7 ms·

UK: No-fault evictions to be banned in reform of rental sector

26 points by dukeyukey 3y ago

gumballindie 3y ago
> 11 million renters in England. That’s poverty with extra steps.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  In Germany about half the population rents.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Same issue. Living one pay check away from homelessness is poverty, regardless of how “rich” the government and elites my be.
    - madeofpalk 3y ago
      I agree, and I agree that more people should be able to own their own, but just because you rent it doesn't mean you're one pay check away from missing rent.
  - mr90210 3y ago
    Yeah, in some countries it’s even common for people to have a perpetual rent contract at a fixed rent, which only expires when the person who signed dies.
    - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
      Those unlimited rental contracts for life with a fixed rents that gets eaten away by inflation are not common anymore for the new tenants. It's mostly old pensioners grandfathered in who still have them. But the current tenants won't have this luxury in their retirement.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    Germany also has a lot more tenant rights, including the "can't unreasonably refuse animals" that you maligned in another comment. Still, it is extremely bad to not be able to buy a house. I am much happier as a renter here in Germany than I was in the UK however. Much simpler law and contract, much less exploitation. However, this is mainly because I am white. Here in Germany, racism is far more extreme, and it is often far more difficult to get an apartment if you don't have a white name.
    - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
      >including the "can't unreasonably refuse animals" That's not true. They can refuse your pets with a reason. > that you mentioned in maligned in another comment How was that "maligned"? > I am much happier as a renter here in Germany than I was in the UK however. You're happy now, but you might not be when you'll retire and earning much less and having to pay market rates on rent. Will your pension cover that? Owning your own home can shield you from old age poverty. >you don't have a white name There's no such thing as a "white name". White people come from so many countries each with completely different sounding names. Funny, how we focus on landlords being against against pets but not focusing on landlords discriminating non whites which is an objectively much worse problem.
      - bowsamic 3y ago
        I think you’re confused. Racism is indeed much worse than not allowing pets. That’s why I brought it up Also, unreasonable is the antonym of “with a reason”
- chris12321 3y ago
  Land ownership here in the UK has hardly progressed past the feudal system. Have a look into leaseholds if you want to see how bad it is.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    It is horrible. I purposely bought outside london as it was easier to find a freehold. If there’s something wrong with the west then this is it. Not owning anything but compensating with new phones laptops and holidays in poor countries just to feel good is beyond me. It’s not the individuals i am taking issue with but with the system that forces them to live that way.
  - arethuza 3y ago
    Worth noting that property law in Scotland is completely different to that in England and Wales - leaseholds aren't really a thing here. Mind you, the last parts of the feudal system were only abolished by the Scottish Parliament in 2000!
  - pjc50 3y ago
    > has hardly progressed past the feudal system Well, it literally hasn't; as fellow Scot arethuza points out, Scotland finally abolished the feudal system once the Scottish Parliament was reconstituted and able to do so, but England has not. It did abolish the "feu burdens", but there's a whole load of weird holdovers still in the system. "Chancel repair liability" is a "fun" one.
    - dukeyukey 3y ago
      It's a downside of never having the hard reset the settler nations and most of Europe had. Means everything has to be pushed through as reform, making it _painfully_ slow.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Not really. A person earning $125k in London in their mid twenties is still probably renting. You might object that few renters earn that much, but even people earning $35k in the UK are still probably renting if they're younger that 35. Whilst that income might be tight against living expenses, it's not poverty.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    125k and not being able to buy is poverty. Buying a new phone or laptop every few years and a feel good holiday in a poor country doesnt compensate for it.
    - spacebanana7 3y ago
      I agree it's an unfortunate position, but poverty is too strong a word. Even after paying rent, bills and saving - such a person would likely have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on holidays, video games or sneakers. Poverty describes people who have to use food banks not people who have $100 brunches at Cedric Grolet.
