A pressure group within the Labour Party wants a future government to provide £15 billion over 10 years to allow half a million private rental properties to be purchased by the state.
The Fabian Society - a group usually regarded as being on the right of the Labour Party - says in a lengthy policy statement that “the government should introduce a locally led scheme to purchase private rented homes and turn them into social rented homes.”
It says: “This scheme should largely focus on purchasing homes that are empty, non-decent or energy inefficient (ie below EPC C). Local authorities and housing associations should have the right of first refusal to purchase any houses of multiple occupancy or ex-council houses sold under right to buy when they are being sold.
“The government should consider reforming tax reliefs or exemptions to encourage the sale of properties to local authorities and housing associations under this scheme, and to make it cheaper to refurbish these properties for example by removing or reducing VAT on energy efficiency improvements, for example.”
In addition the same policy statement wants a government private rented leasing scheme, to enable the lease of residential properties from private landlords to local authorities for a minimum of five years.
“It would improve access to affordable and good quality homes in the private rented sector, particularly for those in receipt of benefits, who are vulnerable, or at risk of homelessness.
“Risk for the landlord would be reduced as management of the properties would be put in the hands of local authorities which would also be responsible for providing additional tailored support and advice. Rent would be guaranteed for the landlord and payable at the level of the local area’s local housing allowance (LHA) rate with a management fee deducted which would be shared by the authorities involved.”
The Fabians also echo the calls of other left groups in demanding “stronger renter protections and greater security of tenure.”
It wants the abolition of Section 21 eviction powers and a “move to periodic tenancies with limited grounds for repossession.” In detail this would mean that landlords should be prevented from being able to use an eviction notice for at least the first year of a tenancy, in the case of repossession for selling or occupying the property.
The notice period for evictions should be increased to four months, and a permanent ban on winter evictions should be legislated for.
As well as that, the Fabians want landlords to make a ‘relocation payment’ for tenants forced to move if a landlord wishes to sell the property, move themselves or close family into the property, or if they wish to increase rents above a certain percentage determined by the government and tenants decide not to pay the new rate.
“These payments should be worth at least two months’ rent. Relocation payments will shift power to tenants, protecting them from landlords seeking to exploit unaffordable rent increases to circumvent security for tenants” says the society’s statement.
The Fabians also want a a national landlord register that covers the entire private rental sector, holiday lets and AirBnBs.
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
OMG. The U.K. is now Cuckooland? I want, I want, I want. What is in all of this for landlords?
More confiscation tabled here with right to buy and eviction bans every winter hahahahaha. How long is the winter? October until September?
The courts can’t cope as it is let alone holding back and then dumping a load more evictions once it’s allowed again.
Yes it's all about landlords isn't it.
It’s about everyone Sandra.
Think Sandra needs a cuddle, very upset today (again).
Sandra didn't respond to our questions previously.
Yes Nick- It’s Dictatorship. Say no more.
Ah poor landlords.. well not.
Risk for the landlord would be reduced as management of the properties would be put in the hands of local authorities
Delusional thats a huge risk in itself
And LA will ‘deduct a management fee’ from the pitifully inadequate LHA rate.
We will all be queuing round the block to get on board with this then!!
😂 with what ? Chocolate buttons 💰💰 we are a bankrupt nation, they are still selling off council properties on the cheap 🤐. Everyday there seems to be more crackpots trying to make fools of themselves.
The "chocolate buttons" come from out taxes, so effectively we buy our own rentals and gift them to the government
I've got one they can buy - but will they want to pay market price & where will all the extra money come to upgrade all these properties? Given that they will then be rented out at LHA it sounds like an expensive operation to run!
What is also missed is that most councils sold their housing stock because it was too difficult / expensive to run. Nottingham City Council is selling off Victorian properties as we speak, despite a shortage of social housing, presumably for those very reasons!
Nottingham also sold a vast amount of these for the exact same reason 8 years ago. They were all in appalling condition. I looked at about 30 of them at the time but they were all so bad with damp etc I didn't invest in these. Councils caused these problems. But all they will do is put tenants into the shiny empty new blocks of flats marked for 'students' and thereby start Nottinghams 15 min city off with a bang.
