Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Early Riser said:
The solution here is to provide better security for good tenants. You and your family should not have been penalised because of your landlord's difficulty with the bank.
Click to expand...
If I as a tenant can walk away from my tenancy agreement with little or no notice or penalty then my landlord should be able to do the same. If my tenancy rights are to be strengthened then so should by obligations.
 

I totally agree, why should they have better tenancy rights than you. Your rights should match their rights. You should have greater security of tenure.
Just because somebody owns a property, shouldn't mean they can treat those that occupy it in whichever they see fit.
 
Purple said:
If I as a tenant can walk away from my tenancy agreement with little or no notice or penalty then my landlord should be able to do the same. If my tenancy rights are to be strengthened then so should by obligations.
Click to expand...

Great, what do you propose?
 
Great, what do you propose?
 
Purple said:
Make tenancies more like commercial leases. If you sign a 5 year tenancy you have to stay there for 5 years or buy your way out at an agreed price and with an agreed notice period.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Although how you enforce the buy out payment against the tenants is another issue.
 
Purple said:
If I as a tenant can walk away from my tenancy agreement with little or no notice or penalty then my landlord should be able to do the same. If my tenancy rights are to be strengthened then so should by obligations.
Click to expand...

As referred to in my post, I think reform means also strengthening landlord rights (and means to vindicate rights). That does not mean that the obligations on both sides should be exactly the same.
 
Purple said:
Make tenancies more like commercial leases. If you sign a 5 year tenancy you have to stay there for 5 years or buy your way out at an agreed price and with an agreed notice period.
Click to expand...

With the right to extend the tenancy for another 5 yrs if you wish to stay, based on the same terms & conditions?
 
Purple said:
Make tenancies more like commercial leases. If you sign a 5 year tenancy you have to stay there for 5 years or buy your way out at an agreed price and with an agreed notice period.
Click to expand...

Do you reckon that this would lead to a better functioning rental market ? Do you reckon it would worsen or alleviate the housing crisis?
 
Early Riser said:
Do you reckon that this would lead to a better functioning rental market ? Do you reckon it would worsen or alleviate the housing crisis?
Click to expand...
The only thing that will alleviate the housing crisis is the efficient construction of more houses.
 
TheBigShort said:
With the right to extend the tenancy for another 5 yrs if you wish to stay, based on the same terms & conditions?
Click to expand...
If you want that in a private lease you sign a 10 year lease with a break clause after 5 years. You also agree when rents can be reviewed.
 
Early Riser said:
As referred to in my post, I think reform means also strengthening landlord rights (and means to vindicate rights). That does not mean that the obligations on both sides should be exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Can you please point out that post?
 
Purple said:
If you want that in a private lease you sign a 10 year lease with a break clause after 5 years. You also agree when rents can be reviewed.
Click to expand...

That's great, but I'm angling from the point of view that it may not always be feasible or reasonable for a tenant to plan that far ahead. So in the end I suppose, you end up signing one-year leases with the right to renew after each year. This is also transferable to any new owner of the property so ask to protect against evictions like you highlighted.
 
And hence the need for an agreement for an early exit charge. If you sign a yearly lease then both parties to the lease can choose if they sign another.

However the reality is that current leases are not worth the paper they are written on with the anti landlord stance taken by the Govt and society in general!
 
Purple said:
The only thing that will alleviate the housing crisis is the efficient construction of more house
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but there are ways to make it worse. Anyway my question was genuine rather than rhetorical, although I admit it may have sounded that way.

Going back to the original point of this thread, I don't think that Brendan's proposal is workable or that it would be helpful. I found TheBigShort's examples very helpful in this regard. That doesn't mean that I am against reform or change in principle or that there are not problems in the existing system. As we should know from past experience, changing the system can just as easily make things worse as better (no matter how well intentioned). A letter writer in today's IT on a different matter quotes Lord Eldon:"Reform! Reform! Aren't things bad enough already?"

By all means we should make proposals and tease them out. I do not think that those in social housing are beholden to society. As members of a democratic society we are all part of the Social Contract, which means we all have to give up some of our natural freedoms for the sake of security and social cohesion. We are all beholden to society.Everybody gains something and loses something from this. Thankfully, the conditions of the contract can be changed democratically and we can all suggest and campaign for "improvements". While ideally such improvements are to the advantage of everyone, more usually they constitute advantage for one vis a vis another - fair enough.

As for Brendan's proposal - I would not support it as is but I am glad he made it.
 
TheBigShort said:
That's great, but I'm angling from the point of view that it may not always be feasible or reasonable for a tenant to plan that far ahead.
Click to expand...
That's fine but the landlord shouldn't be subject to terms to which the tenant is not.
 
Purple said:
That's fine but the landlord shouldn't be subject to terms to which the tenant is not.
Click to expand...

In principle, why not ? In any contract the terms binding the parties do not have to be mirror images of each other. They can be quite different. If we want to move towards more professional (rather than casual) landlordism there would seem to be merit in this. The landlord buys /builds the investment property for long term rental. He/she is not going to move it to another location. The renter may have to move. The renter should be tied to certain conditions to protect the landlord but not necessarily a 5 year lease.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register