      - gumballindie 3y ago
        Sneakers and video games get old and turn worthless. You can still be poor owning those and without food stamps. Thats what keeps folks distracted from real issues. Also you dont get to keep “tens of thousands”. After tax thats roughly 5k£. And while you flush money down the loo each month on rents, your landlord gains wealth and controls your life. Took me a while until it finally struck me. If you can please consider building equity. You’ll thank yourself later.
    - dukeyukey 3y ago
      It's also pretty unusual, at least if the person intends on staying in London for now. From first-hand experience, you can get a starter 1-or-2 bed apartment earning ~£70k or so (in zones 2-3 at that), still quite a lot but way under $120k.
  - ImageXav 3y ago
MrPatan 3y ago
> The law would also make it illegal for a landlord to refuse tenancies to families with children, or those in receipt of benefits. What could possibly go wrong?
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  This also seems concerning: "Under the new law, tenants would be given the legal right to request a pet in their home, which the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse." We had a tenant once who brought in her two cats who peed everywhere so we had to replace the entire wooden floor and repaint all the walls because the cat piss stench was everywhere. Financial damage done out of our pocket was way higher than the one month worth deposit. Feels reasonable to have a say in that matter.
  - psychlops 3y ago
    "It's my comfort bull."
    - foldr 3y ago
      “Cannot unreasonably refuse.”
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    Can't any tenant damage a property more than the deposit, regardless of whether they have a pet or not?
    - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
      Can't a car hit you while you're sitting in your house? Of course anything can happen in theory, but as a landlord you're trying to minimize the risk as nobody will cover you if your tenant fucks you and destroys your property, so you optimize by picking the safest and less risky option.
      - 3y ago
chris12321 3y ago
The Tories have been dangling rental reform in front of the electorate for a decade now. Considering the number of MP's who are landlords and where the Tories get there money from, I'll believe this when it's actually through parliament.
- smcl 3y ago
  Yeah I had to read a the headline a couple of times to be sure I understood it correctly. It's a little unbelievable to me that they'd actually do something beneficial like this, and I'm a little suspicious ...
  - chris12321 3y ago
    They've only just abandoned their manifesto commitment to leasehold reform last week. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/may/10/plans-abolish-feudal-leasehold-system-england-wales https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/may/10/plans-abolish-...
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    These are obviously necessary reforms, like when they reformed Ground Rent† The argument for the Tories to do it is that if they do it then politically that looks better, and they can control exactly how it's done, choosing alternatives that the opposition wouldn't have but which are nonetheless acceptable, normal politics. Of course just because it makes sense for the party strategically doesn't mean individual members who stand to lose out won't fight it. † Almost all homes that don't occupy their own distinct footprint (e.g. flats/ apartments) and some which do are owned as "Leasehold" which means that you don't own the land in perpetuity, instead you own a "Long Lease" (e.g. 125 years) which can be extended for a fee, and entitles you to occupy the property. Because it's a Lease it can require rent, traditionally such Long Leases specified a rent of "One peppercorn" (if you've never seen it, black pepper is made from tiny dried berries, such a peppercorn is technically something of value, therefore it constitutes a valid rental payment) for the ground - "ground rent". But in recent years new long leases had begun to make the rent real money - I pay £250 per year for example, which isn't much money for a home but it's a lot more than one peppercorn. This made the freehold ownership (and thus right to collect these ground rents) into a valuable investment for offshore property companies. Tory legislation made it illegal for new Long Leases, including extensions to existing ones, to set rent above one peppercorn, and additionally required that freeholders not demand the actual peppercorns or charge any sort of "fees" (such as to collect and store the peppercorns) to the leaseholder on the rationale that in fact obviously nobody wants peppercorns, they're just a legal device, knock it off. However, the Tories did not reform existing ground rents. Until your lease is renewed, or you give it up, you have to pay. So this nonsense investment doesn't grow but it also didn't vanish.