They can buy all of mine as soon as they wish. So long as they pay market value.
So many groups full of sh*t where does £15b come from, the tax payers already over loaded. So take all those renting away from private landlords and house them under the arm of Social housing ? no extra people getting house.
The billions of Landlords tax receipts would be missing Councils don’t pay 40% / 45% tax if we didn’t have to pay tax we could under cut housing allowance.
So many Charities very charitable with our acids no input of their own its what everyone else should do.
A nice level playing field discounts and subsidised all around so the licensing Schemes that can go immediately, do you loose those billions as well.
Reinstate S.21, Scrap THE RENTERS BILL now the root cause of unaffordable housing, it was affordable before this nonsense Bill put forward by Gove.
No the right to buy scheme started by Thatcher and not there isn't enough of them to house people who badly homes.
Sandra, I didn’t see Labour put an end to Right to Buy in their 13 years?
I feel sorry for the neighbours.
Perhaps this is a case where NIMBYs really should spring into action.
Something has to happen now private landlords have been so disincentivised from operating in the lower end of the market but some of the above proposals are horrendous.
I'm not opposed to Social tenants in general (I used to be one myself). A great many are thoroughly decent people, however, some really aren't. I've experienced the reality of living next-door to a private sector house that was leased to the Council and currently own an ex Council flat directly under a Council owned one. I can confidently say the Council puts absolutely no consideration for the neighbours into their allocation procedures. Having also lived on a Council estate back in the 1980s I can see why there is sometimes a mismatch. When paying ludicrously low Council rent it's much easier to ignore some of less desirable behaviour of neighbours. Back then it was mainly domestic violence and petty theft. You kind of accept it's the price you pay for cheap rent. It doesn't transfer so well to the private sector where rent is more realistic.
Local authorities are appalling at evicting anti social tenants. They happily house drug addicts and sex offenders in the most inappropriate housing and then sit back for years while they cause havoc.
Paying rent for PRS housing at LHA minus a management fee would only work if LHA was restored to at least the 30th percentile rent, BRMAs were much, much smaller and they were appropriately adjusted every 12 months without fail.
I'm not opposed to tweaking Section 21 for genuinely perfect long term tenants in the incredibly rare event of them being evicted. Someone who has fully adhered to their tenancy agreement and always paid their rent in full and on time shouldn't have to fully fund their moving costs just because the landlord wants to sell. Two months rent refunded along with their deposit within 10 days of vacating the property strikes me as fair to both sides. It would also be a powerful incentive to make the move within the eviction timeframe. Whether it's 2 months or 4 months for a genuinely blameless tenant is largely irrelevant as long as they do actually vacate within that period. Obviously the two months refund wouldn't happen if they overstayed.
The real issue is what to do with anti social or non paying tenants. Until someone comes up with a suitable solution for where they go after eviction the whole system just creaks along.
The Renters Reform Coalition - Acorn, Shelter, Generation Rent etc - also want landlords to have to pay tenants two months rent to find somewhere else to live. That is one of their proposals for making the Renters Reform Bill even tougher on landlords.
And manipulating the tax system - Section 24 changes and reducing capital gains tax with time etc. won't make landlords continue in the business under that legislation.
Ellie - you may have a point where small landlords are concerned.
Portfolio landlords are far more heavily impacted by Section 24, so it is of far greater concern to us.
CGT is of far more concern to long term Southern landlords than short term or Northern landlords.
Some of us have always let tenancies roll onto SPTs so having undefined length tenancies is what we have always done anyway. It will cause problems in the student market and winter lets but for everyone else works perfectly well. The vast majority of tenants move when they feel like it, the majority of landlords want to keep good tenants for as long as possible (often keeping rents artificially low to retain them). Not having regular tenancy renewal dates just means you don't have silly decisions being made and probably have less churn. Rents can be increased every 12 months on an SPT so that isn't a problem.
