Labour proposing to cap the amount a landlord can raise private rent to that of the value of inflation while you are in contract with them which is a stupid nothing policy because most tenants contracts are for a year and your rent doesn't go up in that period after the years up you are out of contract and so they can raise more than the value of inflation.
Media coverage is a bit odd all round really. This was a part of their manifesto, yet it only now gets drip-fed into the news.
It's not just the rent cap though, the manifesto wants 3-year tenancies to give tenants stability. All very laudable aims - until you start to think about the possible outcome. Tampering with markets is always dangerous. For example, will Ed be capping landlords' costs too? Like rates, compulsory boiler testing, etc, etc? Or will they be expecting them just to suck on it and take a hit? If the latter, I can see there being many more tenants whose stability will be sleeping in the gutter when landlords refuse to be crapped on and switch their properties over to short-term holiday lets, particularly in London.
This could well end up being another example of Labour meddling which goes pear-shaped.
Rent controls have been in place in New York for decades. If they didn't exist I don't think anyone earning less than the equivalent of £500,0000 a year, or being born into a wealthy family, or working as maid/servant/general lackey could afford to live in Manhatten.
Labour proposing to cap the amount a landlord can raise private rent to that of the value of inflation while you are in contract with them which is a stupid nothing policy because most tenants contracts are for a year and your rent doesn't go up in that period after the years up you are out of contract and so they can raise more than the value of inflation.
Media coverage is a bit odd all round really. This was a part of their manifesto, yet it only now gets drip-fed into the news.
It's not just the rent cap though, the manifesto wants 3-year tenancies to give tenants stability. All very laudable aims - until you start to think about the possible outcome. Tampering with markets is always dangerous. For example, will Ed be capping landlords' costs too? Like rates, compulsory boiler testing, etc, etc? Or will they be expecting them just to suck on it and take a hit? If the latter, I can see there being many more tenants whose stability will be sleeping in the gutter when landlords refuse to be crapped on and switch their properties over to short-term holiday lets, particularly in London.
This could well end up being another example of Labour meddling which goes pear-shaped.
With the amount of rented accommodation in this country there had better be a lot of holiday makers looking for those short term lets.
Is that it? IS THAT IT?!? I think we need a little more than that as a way of an explanation for your earlier post. I thought Fiiish and Chizz had bumped into each other, it had all kicked off and the OB were using this thread as evidence in their investigation. It's plainly not that so wtf was it all about?!?!?!
Is that it? IS THAT IT?!? I think we need a little more than that as a way of an explanation for your earlier post. I thought Fiiish and Chizz had bumped into each other, it had all kicked off and the OB were using this thread as evidence in their investigation. It's plainly not that so wtf was it all about?!?!?!
A drunken hallucination of an alien abduction and this thread was all they needed to give them the details of the weaknesses of our leaders, the panic is over because they saw the interview with Boris And realised their species had already arrived!
Labour proposing to cap the amount a landlord can raise private rent to that of the value of inflation while you are in contract with them which is a stupid nothing policy because most tenants contracts are for a year and your rent doesn't go up in that period after the years up you are out of contract and so they can raise more than the value of inflation.
Media coverage is a bit odd all round really. This was a part of their manifesto, yet it only now gets drip-fed into the news.
It's not just the rent cap though, the manifesto wants 3-year tenancies to give tenants stability. All very laudable aims - until you start to think about the possible outcome. Tampering with markets is always dangerous. For example, will Ed be capping landlords' costs too? Like rates, compulsory boiler testing, etc, etc? Or will they be expecting them just to suck on it and take a hit? If the latter, I can see there being many more tenants whose stability will be sleeping in the gutter when landlords refuse to be crapped on and switch their properties over to short-term holiday lets, particularly in London.
This could well end up being another example of Labour meddling which goes pear-shaped.
With the amount of rented accommodation in this country there had better be a lot of holiday makers looking for those short term lets.
Sorry. The suggestion is ludicrous.