blakblakarak 3y ago
It's horrific in the UK for those that don't own - I've got friends (a couple - he's a teacher, she's a nurse) who in any reasonable society should be able to easily afford to own a decent house, but finding themselves stuck in the rental trap are unable to make plans six months ahead, let alone think about starting a family because they never know if / when they might be evicted. This is in a costal area 1.5 hours from London and for the past two years they've found themsleves evicted in the Spring as the landlord can make more money AirBNBing over the summer.
- simonswords82 3y ago
  DINK in professional jobs and 1.5 hours from London and still can’t save money for a deposit? Not being unreasonable towards your friends but are they responsible with money?
  - baggsie 3y ago
    They're in the process of saving up - family housing in a non stabby areas are really expensive and they need over one years net salary for a deposit(Poole / Bournemouth).
- Aromasin 3y ago
  Just to add to fire to this, it's not just teacher/nurses (who are criminally underpaid) that are struggling. My partners a teacher, but I'm a chip designer making decent money at a big corporation. We've not gone on Holiday in over a year, turned down almost every social engagement we've been invited to recently, dropped every subscription, grocery shop at Lidl (our cheapest supermarket) and basically pinched every penny we can since we moved in to a rental place a couple of years ago. If my stock plan improves, and we take advantage of all the right savings account, and neither of us need to get a new car, we're on track to buy a house in maybe 6-7 years if we don't have kids by then; which we inevitably will because by then my partner will be too old to conceive. That's just to cover the deposit too. I dread to think what mortgage repayments are going to be like. In the UK, the average savings (net financial wealth) at 25 - 29 years old is £3,800, but the typical person in that age range has -£100. The average UK savings for 30 - 34 year old's is around £14,500 of net financial wealth (savings like current and savings accounts, stocks, bonds, etc. less financial liabilities), but the median figure is just £1,000. That really paints the picture. As a younger person, it really feels like if you don't have wealthy parents to pay your way, you can't ever expect to have financial security in the UK. The island has been bought out by the oligarchs, and a society of indentured slaves in all but name is the eventual outcome. That post WW2 boom, where almost everyone who worked hard could afford a house, car, and a family, feels like a fever dream.
LatteLazy 3y ago
One of the issues with the UK is that private tenants and socially houses tenants have VERY different rights, both in theory and in practise. The first step to making the system work is equalising those. Sadly all housing policy in the UK is VERY politically charged (and expensive). It's about the level that abortion seems to be in the USA. So actual real reform is unlikely.
beardyw 3y ago
From the Guardian: But after lobbying from landlords, he will also “strengthen powers to evict antisocial tenants, broadening the disruptive and harmful activities that can lead to eviction and making it quicker to evict a tenant acting antisocially”, his department said. It could mean renters being given a two-week notice period for antisocial behaviour evictions and that any behaviour “capable” of “causing nuisance or annoyance” could trigger eviction.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Yeah, I think that's where the tradeoff moves. Rather than "no-fault" it will become "made-up or wildly exaggerated fault". Landlord will bung your neighbour £50 to put in a noise complaint, etc.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    What you're saying is very one-sided, though. If it's too hard to evict then that is also a problem. There is good/bad behaviour from landlords and tenants alike. And that will always be, but for landlords there's a difference between difficulty coming from what you choose to do (i.e. let out a property and risk getting a difficult tenant) vs difficulty imposed by the government.
ryan93 3y ago
England should do the honorable thing and buy out all these landlords and administer the homes themselves. If the taxpayer wants to subsidize housing it should be done directly.
- dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
  Why?
  - ryan93 3y ago
    I think its obvious the state should be willing to take on the risk if they are gonna take away property rights.
    - dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
      No, not at all. A landlord has property rights and a tenant has a human right to shelter -- how those rights are balanced is the government's job. If a landlord doesn't wish to obey the UK's minimum rights afforded to a tenant, he is free to sell his property in the UK and buy somewhere else.
      - ryan93 3y ago
