The Negotiator is a trade magazine that “serves the residential property industry, specifically targeting estate and letting agents and their suppliers”. The original source for this news is https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buy-to-let/landlords-quit-rental-market-at-fastest-rate-in-a-decade, which is mirrored by https://www.aol.com/articles/landlords-quit-rental-market-fastest-094056000.html .
In addition: The Telegraph is a rightwing rag who are automatically against anything Labour does. Apart from their right-wing bias, in the last few (3?) decades they’ve seen a decline in quality to the level of gutter journalism, so they have no credibility and their claims are basically meaningless.
I agree, but I would believe them when they’re saying Labour’s doing a good thing, especially when they don’t realize that’s what they say.
I must be used to American rightwing media because this Telegraph article seems downright neutral by comparison haha. Also, I have a question. It says that one of the things this bill does is abolish “fixed term tenancies”. Does that mean, for example, that someone could just move in for a month and then move out?
It means that the landlord can’t force you to sign a contract for a year or whatever, you can always give notice and leave.
Yeah the Telegraph is subtle about it. They exercise their bias more through selective reporting, rather than slanted language.
I’m not from the UK myself, I’ve just read some trash tier articles from The Telegraph in the past. Articles written with long words, but still obvious falsehoods. Which is a shame, because they didn’t use to be like that. Wikipedia lists some of their controversies (see history since 2004): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph
About the new law:
“Fixed-term tenancies mean renters are obliged to pay rent regardless of whether a property is up-to-standard, and they reduce flexibility to move in response to changing circumstances, for example after relationship breakdown, to take up a new job or when buying a first home.Instead, all tenancies will be periodic, with tenants able to stay in their home until they decide to end the tenancy by giving 2 months’ notice. This will end the injustice of tenants being trapped paying rent for substandard properties and offer more flexibility to both parties to respond to changing circumstances.” https://www.stirlingackroyd.com/property-insights/fixed-term-tenancies/
That fucking rules. Expected to job hop to increase your pay but also stay in the same place for 6 - 12 months?
That’s wild. I wish America had something like this! I once signed a two year lease just to get picked over another applicant, because I really needed a place close to work.
Wow that telegraph website is absolute arse
Yeah, from that it sounds like the implication of a supply crunch pushed by the original article is highly misleading:
The analysis suggested that rents were flat across the country, increasing by just £4 to an average of £1,475 a month compared to last year.
However, stock across the rental sector still increased year-on-year, driven largely by new build-to-rent properties coming on to the market. Available properties increased by 1.3pc on average, reversing years of decline.
The data showed 7pc growth in rental properties costing between £800 and £1,500 a month, while the number of more expensive rentals on the market declined.
So even though existing properties are leaving the UK rental market, if you factor in new construction it’s a net gain and affordable rentals have increased, facts it omitted entirely.
" quitting in droves" Selling their properties to people who want to live there
Hooray!
Lol I can’t believe this article frames the whole thing as if it’s terrible news that the economy will never recover from.
Actually, I can believe it. It’s just disgusting.
What is in the new law?
No more banging young impressionable tenants
That’s like half the movies I watch
-
They don’t. The landlords who are whingeing are just rentier capitalists who resent any regulation.
-
Very dependent on the landlord (usually bad) & the property (ditto) & the willingness (ditto) of the local council to intervene when needed. IME, it was shit.
-
Before, landlords could evict you because they feel like it.
We’re cheering a bunch of rental properties being removed from the market?
Sure, some homes will enter the market for private buyers, so those doing quite well might have a slightly cheaper house but a lot are going to be sold to less scrupulous/more corporate landlords who feel they can extract more value, or in packages to developers.
I get it, we hate landlords hut this feels like cutting off one’s nose to spite the face.
do you think these landlords are just gonna sit on empty homes? doing nothing with them?
As I noted:
Sure, some homes will enter the market for private buyers, so those doing quite well might have a slightly cheaper house but a lot are going to be sold to less scrupulous/more corporate landlords who feel they can extract more value, or in packages to developers
I actually think that buying a property to let it out should be illegal. There’s just no benefit to society to let people do that. And we don’t do that in other areas of business so why housing?
You’re not allowed to go and buy a bunch of Coca-Cola and then sell that Coca-Cola at a 40% markup while doing nothing to add value. It’s explicitly banned, if you do it with valuable enough products it’s called profiteering.
However I don’t necessarily see your point, why people giving up on being landlords is necessarily going to result in those properties being sold to other landlords, if they could still make money being landlords then surely they would keep at it.
However I don’t necessarily see your point, why people giving up on being landlords is necessarily going to result in those properties being sold to other landlords, if they could still make money being landlords then surely they would keep at it.
Think of most commercial properties: usually, when a business closes, another of the same type will occupy that spot. Generally the newcomer feels they can cut the margins enough to make a profit. (Often why you’ll see something family owned being replaced by a corpo chain version.)
As I noted, some houses will enter the private market but I’d expect the much more likely buyer to be a developer or corpo landlord.
They… quit? So they’re letting people buy the places people should live in without a middleman leech profiting off of them?
More likely to be property management companies, not individuals
No they’re just selling to bigger middlemen in property management corporations.
Awww… couldn’t happen to a nicer group of blokes, too.