A very small percentage of tenants get evicted each year. Of that very small percentage a lot would be fault based Section 8 so no compensation due.
I don't agree with you Jo. Most landlords - all to whom I have spoken - may have periodic tenancies but they don't want very long term lets. They do not see themselves as providing permanent homes for people. That is not the role of the private rental sector - it is the role of social housing.
Many landlords don't increase rents at all for existing tenants; they wait for a new tenant to put the rent up in line with market conditions. Also they carry out any major repairs/improvements when the property is empty - very difficult to do that when it is occupied.
The focus on student landlords is really something of a red herring in this debate. No rational landlord wants to lose control of his/her property. Hence the signficant fall in supply and the rise in rents we have already witnessed. That situation will become considerably worse as the legislation becomes close to being in force.
Ellie - you view things pretty much exactly opposite to me on some points. Doesn't mean either of us are right or wrong, just different.
I like to provide long term homes for people. I like to see them put down roots, make their homes their own, turn their gardens into a tropical oasis. One of my tenants has assured me he won't be leaving until he's in a pine box. I think it's nice to provide people with that sense of security.
My younger tenants tend to move on when they meet their dream partner, get a job promotion that requires relocating or buy a house. I get genuinely excited for them. It's lovely to see them moving on to the next step.
It probably helps that my son wants to be a landlord and continue with the business long term. I just hope the government sees sense and reverses some of the more unpalatable stuff they've done recently. Section 24 being the main problem.
Ellie 100% get your point of view on this. I've changed my mind on tenant types. I don't want to rent to someone long term now because the Gov are interfering with our original agreements. How can anyone make & keep a contract with a tenant on a property not knowing what we would be subjected to in 5 yrs time. Long term is the role of social housing
I’m with Ellie as in I prefer my commitment short term (was say 2 years, but a new AST would be 6 months!). If they are a good tenant sure I’ll let them stay 20 years. BUT I DON’T WANT TO BE FORCED TO DO IT!
I see tenants differently from you, Jo. I think they should buy their own properties and not waste all their money in rent. Rent is dead money for them.
The private rental sector should provide temporary accommodation for them for one reason or another. The threat of this legislation has frightened landlords sufficiently for many to stop operating so that rents have risen greatly- now making it difficult for tenants to put aside some money for a deposit while they are renting.
I agree Nick - we don't want to be compelled to house people - there are many reasons why that is wrong.
As Ellie’s last post I am frightened. I am reducing my portfolio. I got rid of the Nigerian mould growing compensation seeking s**t. Whilst I can have my pick of tenants I don’t want them. But I fear I also cannot sell….. so I may be forced to stay a landlord of this particular property… in which case I want ‘SHORT TERM’.
Ellie - my long term ones are mainly older men who have been divorced a few times. It's too late for them to buy again and they have all been told they haven't got sufficient priority to even get on the Social Housing list.
Where do you propose they live when home ownership and Social Housing aren't options?
All of my tenancies start as 6 month ASTs for non students or 11 months for students.
I think those men should still try to buy something - even if it means moving to a cheaper area - that is the way that they would gain the necessary security.
Of course, there are people who are not capable of buying anything or who choose to live from day to day - that is not reprehensible at all; it can be a legitimate life choice. The council or a housing association should provide them with permanent accommodation. It should not be for another private individual to HAVE to house them for life.
I hope you find a good short-term tenant Nick. You deserve a bit of luck, now, after what you went through - terrible!
I'm with you on this Jo. I see my role as a Landlord as a partnership with the tenant, though in my favour. I usually want long term tenants and I mostly get on with them very well. My tenants normally stay with me for years, longest one currently is since 2002. She lives in a village where the cheap houses are circa £300,000 but the average would be £600,000. In either instance she has no chance of buying. She has only just retired at 79 and has run a business but lost it in 2008. These things happen. She has been one of my best tenants, however Section 24 is threatening her being able to continue in this property. My blood boils at this and I'm doing everything I can to make the small remainder of my portfolio work.