        That right should be funded by the taxpayer. Also if it was a right it wouldn’t be so difficult to build new housing in England. Rights talk is so tedious.
  - extasia 3y ago
    Political expediency is my understanding.
- gpderetta 3y ago
  Many homes were in fact owned by the state, but sold at large discount thanks to Right to Buy.
arethuza 3y ago
I think the HN title is wrong - this seems to only apply to England according to the article?
- prennert 3y ago
  Scotland, at least, already has renter protection against no-fault evictions, with a few exceptions [0]. I dont know about other jurisdictions in the UK, but possible that England being the straggler here and them catching up means UK wide protection against no-fault evictions. [0]: https://www.mygov.scot/private-tenant-eviction/grounds-for-eviction-assured-and-short-assured-tenancies-if-your-landlord-starts-the-eviction-process-from-30-march-2022 https://www.mygov.scot/private-tenant-eviction/grounds-for-e...
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  This law only affects England but it is decided by the Whole UK because of the weirdness of the UKs messy political system so I think either could technically be correct?
  - arethuza 3y ago
    It looks pretty clear that it only applies in England - though you are correct that all MPs (including those from outside of England) could vote on it. Meanwhile, the equivalent legislation in Scotland (which has been in place for a while) couldn't be voted on by English MPs because it was decided by the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh. Which of course, is pretty weird - but its the UK :-)
    - tialaramex 3y ago
      Although MPs from England can't vote on the Scottish legislation per se, MPs from England make up most of the elected members of the present government, and that government can and has used its power (misleadingly named "Royal Assent") to block legislation it doesn't like. Basically they "advise" the Queen or King not to grant "assent" which is a formal part of the legislative process, so now the law is dead. Now, it would likely prompt a straight up constitutional crisis and calls to declare independence unilaterally if they did this to some Scottish law about what is clearly a Scottish competence widely understood to be a matter for Scots, like rent reform, but they can do it anyway, they just haven't.
simonswords82 3y ago
Until those who are in government are held legally responsible for fulfilling their promises (including after their term if they did not do it during) I take all of these things with a massive pinch of salt.
kypro 3y ago
While I have extreme sympathy for renters and am not necessarily opposed to this, I would like to point out that this isn't a sliver bullet, nor does this address the root problem. All this legislation is going to do is increase risk for landlords and that increased risk will need to be passed on to renters. This will be attributed to "greedy landlords" by some, but it's just the inevitable consequence of adjusting economic incentives. The issue in reality is simply the supply and demand of housing in the UK. If you don't have enough supply of housing buyers are going to be screwed by high prices and renters are going to be screwed by unfavourable renting conditions. This is true of all markets where supply and demand are imbalanced, those who benefit from that imbalance tend to hold all the power. I'd personally prefer to see solutions aimed and solving the supply and demand of housing in the UK. If renters had options are were less desperate for housing then landlords wouldn't be so quick to evict people. That said, I seem to get so much hate whenever I try to discuss solutions to the housing crisis in the UK I understand why legislative hacks like this are realistically the only politically viable option.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  To their credit housing has become a big issue in the UK over the last few months, probably thanks to increasing interest rates making mortgage holders feel the pain of high prices. Labour is doing a big push to allow more housing, and they actually have the power to do it with a gerneral election, thanks to the local elections.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  For decades UK governments have insisted they want to build enough homes, have publicly pledged to build those homes, and then of course ensured that the homes don't get built, ensuring they have a promise to give next time. The Tories are on net worse, but even past Labour governments did not meet their own targets. "We will build 100 000 homes" sounds great. But a week later, "Not these 60 on a nice old farm in a part of the country where our local MP is at risk" and then "OK, instead of 120 starter home what about 80 larger houses on that ex-industrial estate, so that the developer can make a bit more cash on luxury properties?" - hundreds of these local policy tweaks and before you know it your 100 000 homes are less than half that, but the need for housing didn't change. Demand rises, supply doesn't keep pace, effects predictable.

