idea who thought of that one.
When coming to end of Contract just paying 8 weeks prior (and the rest) leave landlord to Clear, Clean and fix,
Wonderful.
These are not charities. They are businesses used to provide large salaries to a few . As John says they house no one. They are political in the sense it keeps their bank accounts churning, and let’s them virtue signal great untruths .They don’t give any concern in reality for tenants as ultimately what they are doing will pressure great landlords to leave this industry. Shelter should be investigated without delay and exposed to the public for what they really are.
Finally we see the NRLA beginning to push back albeit far too little far to late.
Calling out these lefty idiots is at least a decade late.
We need to see a ‘step change’ in the NRLA’s defence of the PRS. So far they have woefully let the sector down.
I think if anyone has their money in the Nationwide they should remove it forthwith.
I have two mortgages with them at just over 2% fixed until the end (about 5 years to go). I am not moving anything while they are at that rate, plus I also get to vote on their pay and submit questions on exactly these issues.
I agree if I was not in such a good position with the mortgages I would remove everything in a heartbeat.
I complained to Nationwide that their threat to donate to Shelter for every AGM vote was a disincentive to vote for those who did not agree with Shelter. I got no response but am considering writing to the Electoral Reform Society about linking votes and donations.
About time these ''housing charities ?'' were providing housing for these freeloaders
Oh pardon the real victims and parasite landlords.
Look everyone, SBR has dragged herself out of bed.
Just in time for some advocado on toast, a trip to the private gym, a latte on the way home all on Universal Credit...
The problem here is that different people speak different languages!
Yes, on the surface level we all speak English but that's not the real language or currency in which we deal. So for example Polititians speak the language of "votes" so no matter what moral, ethical, legal or financial issue they are superficially talking about they are really talking about the votes they think their words will get.
In the same way, these charities are constantly seeking "donations". It's their main language. To get donations they perceive the need to keep themselves in the public eye, say things that resonant with their current sponsors (and potential future ones) and cast themselves as the hero against some horrible enemy - in this case landlords!
This means they don't have to believe anything they say or actually have any evidence so long as their supporter base likes it. Ironically it also means they're less interested in helping solve the problem than they are in raising donations, and these two things do compete at times!
In many ways they are like the unions, who were and maybe are a necessary evil to represent workers in counteracting the abuse of employers but who then go on to have their own agenda that often hurts the people they represent!
Well Done Beadles About...! Where was you when they had started with their nonsense, as previously put on here too late.
However I am glad you have put an open letter to them and you need to keep following as they will not answer.
One other thing which I have in the back of my mind is that with the timing of this letter has Gove offered Benny Boy an incentive???
No DSS Adverts equal to the government admitting they want private landlords to be responsible for social housing, which is a responsibility of the government. I am a landlord; I do this as a business, and I will never give my property to a social parasite.
We can't take DSS parasites because we know the rent won't be paid
ALL my tenants are referenced and insured so the insurers will only take those working or home owning guarantors. When guarantors know an insurance company is involved they suddenly back out.
It is my house and I will let the property on a case by case basis. I have let to DSS and it has worked fine, I've let to working professionals and have had problems.
I will NOT be dictated to or micro managed.
This Government and the one in waiting have over reached and the Housing Market is paying the price. When will they learn! Or will they ever, the latter i assume.
I think he may have actually been referring to you Turner.
IMHO there should only be one homeless charity which would cut out layers of costly administration and personnel allowing more cash to “actually build homes and support the genuine needy”
We have too many staff doing the same job and being paid for it.
Too many staff with noses in troughs Polly!
You are absolutely right, thank you for your commonsensical proposal
‘...a pack of Great Danes’, living in their properties, ‘that should be their right.’ This says it all with the current lefty attitude. All these these rights with OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. As we all know deposits aren't enough and none of us are fooled with the BS suggestion of pet insurance.
Well written letter, that must be followed up upon my Mr Beadle.
