.png)
A Tory has slammed the proposed clampdown on short lets proposed by Housing Secretary Michael Gove - and he calls them “wretched restrictions”.
Writing on the Conservative Home website, Charles Amos - who studied Political Theory at the University of Oxford and writes a blog called The Musing Individualist - makes a case for a libertarian assessment of Gove’s proposals.
Amos says the chief justification for the changes is to make more homes affordable for local people. But he says: “Local people have no inherent right to live where they were brought up, let alone at an affordable price.”
And he goes on: “The moral idea local people have a right ‘to live in the place they call home’ must be rejected and with it, the justification for requiring planning permission for short-term lets.”
More broadly, he also argues: “When both locals and tourists wish to live in an area, house prices will rise, increasing the profits of building houses there, and eventually increasing their supply to meet both wants.
By partially stopping the increased demand via increased planning permission, by stopping some short-term lets, these profits do not arise, and, thus, neither does the expansion in the housing supply.”
Amos also - possibly most controversially - suggests a proposed ban on Section 21 evictions effectively legalises theft of a property by a tenant.
Arguing this he says: “Tenants occupying a landlord’s house when he wishes to retake possession of it when a fixed term lease comes to an end are committing theft just as much, and, even if the state legalises this, it remains wrong.”
He concludes: “A liberal society that respects private property must oppose these wretched restrictions with the utmost force. Only then will it truly respect the sanctity of each owner himself.”
You can read the full piece here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/03/11/charles-amos-goves-restrictions-on-landlords-legalise-theft-opposing-them-is-a-moral-necessity/
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
I wish he was heading the Dept of Levelling Down. We might just start heading up.
Yep agreed. Sounds like common sense. Is this really from a politician?
I’ve heard his name. I heard about 50 MPs are blocking this reform bill nonsense. He’s probably one of them.
He is a former UKIP member and supporter of Dear Old Maggie, so a real Conservative and not this plastic set of Left Wing Researchers we have now looking for click bait.
Charles Amos. Hats off at least someone understands if you buy something it doesn’t belong to someone else.
Shelter & Generation Rent have no concept of that and will collapse the economy. Come on now why would I buy a property for another person probably a stranger.
At least someone with a brain and common sense
Andrew, perhaps they should join Reform.
If his views were implemented then everything would improve immensely for tenants, not deteriorate dramatically as is the current situation due to the Renters Reform legislation.
Few landlords will hand their properties over indefinitely to tenants because that is not viewed as a rational business decision for most people.
Wow 👍🏻 He needs to be PM 🏡🏡
Finally, a Tory with a brain and a set who is brave enough to state the obvious truth.
He probably owns holiday lets
Uncomfortable as it maybe for Shelter, Gen Rant, Acorn et al and this hopeless Gov, the
end of fixed term tenancies and the reinforcement of a tenants ‘right to remain’ IS theft of a private asset. No politically correct wrapper can disguise it.
Charles Amos has to be commended, which is more than can be said of Bungling Beadle.
What a breath of fresh air to hear from someone sensible who understands cause and effect. How much damage will be done before other politicians realise that if you use legalised theft against landlords there will be no new landlords? Even the big boys won’t invest in a business that can be sequestered, profit capped and over regulated.
Thing is the big boys and doing Build to Rent. Like Lloyds and Blackstone. I can't understand why??
On another point Mr Amos is correct. People do not have a right to live where they grew up unfortunately. I grew up in a very nice area (with few BTL properties and almost no short or holiday lets) which is popular to live in so prices are relatively high. I couldn't afford to buy a first house here but did what I needed to, which was to move a few miles to a less expensive area and come back when I could afford it a little later in life. My children are doing the same.
This is completely unrelated to rental properties or landlords so why should landlords be scapegoated for it?
Political theory , now that’s a conundrum
They should really call it a load of utter twaddle
A degree us Politics is poor indeed for a serious subject.
Mistakes
1 Apart from Section 21. These are all tax changes:
A) They merely level the playing field with companies.
B) They remove unfair competition; eg for hotels.
C) Damage to local communites is a valid argument give A and B.
Section 21 is a social policy decision, partly connected with making a stable environment for children.