26 points by dukeyukey 3y ago

gumballindie 3y ago

> 11 million renters in England. That’s poverty with extra steps.

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
In Germany about half the population rents.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Same issue. Living one pay check away from homelessness is poverty, regardless of how “rich” the government and elites my be.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    I agree, and I agree that more people should be able to own their own, but just because you rent it doesn't mean you're one pay check away from missing rent.
- mr90210 3y ago
  Yeah, in some countries it’s even common for people to have a perpetual rent contract at a fixed rent, which only expires when the person who signed dies.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    Those unlimited rental contracts for life with a fixed rents that gets eaten away by inflation are not common anymore for the new tenants. It's mostly old pensioners grandfathered in who still have them. But the current tenants won't have this luxury in their retirement.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  Germany also has a lot more tenant rights, including the "can't unreasonably refuse animals" that you maligned in another comment. Still, it is extremely bad to not be able to buy a house. I am much happier as a renter here in Germany than I was in the UK however. Much simpler law and contract, much less exploitation. However, this is mainly because I am white. Here in Germany, racism is far more extreme, and it is often far more difficult to get an apartment if you don't have a white name.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    >including the "can't unreasonably refuse animals" That's not true. They can refuse your pets with a reason. > that you mentioned in maligned in another comment How was that "maligned"? > I am much happier as a renter here in Germany than I was in the UK however. You're happy now, but you might not be when you'll retire and earning much less and having to pay market rates on rent. Will your pension cover that? Owning your own home can shield you from old age poverty. >you don't have a white name There's no such thing as a "white name". White people come from so many countries each with completely different sounding names. Funny, how we focus on landlords being against against pets but not focusing on landlords discriminating non whites which is an objectively much worse problem.
    - bowsamic 3y ago
      I think you’re confused. Racism is indeed much worse than not allowing pets. That’s why I brought it up Also, unreasonable is the antonym of “with a reason”
chris12321 3y ago
Land ownership here in the UK has hardly progressed past the feudal system. Have a look into leaseholds if you want to see how bad it is.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  It is horrible. I purposely bought outside london as it was easier to find a freehold. If there’s something wrong with the west then this is it. Not owning anything but compensating with new phones laptops and holidays in poor countries just to feel good is beyond me. It’s not the individuals i am taking issue with but with the system that forces them to live that way.
- arethuza 3y ago
  Worth noting that property law in Scotland is completely different to that in England and Wales - leaseholds aren't really a thing here. Mind you, the last parts of the feudal system were only abolished by the Scottish Parliament in 2000!
- pjc50 3y ago
  > has hardly progressed past the feudal system Well, it literally hasn't; as fellow Scot arethuza points out, Scotland finally abolished the feudal system once the Scottish Parliament was reconstituted and able to do so, but England has not. It did abolish the "feu burdens", but there's a whole load of weird holdovers still in the system. "Chancel repair liability" is a "fun" one.
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    It's a downside of never having the hard reset the settler nations and most of Europe had. Means everything has to be pushed through as reform, making it _painfully_ slow.
spacebanana7 3y ago
Not really. A person earning $125k in London in their mid twenties is still probably renting. You might object that few renters earn that much, but even people earning $35k in the UK are still probably renting if they're younger that 35. Whilst that income might be tight against living expenses, it's not poverty.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  125k and not being able to buy is poverty. Buying a new phone or laptop every few years and a feel good holiday in a poor country doesnt compensate for it.
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    I agree it's an unfortunate position, but poverty is too strong a word. Even after paying rent, bills and saving - such a person would likely have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on holidays, video games or sneakers. Poverty describes people who have to use food banks not people who have $100 brunches at Cedric Grolet.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      Sneakers and video games get old and turn worthless. You can still be poor owning those and without food stamps. Thats what keeps folks distracted from real issues. Also you dont get to keep “tens of thousands”. After tax thats roughly 5k£. And while you flush money down the loo each month on rents, your landlord gains wealth and controls your life. Took me a while until it finally struck me. If you can please consider building equity. You’ll thank yourself later.
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    It's also pretty unusual, at least if the person intends on staying in London for now. From first-hand experience, you can get a starter 1-or-2 bed apartment earning ~£70k or so (in zones 2-3 at that), still quite a lot but way under $120k.
- ImageXav 3y ago