It was merely an example, (I have a friend with a flat in Putney she now rents out having moved in with her boyfriend.) Despite being a staunch Labour supporter, she says she'll be taking her flat off the rental market if they get into power. And the National Landlords Assoc (yes, I know, they would say that) gives further food for thought maybe, pointing out the pitfalls while appearing to be generally supportive of the underlying idea:
Richard Lambert, Chief Exectuve Officer, NLA, said:
"We understand Labour wants to assure tenants they have their concerns at heart, but this policy will backfire because they don't understand the economics of supplying private housing to rent.
"These changes will have far-reaching consequences for the private rented sector, for landlords' willingness to put their own money into providing homes, and for mortgage lenders' view of the risk in supporting them. If these proposals are going to be rushed into the first Queen's Speech, less than a month away, without time to think through the consequences, Labour's good intentions could make the housing crisis worse, not better.
"NLA research has found that around two-thirds of landlords don't increase rents during a tenancy. Capping annual price rises to inflation sounds like a great consumer protection initiative, but wherever these formulas have been introduced, it’s proved to be counterproductive because it leads to a culture and expectation of regular increases by whatever is allowed.
"Restricting tax reliefs for landlords who don't keep their properties up to standard is a good headline, but it leaves many questions unanswered. Who decides that the restriction will bite and how would it be assessed?"
Boris Johnson is the man behind the Olympic Stadium deal which threatens the long term future of Charlton Athletic. When asked to answer questions about it this week by the Guardian his answer was "Bog off". However as a result of the articles, we've learnt that other people (not Charlton fans) are asking questions about this deal using Freedom of Information law. One of those questions directly addresses whether he circumvented due process to push the deal through.
I too enjoy him on have I got News for You. That should have been the pinnacle of his career. No other politician has so threatened the future of CAFC since Greenwich Council 25 years ago.
Labour proposing to cap the amount a landlord can raise private rent to that of the value of inflation while you are in contract with them which is a stupid nothing policy because most tenants contracts are for a year and your rent doesn't go up in that period after the years up you are out of contract and so they can raise more than the value of inflation.
Media coverage is a bit odd all round really. This was a part of their manifesto, yet it only now gets drip-fed into the news.
It's not just the rent cap though, the manifesto wants 3-year tenancies to give tenants stability. All very laudable aims - until you start to think about the possible outcome. Tampering with markets is always dangerous. For example, will Ed be capping landlords' costs too? Like rates, compulsory boiler testing, etc, etc? Or will they be expecting them just to suck on it and take a hit? If the latter, I can see there being many more tenants whose stability will be sleeping in the gutter when landlords refuse to be crapped on and switch their properties over to short-term holiday lets, particularly in London.
This could well end up being another example of Labour meddling which goes pear-shaped.
With the amount of rented accommodation in this country there had better be a lot of holiday makers looking for those short term lets.
Sorry. The suggestion is ludicrous.
It was merely an example, (I have a friend with a flat in Putney she now rents out having moved in with her boyfriend.) Despite being a staunch Labour supporter, she says she'll be taking her flat off the rental market if they get into power. And the National Landlords Assoc (yes, I know, they would say that) gives further food for thought maybe, pointing out the pitfalls while appearing to be generally supportive of the underlying idea:
Richard Lambert, Chief Exectuve Officer, NLA, said:
"We understand Labour wants to assure tenants they have their concerns at heart, but this policy will backfire because they don't understand the economics of supplying private housing to rent.
"These changes will have far-reaching consequences for the private rented sector, for landlords' willingness to put their own money into providing homes, and for mortgage lenders' view of the risk in supporting them. If these proposals are going to be rushed into the first Queen's Speech, less than a month away, without time to think through the consequences, Labour's good intentions could make the housing crisis worse, not better.
"NLA research has found that around two-thirds of landlords don't increase rents during a tenancy. Capping annual price rises to inflation sounds like a great consumer protection initiative, but wherever these formulas have been introduced, it’s proved to be counterproductive because it leads to a culture and expectation of regular increases by whatever is allowed.
"Restricting tax reliefs for landlords who don't keep their properties up to standard is a good headline, but it leaves many questions unanswered. Who decides that the restriction will bite and how would it be assessed?"