Mr Beadle should also clarify that it is likely that legal challenges upon Local Authorities, Judicial Reviews on poorly implemented elements of the Renter Reform Bill and Landlords challenging Charity individuals and groups over spurious claims will occur soon.
Meanwhile the more impractical and harsher elements Renters Reform Bill will leave landlords bankrupt and lead to an obvious lack of confidence and continued selling off the private rental sector.
The housing crisis should have been sensibly thrashed out between all the parties rather than each party taking the moral high ground and creating a blame game that has ended up with no winners.
There is now no doubt, in my mind at least, that this is now an imbittered crisis that will now become protracted and hostile with no winners, least of all those who so urgently need housing.
The Renters Reform Bill will be of little consequence if the PRS is reduced to a few hundred thousand properties and millions of others sold off and out of reach to those that need cheap housing. This is happening. Let's not bury our heads in the sand. What say you, Sir?
Give em all Advacado and bacon on toast Actually yumsville and of couse skyglass,netflix,prime,just eat,i phone 97,ps73,c#ke ,wizz,gange and a brand new audi A93 ON PCP oh and an xl bully just to p#ss the neighbours with toddlers off
Well it seems Nationwide don’t know what its left hand is doing from its right it wants it both ways.
Is not The Mortgage Works a Subsidiary of Nationwide doing busy with hundreds of landlords, a clear conflict of interest.
HSBC are sponsoring Polly's Christmas bonus advert.
Polly Neat has been begging to all the banks for funding. She wants them on her side. TMW, I had 4 mortgages with them, gradually getting out of them. 2 out of their reach now and one more will be paid off to them within a month. One, last one will remain as a fixed mortgage at 1.79% for further 15 months. I shall have to remortgage the last with some other lender.
What a bunch of Victorians we have here who don't give a toss as long as they do what they want and charities have no place.. Well suck it because times have changed..If you can't take it then ship out you bunch of divas.
I'm shipping out sweetheart. Enjoy your B&B.
SBR won't qualify for a B&B, she will be lucky to have a cardboard box.
The point is Sandra, we are saying on here that the new legislation will take the private rental sector back in time when ordinary people couldn't find anywhere to rent. Landlords had all "shipped out"
You can already see the consequences of landlords leaving - rents are up and it is really difficult for people to find a flat to rent that is affordable.
Ellie, nice try but SBR has her fingers in her ears and is shouting "La, la, la, la, la. I can't hear you". On a small scale, two years ago I had four rental properties and saw this coming. I am now down to two and another will be sold in 2024. Both were sold to owner occupiers so that is two rentals off the market. Replicate that throughout the PRS and you can see why rents have risen dramatically and tenants are so desperate that they will offer over the advertised rents.
As a greedy, capitalist landlord I extend my thanks to SSBR, JT, Shelter, GR, Acorn and the government for their help in raising rents. Unfortunately, until recently, the BoE were putting up mortgages even faster so I am no richer.
Sandra, you have criticised landlords but have said nothing about what you would like landlords to do.
Face facts ''charities'' are a con they are really big business providing their management with big fat wages check them out they are all at it and all should be investigated
The NRLA is useless as is the government, Labour and all of the charities. We need to fight back. Therefore I am starting a rogue tenants register right here and now. The two names I am starting with is the following two parasites:
1) Sandra Bowes-Rennox
2) James Turner
Nick, surely you mean a rouge tenants register? ROFL
I wanted to write rouge! But no one would understand it other than S B-R.
Landlords need a reality check, market conditions have been very favourable for a long time now and they have financially benefitted from the shocking state of the UK housing market. Tenants on the other hand have suffered badly. Whilst government failings have led to this crisis, landlords need to accept that they must work with tenants not against them, the NRLA open letter is a good step in that direction. How 'lefties' , Labour and charities get the blame for this situation is baffling, Thatcher selling off our social housing stock is where the blame should predominantly lie.