MrPatan 3y ago

> The law would also make it illegal for a landlord to refuse tenancies to families with children, or those in receipt of benefits. What could possibly go wrong?

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
This also seems concerning: "Under the new law, tenants would be given the legal right to request a pet in their home, which the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse." We had a tenant once who brought in her two cats who peed everywhere so we had to replace the entire wooden floor and repaint all the walls because the cat piss stench was everywhere. Financial damage done out of our pocket was way higher than the one month worth deposit. Feels reasonable to have a say in that matter.
- psychlops 3y ago
  "It's my comfort bull."
  - foldr 3y ago
    “Cannot unreasonably refuse.”
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Can't any tenant damage a property more than the deposit, regardless of whether they have a pet or not?
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    Can't a car hit you while you're sitting in your house? Of course anything can happen in theory, but as a landlord you're trying to minimize the risk as nobody will cover you if your tenant fucks you and destroys your property, so you optimize by picking the safest and less risky option.
    - 3y ago

chris12321 3y ago

The Tories have been dangling rental reform in front of the electorate for a decade now. Considering the number of MP's who are landlords and where the Tories get there money from, I'll believe this when it's actually through parliament.

smcl 3y ago
Yeah I had to read a the headline a couple of times to be sure I understood it correctly. It's a little unbelievable to me that they'd actually do something beneficial like this, and I'm a little suspicious ...
- chris12321 3y ago
  They've only just abandoned their manifesto commitment to leasehold reform last week. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/may/10/plans-abolish-feudal-leasehold-system-england-wales https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/may/10/plans-abolish-...
- tialaramex 3y ago
  These are obviously necessary reforms, like when they reformed Ground Rent† The argument for the Tories to do it is that if they do it then politically that looks better, and they can control exactly how it's done, choosing alternatives that the opposition wouldn't have but which are nonetheless acceptable, normal politics. Of course just because it makes sense for the party strategically doesn't mean individual members who stand to lose out won't fight it. † Almost all homes that don't occupy their own distinct footprint (e.g. flats/ apartments) and some which do are owned as "Leasehold" which means that you don't own the land in perpetuity, instead you own a "Long Lease" (e.g. 125 years) which can be extended for a fee, and entitles you to occupy the property. Because it's a Lease it can require rent, traditionally such Long Leases specified a rent of "One peppercorn" (if you've never seen it, black pepper is made from tiny dried berries, such a peppercorn is technically something of value, therefore it constitutes a valid rental payment) for the ground - "ground rent". But in recent years new long leases had begun to make the rent real money - I pay £250 per year for example, which isn't much money for a home but it's a lot more than one peppercorn. This made the freehold ownership (and thus right to collect these ground rents) into a valuable investment for offshore property companies. Tory legislation made it illegal for new Long Leases, including extensions to existing ones, to set rent above one peppercorn, and additionally required that freeholders not demand the actual peppercorns or charge any sort of "fees" (such as to collect and store the peppercorns) to the leaseholder on the rationale that in fact obviously nobody wants peppercorns, they're just a legal device, knock it off. However, the Tories did not reform existing ground rents. Until your lease is renewed, or you give it up, you have to pay. So this nonsense investment doesn't grow but it also didn't vanish.