You have to laugh. I quote from above " landlords willingness to put their own money to provide homes"
Makes it sound like they are not getting a return. Nothing wrong in that of course but over the years the rental market has become full of unscrupulous landlords not willing to provide good quality for fair rental contracts purely because they can.
The rental market is now a substantial part of the housing stock and as such those availing themselves of that market deserve the laws surrounding rental property including agents to be tightened up.
Boris Johnson is the man behind the Olympic Stadium deal which threatens the long term future of Charlton Athletic. When asked to answer questions about it this week by the Guardian his answer was "Bog off". However as a result of the articles, we've learnt that other people (not Charlton fans) are asking questions about this deal using Freedom of Information law. One of those questions directly addresses whether he circumvented due process to push the deal through.
I too enjoy him on have I got News for You. That should have been the pinnacle of his career. No other politician has so threatened the future of CAFC since Greenwich Council 25 years ago.
Good point @PragueAddick and as someone who was critical about the Trust around the timing of the Powell interview . I would like to take this opportunity to praise you for the excellent work on this issue.
I understand that with the exception of the Valley Party that football should not be the major issue at election time . However , as this is a football forum with a particular interest in Charlton I think it is fair to comment from this perspective .
Johnson's decision making process here could have destroyed the potential of not just our club but other London clubs as well . The fact that Karren Brady and the man who made his millions from pornography David Sullivan are active Tories is interesting . Indeed the Baroness has been tipped as a potential Conservative nominee to succeed Johnson as Mayor . I wonder did David Cameron really make a gaff yesterday or was he trying to help the cause of his friends ?
In contrast despite the fact he is a Spanner Clive Efford is a genuine fan of the game . I understand that he also holds a first level FIFA coaching qualification . I also once went to Raith Rovers and sat a few rows behind Gordon Brown when he was PM . If that was just for publicity surely he would have chosen a more high profile team ? Roy Hattersley was at Hillsborough when we played them a few weeks ago .I could go on . In contrast the only current Tory who is genuinely a football fan is Kenneth Clarke who mainly supports Forest but does alternate between the two Nottingham clubs .
@RichardJ Great post. Thanks for the kind words. Also surprised Labour proposal to put supporters on the board of clubs within first 100 days has hardly been discussed on here in this thread (unless I missed it). I am not sure how workable it is in practice, but at least they (and I guess Clive Efford is the main man on this ) recognise the considerable disquiet many people feel about the way our game is going. If Labour get in, I'm going to lobby Ed Davey on the issue.
@cafcfan "It was merely an example, (I have a friend with a flat in Putney she now rents out having moved in with her boyfriend.) Despite being a staunch Labour supporter, she says she'll be taking her flat off the rental market if they get into power".
So what is she going to do with it. Keep it empty?
@cafcfan "It was merely an example, (I have a friend with a flat in Putney she now rents out having moved in with her boyfriend.) Despite being a staunch Labour supporter, she says she'll be taking her flat off the rental market if they get into power".
So what is she going to do with it. Keep it empty?
My question too.
It's a tricky area but I think the Germans have some control system in place. After all many of them - in the managerial class - rent all their lives. They would not do that if the rents kept going up.
@cafcfan "It was merely an example, (I have a friend with a flat in Putney she now rents out having moved in with her boyfriend.) Despite being a staunch Labour supporter, she says she'll be taking her flat off the rental market if they get into power".
So what is she going to do with it. Keep it empty?
My question too.
It's a tricky area but I think the Germans have some control system in place. After all many of them - in the managerial class - rent all their lives. They would not do that if the rents kept going up.
She's not sure yet. It will either switch to being a short-term holiday rental or she'll sell it. (I hope she does the latter - it will save me having to listen to endless stories about crap tenants, crap managing agents, crap mortgagors and late receipt of rent.)
Tessa Jowell has said that if landlord and prospective tenant agree, then any shorter period than 3 years will be acceptable. If she is telling the truth the Labour policy has no teeth in controlling rent levels. This was on Sunday Politics which has just finished.