Both landlords and tenants need to work together, pull apart and it's the tenant who will come off the worst
Tenants need a reality check. Landlords cannot offset mortgage costs, need to pay waste of space council licences, eviction costs, costly electrical EICR costs, higher building maintenance costs, insurance costs, higher mortgage costs....
'Charities' and tenants need to work with landlords too. But they're not...
Liz Davies
You need a reality check. It's never been favourable for the PRS landlords. Thatcher dumped council houses because the rent was less than the maintenence costs. Lots of small landlords are chasing rainbows, if administrative charges were at a commercial rate, rents would be twice as much. I am afraid that politicians are hustling in order to profit themselves and their sponsors, the Banks. Banks now are builders,property developers,landlords etc. Something they know nothing about.When they screw up they will rush off to the government for a bailout.
Liz, you are right in part Government failings certainly caused the Crisis and more accurately caused directly by Government interference namely THE RENTERS REFORM BILL driving out hundreds of thousands of landlords Creating a Shortage and as a consequence pushing up Rents 30% in a year and a half. The Tenants must be chuffed with this intervention, while pretending to be doing this to help the Tenants such a blatant lie, do they not realise Tenants are intelligent people and can see through this. Obviously it’s for Institutions and Corporate letting to take over the Business we created out of nothing, you must have noticed the Collapse of industrial and Commercial units thanks to Computerisation, now looking for alternative money stream, even Battersea is to big now.
Social housing Policy has also put a massive strain on housing stock favouring single Parent Families and the advantages that come with it (£1.7b B&B) a husband can’t compete with this causing family breakup, a separation & divorce or girls leaving School getting pregnant and on it for life, in London 20% are single parent families having priority to grab available housing otherwise might not have got pregnant and be living at home saving for the future.
Of course renting out properties is going to involve significant costs, like every other business. But landlords maybe need to accept that the period of gaining a monthly income that covers all costs with some profit left over alongside asset inflation is over. House prices will continue to rise so there is still money to be made, but it should not be the tenant’s responsibility to cover the landlord’s mortgage plus maintenance costs.
The ONS defines a property as affordable if a household would spend the equivalent of 30% or less of their income on rent. Private renters on the median household income in England can expect to spend 26% of their income on rent. In London that figure rises to 35%. Current rent levels are therefore not sustainable, landlords are providing homes for people not a luxury product, there needs to be a degree of social responsibility from landlords.
The current system we have in place is leading to social break down, landlords, tenants, local authorities and government need to work together to solve the issues. Of course, the majority of landlords provide quality homes, but there is a significant minority that don’t, the tightening of regulations is focused on them, but if you are a responsible landlord you should meet these standards anyhow.
We're not charities Liz to provide homes for anyone, if there's no profit then there's no homes to rent.
Who are you to say it's not the tenants' responsibility to cover the landlord’s mortgage plus maintenance costs? Let me try that one on with the Premier Inn and say property prices rise. You should be happy with that. In the meantime I want cheap room rates all subsidised by a private business as someone who has never done anything for the Premier Inn I should be entitled to stay on the cheap?
How much rent do you want to pay exactly Liz? Why don't you just say you think no more than 20% of your take home income. Because that's what you want? Then do the lifestyle choice of many, get pregnant, go on Universal Credit and reduce your income and say I want to pay 20% of that? Get real!
As for tightening of regs there's no way I am having a tenant biased ombudsman voting in favour of the tenant nearly 100% of the time!
You are right, it's not the tenant’s responsibility to cover the landlord’s mortgage plus maintenance costs. Whatever the property situation, large mortgage, small mortgage, no mortgage it is up to the landlord to decide how much rent to charge. The tenant then accepts it or finds somewhere else. It is not up to the landlord to provide affordable accommodation, but if it is then that's a bonus.