blakblakarak 3y ago

It's horrific in the UK for those that don't own - I've got friends (a couple - he's a teacher, she's a nurse) who in any reasonable society should be able to easily afford to own a decent house, but finding themselves stuck in the rental trap are unable to make plans six months ahead, let alone think about starting a family because they never know if / when they might be evicted. This is in a costal area 1.5 hours from London and for the past two years they've found themsleves evicted in the Spring as the landlord can make more money AirBNBing over the summer.

simonswords82 3y ago
DINK in professional jobs and 1.5 hours from London and still can’t save money for a deposit? Not being unreasonable towards your friends but are they responsible with money?
- baggsie 3y ago
  They're in the process of saving up - family housing in a non stabby areas are really expensive and they need over one years net salary for a deposit(Poole / Bournemouth).
Aromasin 3y ago
Just to add to fire to this, it's not just teacher/nurses (who are criminally underpaid) that are struggling. My partners a teacher, but I'm a chip designer making decent money at a big corporation. We've not gone on Holiday in over a year, turned down almost every social engagement we've been invited to recently, dropped every subscription, grocery shop at Lidl (our cheapest supermarket) and basically pinched every penny we can since we moved in to a rental place a couple of years ago. If my stock plan improves, and we take advantage of all the right savings account, and neither of us need to get a new car, we're on track to buy a house in maybe 6-7 years if we don't have kids by then; which we inevitably will because by then my partner will be too old to conceive. That's just to cover the deposit too. I dread to think what mortgage repayments are going to be like. In the UK, the average savings (net financial wealth) at 25 - 29 years old is £3,800, but the typical person in that age range has -£100. The average UK savings for 30 - 34 year old's is around £14,500 of net financial wealth (savings like current and savings accounts, stocks, bonds, etc. less financial liabilities), but the median figure is just £1,000. That really paints the picture. As a younger person, it really feels like if you don't have wealthy parents to pay your way, you can't ever expect to have financial security in the UK. The island has been bought out by the oligarchs, and a society of indentured slaves in all but name is the eventual outcome. That post WW2 boom, where almost everyone who worked hard could afford a house, car, and a family, feels like a fever dream.

LatteLazy 3y ago

One of the issues with the UK is that private tenants and socially houses tenants have VERY different rights, both in theory and in practise. The first step to making the system work is equalising those. Sadly all housing policy in the UK is VERY politically charged (and expensive). It's about the level that abortion seems to be in the USA. So actual real reform is unlikely.

beardyw 3y ago

From the Guardian: But after lobbying from landlords, he will also “strengthen powers to evict antisocial tenants, broadening the disruptive and harmful activities that can lead to eviction and making it quicker to evict a tenant acting antisocially”, his department said. It could mean renters being given a two-week notice period for antisocial behaviour evictions and that any behaviour “capable” of “causing nuisance or annoyance” could trigger eviction.

pjc50 3y ago
Yeah, I think that's where the tradeoff moves. Rather than "no-fault" it will become "made-up or wildly exaggerated fault". Landlord will bung your neighbour £50 to put in a noise complaint, etc.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  What you're saying is very one-sided, though. If it's too hard to evict then that is also a problem. There is good/bad behaviour from landlords and tenants alike. And that will always be, but for landlords there's a difference between difficulty coming from what you choose to do (i.e. let out a property and risk getting a difficult tenant) vs difficulty imposed by the government.

ryan93 3y ago

England should do the honorable thing and buy out all these landlords and administer the homes themselves. If the taxpayer wants to subsidize housing it should be done directly.

dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
Why?
- ryan93 3y ago
  I think its obvious the state should be willing to take on the risk if they are gonna take away property rights.
  - dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
    No, not at all. A landlord has property rights and a tenant has a human right to shelter -- how those rights are balanced is the government's job. If a landlord doesn't wish to obey the UK's minimum rights afforded to a tenant, he is free to sell his property in the UK and buy somewhere else.
    - ryan93 3y ago
      That right should be funded by the taxpayer. Also if it was a right it wouldn’t be so difficult to build new housing in England. Rights talk is so tedious.
- extasia 3y ago
  Political expediency is my understanding.
gpderetta 3y ago
Many homes were in fact owned by the state, but sold at large discount thanks to Right to Buy.