That said I can see Ellie's and Nick's point of view. The good part is that we can both exist, or could. Section 24 is destroying private Landlord's whom have a mortgage, simple.
I welcome these Fabians to get into being a Landlord. They can borrow money off the banks and would get a vast portfolio. In a very short time they would be changing their minds when the sums don't work as they pay tax on turn over and when tenants stop paying and you have a broken Court system to get them out, then maybe some reality would come to the fore.
It always causes me dismay when clearly all thinking is that Landlord's are greedy people whom just want to make money. Of course we want to make money on our investment as any business, the good ones provide an excellent house and all is good, the bad one don't so much. All these busy bodies and Government muppets should allow market forces to dictate. IT WORKS.
Thank you Ellie
500,000 properties for £15bn that's Diane Abbott maths again working out at £30,000 per property plus refurb costs. Unless they intend to expropriate properties without compensation.
Mmm, maybe this is why they are crashing the housing market and gives us an indication of what they intend to pay
That's nothing, Welsh Assembly want to build 20,000 new ( Carbon neutral as well ) properties by 2026 for an allocated £59 Million.
Less than £ 3,000 per property !
Maybe they only want to buy in the North? Still be tricky to fund the refurbs though.
They're forgetting market forces are in charge but lefties don't understand or want market forces.
Why don't they move to Russia who thinks like them and is looking for young people of fighting age?
Russia is not a communist state.
That ended in 89.
Buy them off of us at full market value and we pay no CGT on the sale as an incentive. We get to keep the profit tax free. That might tempt us.
One good point they make but, in my opinion, don't go far enough. Why not take the VAT off energy efficiency measures now, for everyone? This would incentivise owner/occupiers to improve their homes' efficiency, as welll as making it more financially viable for landlords. This would improve the whole housing stock.
Why don't these Crackpots come up with something a little more creative. If they think this will solve it they are absolutely off their boxes.
15bn equates to 30k per house so obviously not done their sums, also ban on winter evictions? I can see a load of tenants deciding not to pay rent from October onwards and having a cracking Christmas at the landlords expense...! Do not know where these Jockeys get their ideas.
Out of Christmas crackers?
Plenty of these kind of properties in auctions to be bought right now, what will the people living next door have to say when the council move the great unwashed in ?
I want to see property come down so low that even more can afford a decent roof over there heads and I'm sick of landlords crying we're the victims.
I see the offended where there's nothing to be offended about are out again...!
In the long run it's tenants who will be crying
We are sick and tired off people like you that want everything for nothing. And no thanks offered for it either.
Morning Sandra, I’m not a victim at all, the real victims will be the evicted tenants when I, and thousands like me sell up, this is BUSINESS, not personal, we on this forum are simply pointing out what is likely to happen. The majority of us will walk away with a small fortune (even after CGT), no tears 😭 for me, consider the tenants when there are no alternatives to OUR private rentals.
What are you doing on a Landlords website then other than regularly trolling.
Clearly nothing better to do
Why not get a second job instead of sitting on yiur arse trolling landlords.
Then you might be able to buy a property instead of stewing in jealousy and entitlement.
I pity your Landlord.
You ARE the example of a nad tenant. I hope he puts you on a list so that other landlords can steer clear of you.
Looney left sums it up.
And (sorry just getting over the choking fit I've had laughing so much about this idea!!) how on earth could local councils cope with all implementing all the mad proposals they are coming up with!!
Sandra Boxes-Rennox might get taken a little more seriously if she could write english properly without all the grammatical errors, and a better grasp of arithmetic might be usefull too
She does have a double-barrelled surname. I would have thought that she either comes from money or at least had an eduction where she would have a decent job to buy a property.
Syntax is also in need of improvement.
Nick
Some very posh people can believe they're victims and also be very thick
Look at poor old Harry!
Agree Robert. I would not want to get caught alone with Bowes-Rennox incase I get accused of sexual assault! She can be a victim of anything it looks like.