"there needs to be a degree of social responsibility from landlords." Why, Liz? I am running a business, not a charity. What I donate and who I donate to in my private life is separate from my business. I provide good quality homes and, if something goes wrong, like a washer dryer did recently, I just get it replaced. As a result my tenants are usually long-term, however the constant landlord bashing and now the prospect of the RRB means twonof my properties have been sold - to owner occupiers.
If you are providing a good home and replacing faulty white goods etc then you are showing a degree of social responsibility. If you want to operate in a sector that is purely money making then landlordism is not the right fit for you, stocks and shares etc is more suitable. People’s lives are at play here, not just finances. In my view being a responsible landlord pays off financially anyhow, if you are providing a quality home you will likely get a good tenant who treats the property with respect and stays long term. The concerns around the RRB seem massively over hyped in my view. Firstly, the banning of section 21 notices has been revoked until the courts system are reformed (i.e. a very long time), landlords still have the right to evict tenants if there are rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, landlord wants to sell/rent to a family member. Landlords can still increase rent inline with market rate (which continues to rise to record levels). I struggle to see what the major concerns are for landlords. Meanwhile what have the tenants gained? The right to request a pet? They still have very little security and are not protected from significant rent rises.
Councils, ombudsmen, ambulance chasing lawyers and Westminster are all pro-tenant. It's all very well talking about good tenants it's the bad ones we worry about it and being powerless to deal with them. It's not acceptable.
Are landlords protected by significant mortgage rises? No, so why should tenants be?
If you want social go to the council. PRS stands for Private Residential Sector. We don't provide social housing.
"If you are providing a good home and replacing faulty white goods etc then you are showing a degree of social responsibility." What rot, Liz! I am running a BUSINESS. There is a contract between myself and the tenant. They pay the rent and I keep the property and the items provided, maintained and repaired.
It is a simple contract, nothing social about it.
Landlords seem to be out of touch with the reality of the private rented market from the tenants perspective. A newly qualified teacher in London for instance will earn £30k per year, take home roughly £2k a month, the average cost to rent a room in a house share in London is £800 per month, plus roughly £100 for bills, meaning their housing costs take up 45% of their income. If housing costs are over 30% of your income they are deemed unaffordable. Therefore a teacher cannot afford to even rent a room in London. How is that sustainable? Where are teachers, nurses, shop workers, hospitality staff going to live? How can they ever afford to have a family? Landlords that think tenants are unreasonable for fighting for better conditions need a dose of reality. Although the blame doesn’t lie with landlords for these conditions, any reasonable person can surely see there needs to be a rebalance.
Liz, are you related to Sandra Bowes-Rennox ?
There is a whole world outside London and from what I have seen recently, the M25 should be replaced by a wall. Where those who cannot afford the rents I charge will live is, frankly, not my problem.
Tenants are out of touch with reality. Landlords and others are not concerned with what someone else deems affordable. The cost is the costs. People will have to move further out, delay having a family, get the new iPhone maybe every 3 or 4 years instead of yearly, shop in Lidl or Aldi, give up the private gym, daily lattes and advocado on toast. All these questions are best directed back to Westminster and all the do-gooders letting more boat people in taking up more precious accommodation.
You need a dose of reality. A big one. Good luck finding somewhere to live with all of your new rights.
There are obviously exceptional and unfortunate situations with people. In general it should be the parents looking after the children until they can fend for themselves. My son didn't leave home until he was 27, having paid no rent to me and managed to save to buy his own house. My friend had her two children and their partners living with her, paying very little for their keep, until they had managed to buy their own homes.
Better conditions= higher rent you get what you pay for
Liz, You forgot to take into account that renters get a lot more help then home owners. They get most of the rent paid, council tax discount, various benefits, free dentists, free prescriptions etc.
If people think the affordability problem is unique to London then that is simply not the case. The average property in Manchester costs £875 a month to rent. The average income, meanwhile, works out at £2,008 a month, before tax. It means that on average, people spend 44% of their income on rent. It would be great if everyone was in a privileged position to live with their parents almost rent free until they could afford to buy but that is not a realistic option for a large section of a society. If people can’t afford to have families, the working population will drop dramatically and we will no longer have a functioning society. Whether landlords acknowledge it or not, the current housing system we have is contributing to social break down, fundamental change is needed.