This means rent will increase and house prices will drop in short term? Long term who knows. But yeah fixed tenancies kind of suck and because of high demand especially in places like London, bad landlords can get away with being shitty exploiting fixed tenancies. Shouldn’t really be a problem for those who anyways aren’t shitty so hopefully this is a clean up of shitty landlords who don’t want to maintain their rental properties properly.
Great opportunity for tenant unions to buy apartment buildings at low prices. Mamdani should subsidize the purchases.
Why? He has nothing to do with England.
Didn’t pay close enough attention, commented without thinking.
“quitting” as if leeching is a job.
Good, bye bye. Don’t let the door hitcha ass on the way out. If you can’t obey regulations then you shouldn’t be in business.
There will still be tons of demand for housing, which means plenty of landlords will see that $$$$ and make it work.My neighbor has been trying to get their house rented after it didn’t sell for 1.3million. Now they’re paying the monthly mortgage for several months now. It doesn’t seem like anyone is interested at practically $4000/month. Who would pay that mucho wonder. I bet the previous generation felt exactly the same as inflation was swallowing them into homelessness… I.e. me, I could be underpaid and not know it. CuzI had to pay that rent I would not be able to afford where we live. We would need two incomes over $120,000 each. Crazy.
They didn’t math right because 4000 matches a price point below 1.3 million. So they’re selling themselves short on rent when they could have sold for the matching 7 out 8 hundred thousand dollar price point lol.
My brother and sister-in-law were considering renting a house in that price range. The reason is that they were sending their two kids (1st and 3rd grade) to a private school with a $30K (each!) tuition, so paying around $4K per month for a house in a good school district would have actually saved them money. Eventually they came to their senses and just bought a house in a good school district instead.
That’s brain dead thinking they can sell any house at 1.3 millie. I hope that house sinks them.
I don’t hope bad things on them but that house was definitely a 950k hot potato. Now there’s no way they could sell or rent it at any reasonable price that was good for them or the renters. They will just have to take a loss.
Typical houses in my area start at $1m. Anything under that is a fixer-upper.
Lol that is standard for a standalone (and even some townhouses) where I live 🥲
Oh NO! Won’t ANYONE please think of the Landlords that Take your Money and do Nothing in RETURN?
I mean… they give you a place to live in return…
Renting / landlords by themselves aren’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s poor renters rights and particularly shitty landlords that are the problem.
I say this as someone who got on the properly ladder just as much to get away from shit landlords as anything.
Landlords are by definition a bad thing. Everyone needs a place to live. People who hoard the necessities of life and loan them back to you are cunts, and need to be regulated into oblivion.
I agree with this, but I’ve always wondered what the solution is for people that do need short term housing. Like going to college or moving to a city on a temporary job. Neither is a situation where you want to buy a house.
The obvious answer is the revolution happens and property ownership is ended, but I don’t see that happening. So what’s the solution? And don’t say dorms for college students, those regularly charge 2-3x market rates for worse accommodations
@arrow74@lemmy.zip was this not the response you were looking for?
I think there are lots of fair solutions whereby people don’t get to profit endlessly off people’s fundamental needs for shelter.
Do I think any of them are attainable without any kind of reform that landlords and their apologists would hyperbolise as a “revolution”?
No, I do not.Pick your poison, but unfettered rentier capitalism is a cancer and it has to be stopped.
Everyone hates scalpers. That’s why it baffles me when there are always legions of white knights rushing in to defend house scalpers. I automatically assume they are all house scalpers who are desperately trying to see themselves as good people.
Scalpers only rip you off once. Landlords rip you off every week of the year.
Good point. Many people know a landlord personally would be my guess. “But my uncle John is a landlord and he’s nice”.
They took a place to live so they could make a profit off of it.
Your argument is the equivalent of “slave owners gave slaves housing, clothes and food. The problem isn’t slavery, it’s the lack of regulation and bad slave owners.”
A good slave owner was still a slave owner. A good landlord still takes money out of your pocket for something that should be your fundamental right.
But hey, I’m willing to compromise. I’m okay with landlords owning the house they’re"renting, if they’re not allowed to rent non-profit. But somehow no landlord is okay with such an idea even though it’s still a net positive for them.
The house does that, they just paint over the plug sockets.
They don’t build homes, they just hoard them and charge a premium for access. They’re just middlemen. Landlords don’t provide a damn thing.
The population of ethical landlords needs to be massively expanded.
And by ethical, I mean former.
You know, if most landlords quit, their property doesn’t end up in your hands. It ends up bought by a smaller number of more organized corporate landlords. Do you want an oligopoly? Because that’s how you get an oligopoly.
Uhhh, there’s also the ROAD To Housing Act, which punishes corporate ownership of homes; so they’re fighting that too.
“Never fight your oppressor, or a bigger oppressor will beat you harder! Always be thankful for the abusive husband you have because he hasn’t chopped any of your limbs off.”
Yeah everyone seems to think the properties will end up in the hands of owner/occupiers. What likely will happen is they will get snapped up by corporates. The bigger they get the worse it will be. There are some shitty individual landlords out there for sure but I can guarantee that EVERY corporate one will be evil incarnate… law of unintended consequences will slam hard here
This is not a reason to not protect renters. Ultimately we will need renters’ unions and rent strikes to gain affordable housing, regardless of ownership.
That is happening regardless.