Loony lefties are living in another cockooland planet. They seem to make their laws without knowing or understanding the housing and rental issues. They are encouraging bad tenants, who can spend their money i. shopping and stay rent free. Why can't they ask shops to give free food, clothing etc to the hard done by tenants. Why target the landlords only? Are they easy targets for so called charities, who do nothing for tenants, government, who do not know how to manage safe and healthy rental accomodation for the needy tenants? They should only speak after providing genuine help by providing suitable housing and managing it well. Otherwise they should not be allowed to say anything. A lot of tenants are good but there are some who bring a lot of stress to landlords and through experience, these tenants should not be allowed in PRS but social housing only. This is wbere Acorn anf other shelters and charities can help anti social, non paying tenants but they should never interfere the PRS. The charities need to do something practical good rather than dictating to the PRS.
Doesn't English usually have a capital E?
Useful only has one l.
Apart from that you've got a point.
Thanks you Jo for spottng this week's deliberate mistake, at least someone understands English 😋😋😋
Once again pathetic maths…took 20 seconds to workout its £30K as others have indicated. What part of economics do the LABOUR Party actually understand because finance isn’t part of it..Laughable…!
I think their £30,000 per house is based upon Labour getting in and 1) crashing the economy even more and 2) based upon their communist rule. Probably enforcing landlords to refurbish everything all at their own costs.
That’s probably the plan with Chancellor Abbott steering the ship…
I was going to mention the word Abbott but it’s so cliche now.. 😀
LOL, honestly, this is the first time I've felt genuinely sorry for landlords in this country. As a tenant, I don't support these ridiculous proposals. LLs should be able to run a profitable business from letting out their properties, but there should probably be a market rent regulator to set boundaries based on factors such as mortgage rates and if a property is fully paid for or not. They should also be able to evict bad tenants. There obviously has to be a common sense balance, but most importantly to stop using the over used "vulnerable groups" cliche as an excuse to fleece landlords and use them as a cash cow. No government can be trusted, they are all corrupt and only use divide and rule tactics. Over regulation doesn't benefit anyone except the government, until they realize it doesn't work
Yes thank you Jason ' a common sense ballance''is all most of us want
Some common sense from Jason 👍. Can’t say i agree 100% with all of it and as usual there will be counter arguments and how to measure and judge all of that but at least it’s a good balanced point of view. Not like the current nonsense coming out of the Department of Levelling Down and the opposite side.
Flicker, have you been reprogrammed??? The first post that has been both balanced and made sense…!
Well wonders never cease Jason. Or is it that you and other renters are now realising that Gov S24, EPC interest rates & GR,Acorn,Shelter are making renting a property extremely expensive for you (as well as us)
I been doing this for a long time and it wasn’t a problem until these groups started making political hay from all this and you right it won’t work
‘Over regulation doesn't benefit anyone except the government, until they realize it doesn't work‘
There seems to be this myth that social housing is maintained to as high or higher standard than private rented housing. An understandable assumption, given that social housing providers often benefit from lower supply costs due to the ability to bulk buy and employ their own maintenance teams, but it is a myth that is easily debunked by looking at annual housing statistics. Private landlords have a huge incentive to ensure that their properties are maintained and want to hang on to good tenants. I am not planning to make any of my tenants homeless, but if they leave if their own accord, I'll sell, despite the demand. There's simply too much pressure.
Social housing is maintaind to a very poor standard, but in their defence look at the people they house, I had a tenant a few yrs ago who worked for a housing assocation, now she could tell some stories about their tenants
Have the council's forgotten how useless they are at managing LL's home?
Demand,Demand,Demand
SO Bye, Bye,Bye
Fabian society is a hard left Trotskyite outfit who's mission is a communist state with no property ownership and wealth redistributed to all the lazy oiks who live on welfare and open borders.
Any Labour government taking their suggestions on board will be joining the Tory party in oblivion.
Don't forget the World Economic Forum prediction. "By 2030 you will own nothing and be happy". Open borders a divided society with and the mentally deranged in power.
Please login to comment