If anyone genuinely thinks tenants giving up avocado on toast and lattes is going to solve the housing crisis then I can’t really help you there...
Thankyou Comrade Liz Davies. Proving that communists share what they haven't got. If l charged £20 and hour pus expenses l would be losing moneyhand over fist.s
If being a landlord does not make sense to you financially then maybe exit the market rather than moaning about the conditions that are frankly way more favourable to landlords than tenants. The property can then be used by an owner occupier or a landlord who can afford to offer a decent home in the current financial market. If your business model relies on tenants having to pay unaffordable rents, then it is not a sustainable investment in the long term.
Liz Davies
As a communist you like to pretend everything is free. Look what Stalin, chairman Mao and pol pot did ! My rents are very fair, but the government wants to hand over my business to their sponsors as they have with so much of Britain. Grant Shapps thinks he can buy everything from abroad, which is why we have an enormous balance of payment deficit and lots of derelict factories in the industrial heartlands.
Thinking that rents should be at a rate that working people can actually afford makes me a communist? God forbid you were to hear about the rent controls in the famous communist state of New York City. You are correct in that anger should be directed at our Government, not tenants who are the ones that suffer the most in this situation. A fairly regulated private rental sector fosters a happy healthy place, look at somewhere like Vienna. Even with fair rents there is profit to be made as long as landlords make sensible investments. Happy tenants = happy landlords, this is what everyone should be working towards, not an endless fight between landlords and tenants.
in an ideal world Liz problem is we don't live in an ideal world or even a fair one
Liz I was a union rep for years and I know a communist when I see one. New York , is that the place famous for people living in the undergrund, and the FBI have just raided the Mayors office ? Is that the place where big property developes get round rent contros by loopholes? . In the private sector prices are set by market forces. Council (social Housing) is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Immigration is at the root of most problems in Britain. It wasnt long ago that their was a surplus of housing in Britain. Since Blair we have had an open borders policy and are now importing Palestinians. This is creating interminable problems with the NHS, Housing, food, water and sewerage etc. and of course driving wages down.
Liz Davies
Your arguments are full of euphemisms, strung together with poor or bad grammar. You speak for your self so don't stay we, you are introducing collective responsibility for actions not approved or agreed to by others. Look at what Palestinians have done to the Lebanon, none of their neighbours want them. Saudia Arabia is big enough and rich enough to take them all.
Liz Davies, l am not asupporter of either side on the Israeli conflict. As a landlord l see a determined effort by the government to sequestrate my property as the conservatives have done to a lot of businesses.
Why is Palestine being bought into our housing problems???
Because she is obviously anti-Semitic.
Liz Davies
Those American companies that you are referring to are mainly monopolies, so why don't you complain to the completion and markets authority. If they are Evading tax you should complain to HMRC. You might want to complain about Whirlpool who have a virtual monopoly on washing machines and refrigerator manufacture, who are also American.
Nick the British government is bringing in refugees from the Gaza strip.
Sure. But it’s just increasing demand and not supply which is the real problem.
They could be importing them in from Timbuktu.
It’s just a diversion getting political. Whataboutery.
It think your last comment got deleted.
Bring in all they like but they won't be living in any of my properties
Edwin, I do hope not. We have enough trouble with the ones we have - just look at what they plann for tomorrow!
Play the ball not the player. We should be all mature enough to be able Io listen to views that differ from our own without personal insults being directed to each other which brings this forum to disrepute or worse still sanctioned.
The ultimate points of Liz & SBR particular debate is that if social responsibility applies to landlords then surely must apply universally so why aren't similar measures on everyday uses such as supermarkets or bus companies etc not also capped.
Please login to comment