arethuza 3y ago

I think the HN title is wrong - this seems to only apply to England according to the article?

prennert 3y ago
Scotland, at least, already has renter protection against no-fault evictions, with a few exceptions [0]. I dont know about other jurisdictions in the UK, but possible that England being the straggler here and them catching up means UK wide protection against no-fault evictions. [0]: https://www.mygov.scot/private-tenant-eviction/grounds-for-eviction-assured-and-short-assured-tenancies-if-your-landlord-starts-the-eviction-process-from-30-march-2022 https://www.mygov.scot/private-tenant-eviction/grounds-for-e...
LatteLazy 3y ago
This law only affects England but it is decided by the Whole UK because of the weirdness of the UKs messy political system so I think either could technically be correct?
- arethuza 3y ago
  It looks pretty clear that it only applies in England - though you are correct that all MPs (including those from outside of England) could vote on it. Meanwhile, the equivalent legislation in Scotland (which has been in place for a while) couldn't be voted on by English MPs because it was decided by the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh. Which of course, is pretty weird - but its the UK :-)
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    Although MPs from England can't vote on the Scottish legislation per se, MPs from England make up most of the elected members of the present government, and that government can and has used its power (misleadingly named "Royal Assent") to block legislation it doesn't like. Basically they "advise" the Queen or King not to grant "assent" which is a formal part of the legislative process, so now the law is dead. Now, it would likely prompt a straight up constitutional crisis and calls to declare independence unilaterally if they did this to some Scottish law about what is clearly a Scottish competence widely understood to be a matter for Scots, like rent reform, but they can do it anyway, they just haven't.

simonswords82 3y ago

Until those who are in government are held legally responsible for fulfilling their promises (including after their term if they did not do it during) I take all of these things with a massive pinch of salt.

kypro 3y ago

While I have extreme sympathy for renters and am not necessarily opposed to this, I would like to point out that this isn't a sliver bullet, nor does this address the root problem. All this legislation is going to do is increase risk for landlords and that increased risk will need to be passed on to renters. This will be attributed to "greedy landlords" by some, but it's just the inevitable consequence of adjusting economic incentives. The issue in reality is simply the supply and demand of housing in the UK. If you don't have enough supply of housing buyers are going to be screwed by high prices and renters are going to be screwed by unfavourable renting conditions. This is true of all markets where supply and demand are imbalanced, those who benefit from that imbalance tend to hold all the power. I'd personally prefer to see solutions aimed and solving the supply and demand of housing in the UK. If renters had options are were less desperate for housing then landlords wouldn't be so quick to evict people. That said, I seem to get so much hate whenever I try to discuss solutions to the housing crisis in the UK I understand why legislative hacks like this are realistically the only politically viable option.

dukeyukey 3y ago
To their credit housing has become a big issue in the UK over the last few months, probably thanks to increasing interest rates making mortgage holders feel the pain of high prices. Labour is doing a big push to allow more housing, and they actually have the power to do it with a gerneral election, thanks to the local elections.
tialaramex 3y ago
For decades UK governments have insisted they want to build enough homes, have publicly pledged to build those homes, and then of course ensured that the homes don't get built, ensuring they have a promise to give next time. The Tories are on net worse, but even past Labour governments did not meet their own targets. "We will build 100 000 homes" sounds great. But a week later, "Not these 60 on a nice old farm in a part of the country where our local MP is at risk" and then "OK, instead of 120 starter home what about 80 larger houses on that ex-industrial estate, so that the developer can make a bit more cash on luxury properties?" - hundreds of these local policy tweaks and before you know it your 100 000 homes are less than half that, but the need for housing didn't change. Demand rises, supply doesn't keep pace, effects predictable.