Graham Cox
Retired economist; badly affected by Osborne's changes.
Begs the question....where have you been for the last few years?
Nick they are building 2 Rent to make profit on our backs created by us.
What could be better for them than attacking us driving up Rents ready for them to take over, aren’t their Rents Sky high it might disguise that fact if we charge more.
I understand. But with all the regulation coming in and loss of control. Why would they invest. As private landlords are getting out, why are they getting in?
Nick, I think of part of the reason is that some of the large companies with the huge buildings offer students a licence agreement and not an assured shorthold tenancy. There is thus no risk of those agreements becoming life long tenancies. Some universities e.g. UCL will offer a rent guarantee to big landlords with students in purpose built accommodation who have been given a licence agreement, but will only offer the the same guarantee to private landlords if they offer the students a shorthold assured tenancy.
That’s exactly it Ellie a special contract to protect their corporate investment
Thanks Ellie. But what about the rest of the BTR market? It's not all for students. I think it was Blackrock in the news recently buying a whole new housing estate in Essex. All to rent. I can't understand it.
I believe, Nick, that I saw a huge new housing complex in my area (not for students - for anyone) which was again offering licence agreements, not shorthold assured tenancies. This was some time back and I don't have a very clear memory about it - but I think that the licence agreement was justified as a result of the extent of services provided.
Emily everyone is welcome to live where I grew up. Single glazed sash windows, no central heating obviously as we had no running water, no electricity (candles a necessity not a novelty) or gas not even portable, no toilets or Bathrooms, the open fire had to do all whether cooking, baking bread or boiling the washing before WM were available, no telly, radio yes 2 batteries dry battery and wet Acid battery, had to grow everything to eat and preserve to survive them skills now lost. No welfare benefits you are having a laugh. I remember the whole class room in winter standing in freezing weather with no shoes
Yes everyone welcome to live there if you survive that you can take on the world.
People today don’t know they are born sees everything as entitled. I think that I have enough experience to write a book on caveman never mind HMO’s licensing.
As you say they are 'entitled' generations.
Nick, BTR corporations have already been given an unfair tax advantage over private landlords. It is undoubted that an unfair advantage regarding evictions will also be given to them by way of some dodge such as a license to rent rather than tenancy agreement which is the law for private landlords.
The Govt intends to continue to shaft private landlords in favour of corporate landlords until most of us have exited the market. The landlords remaining will have their properties confiscated by the LA or forced to take on council tenants.
The corporate landlords will be allowed to have the best tenants and will be allowed to evict at will.
Laws will be changed to allow this.
Oh what a mess. But there was a lot of sense in the head artical and interesting comments there after.
Total shambles, the PRS. Just because the reluctance of every government to increase stock of properties for social housing. Then so called, useless charities dictate what the landlords should do, which includes minimal or no rights to their own properties. It is of course theft, even if legalised. The article talk sense. Shame, that others without properties to rent out or lifting a finger to help or assist any tenants from their charitable funds, sits on their assets and move their fingers on their keyboard and shoots ridiculous ideas to encourage theft and mis behaviour by the tenants. They are making out tenants are all good but the landlords are all bad and making a lot of money. They forget the huge expenses the landlords have on an ongoing basis. No one has the right to stay in the same area as they grew up. If those people cannot afford the rent they should move to cheaper areas or stay at home with their parents. The rent is based on supply and demand and stupid charities and government needs to understand simple economics. Or they should start investing their money to rent out their properties.
I think the Gov’s aim is to replace the smaller Private landlord with the ‘Corporate Private Landlord’ often listed co’s with pension funds underpinning the financials and Gov providing ongoing tax payer subsidy wrapped up as ‘contracted out service purchasing’. Not to mention, providing tax breaks, cheap land deals and legislative exemptions all providing a juicy carrot.
The result will be higher rents and very poor ‘stack em high’ housing for the masses.
Any tenants too difficult to house will be thrown into a far smaller but ‘trapped in PRS light’ comprising the remnants of smaller landlords. This fits with the Eaton boys financial appetite and ticks all the boxes for fat dividends and fatter directorships across multiple corporates.
Please login to comment