But to be fair perhaps she was making it up on the hoof.
So if I wanted to move into rented accommodation I am stuck with a three year contract? Or is it just the landlord that gets shafted?
No one gets shafted, the landlord just has to offer an assured period of time it would be in the tenancy agreement that a period of say 30 days notice would have to be given/paid before the tenancy is ended. No different to now but the tenant gets a bit more security rather than not knowing where they'll be living in 6 months. Personally I think landlords should offer longer tenancies. Pernamant assured with conditions.
Is that it? IS THAT IT?!? I think we need a little more than that as a way of an explanation for your earlier post. I thought Fiiish and Chizz had bumped into each other, it had all kicked off and the OB were using this thread as evidence in their investigation. It's plainly not that so wtf was it all about?!?!?!
After a brief chat with Alison Saunders, I think everything will be OK
So if I wanted to move into rented accommodation I am stuck with a three year contract? Or is it just the landlord that gets shafted?
No one gets shafted, the landlord just has to offer an assured period of time it would be in the tenancy agreement that a period of say 30 days notice would have to be given/paid before the tenancy is ended. No different to now but the tenant gets a bit more security rather than not knowing where they'll be living in 6 months. Personally I think landlords should offer longer tenancies. Pernamant assured with conditions.
I don't understand what the difference is. Surely if you sign a one year contract you know that in one year your contract is up. Where is the additional security?
Most amusing thing was, that I put on the request for no more contributions to this thread until sorted out and I think there was even more than usual.
Make you right MrOneLung when you sign the agreement you know the length of time involved and some people may only want 6 months for what ever reasons, labour are basically making ripples without putting there foot in, pretending they care as a lot of people grumble about landlords and rents hoping to entice them to vote.
Labour proposing to cap the amount a landlord can raise private rent to that of the value of inflation while you are in contract with them which is a stupid nothing policy because most tenants contracts are for a year and your rent doesn't go up in that period after the years up you are out of contract and so they can raise more than the value of inflation.
Media coverage is a bit odd all round really. This was a part of their manifesto, yet it only now gets drip-fed into the news.
It's not just the rent cap though, the manifesto wants 3-year tenancies to give tenants stability. All very laudable aims - until you start to think about the possible outcome. Tampering with markets is always dangerous.
For example, will Ed be capping landlords' costs too? Like rates, compulsory boiler testing, etc, etc? Or will they be expecting them just to suck on it and take a hit? If the latter, I can see there being many more tenants whose stability will be sleeping in the gutter when landlords refuse to be crapped on and switch their properties over to short-term holiday lets, particularly in London.
This could well end up being another example of Labour meddling which goes pear-shaped.
But it's perfectly acceptable to "tamper with the market" if it's a Tory policy in relation to the amount of social/council housing available?
Of course, numerous examples of big corporations exploiting children/using slave labour today too. But it wont help to interfere - just let them get on with it. Unchecked capitalism needs a rethink.
If we're judging companies by existing in nazi germany then can we judge ed miliband because his father was a marxist? No. Because that would be absurd, obviously. This video is the same. It's like it was put together by some one with a history gcse who thinks socialism is a jolly good idea cos the rich popular kids would be taken down a peg or two.
Of course, numerous examples of big corporations exploiting children/using slave labour today too. But it wont help to interfere - just let them get on with it. Unchecked capitalism needs a rethink.
because governments have never used slave labour... oh, errr... something to do with germany i think... and soviet union of course. What a fun regulated economy that was.
Comments
It's not just the rent cap though, the manifesto wants 3-year tenancies to give tenants stability. All very laudable aims - until you start to think about the possible outcome. Tampering with markets is always dangerous.
For example, will Ed be capping landlords' costs too? Like rates, compulsory boiler testing, etc, etc? Or will they be expecting them just to suck on it and take a hit? If the latter, I can see there being many more tenants whose stability will be sleeping in the gutter when landlords refuse to be crapped on and switch their properties over to short-term holiday lets, particularly in London.
This could well end up being another example of Labour meddling which goes pear-shaped.
Sorry. The suggestion is ludicrous.
Is that it? IS THAT IT?!? I think we need a little more than that as a way of an explanation for your earlier post. I thought Fiiish and Chizz had bumped into each other, it had all kicked off and the OB were using this thread as evidence in their investigation. It's plainly not that so wtf was it all about?!?!?!
Did you hide in the panic room or fight your way out through the ruski bstds, thought we had lost u for a bit there Ross old pal
Richard Lambert, Chief Exectuve Officer, NLA, said:
"We understand Labour wants to assure tenants they have their concerns at heart, but this policy will backfire because they don't understand the economics of supplying private housing to rent.
"These changes will have far-reaching consequences for the private rented sector, for landlords' willingness to put their own money into providing homes, and for mortgage lenders' view of the risk in supporting them. If these proposals are going to be rushed into the first Queen's Speech, less than a month away, without time to think through the consequences, Labour's good intentions could make the housing crisis worse, not better.
"NLA research has found that around two-thirds of landlords don't increase rents during a tenancy. Capping annual price rises to inflation sounds like a great consumer protection initiative, but wherever these formulas have been introduced, it’s proved to be counterproductive because it leads to a culture and expectation of regular increases by whatever is allowed.
"Restricting tax reliefs for landlords who don't keep their properties up to standard is a good headline, but it leaves many questions unanswered. Who decides that the restriction will bite and how would it be assessed?"
Boris Johnson is the man behind the Olympic Stadium deal which threatens the long term future of Charlton Athletic. When asked to answer questions about it this week by the Guardian his answer was "Bog off". However as a result of the articles, we've learnt that other people (not Charlton fans) are asking questions about this deal using Freedom of Information law. One of those questions directly addresses whether he circumvented due process to push the deal through.
I too enjoy him on have I got News for You. That should have been the pinnacle of his career. No other politician has so threatened the future of CAFC since Greenwich Council 25 years ago.
Makes it sound like they are not getting a return. Nothing wrong in that of course but over the years the rental market has become full of unscrupulous landlords not willing to provide good quality for fair rental contracts purely because they can.
The rental market is now a substantial part of the housing stock and as such those availing themselves of that market deserve the laws surrounding rental property including agents to be tightened up.
Good point @PragueAddick and as someone who was critical about the Trust around the timing of the Powell interview . I would like to take this opportunity to praise you for the excellent work on this issue.
I understand that with the exception of the Valley Party that football should not be the major issue at election time . However , as this is a football forum with a particular interest in Charlton I think it is fair to comment from this perspective .
Johnson's decision making process here could have destroyed the potential of not just our club but other London clubs as well . The fact that Karren Brady and the man who made his millions from pornography David Sullivan are active Tories is interesting . Indeed the Baroness has been tipped as a potential Conservative nominee to succeed Johnson as Mayor . I wonder did David Cameron really make a gaff yesterday or was he trying to help the cause of his friends ?
In contrast despite the fact he is a Spanner Clive Efford is a genuine fan of the game . I understand that he also holds a first level FIFA coaching qualification . I also once went to Raith Rovers and sat a few rows behind Gordon Brown when he was PM . If that was just for publicity surely he would have chosen a more high profile team ? Roy Hattersley was at Hillsborough when we played them a few weeks ago .I could go on . In contrast the only current Tory who is genuinely a football fan is Kenneth Clarke who mainly supports Forest but does alternate between the two Nottingham clubs .
So what is she going to do with it. Keep it empty?
It's a tricky area but I think the Germans have some control system in place. After all many of them - in the managerial class - rent all their lives. They would not do that if the rents kept going up.
But to be fair perhaps she was making it up on the hoof.
If we're judging companies by existing in nazi germany then can we judge ed miliband because his father was a marxist? No. Because that would be absurd, obviously. This video is the same. It's like it was put together by some one with a history gcse who thinks socialism is a jolly good idea cos the rich popular kids would be taken down a peg or two. because governments have never used slave labour... oh, errr... something to do with germany i think... and soviet union of course. What a fun regulated economy that was.