Back seat driver?….Never!
I suffer from that peculiar man disease of being adamant that I can read maps and know at all times exactly where I am, shouting down my partner patiently sitting in the passenger seat whilst getting completely lost.
And it doesn’t stop there
This arrogance also stretches to in-car GPS systems, who I refuse to believe if it contradicts what my super senses are telling.
Hence the ironic nickname I was once given by a girlfriend, “Marco Polo” and why it took me an hour and a half last Wednesday to get from Birmingham City Centre to Solihull, about 5 miles away despite my TomTom virtually shouting at me.
Only the truly deluded can drive past Edgbaston Cricket ground 3 times saying “Oh that looks familiar” and not get the message.
The return of rent controls?
I was doing an EHOs conference in Brum with David Smith from Antony Gold and the RLA when he whispered in my ear that Jeremy Corbyn had announced that Labour would be looking at rent control. David had been pulled out of the conference to comment on Radio 4.
Penny Anderson wrote the first piece I read on it for the Guardian in which she yelled aloud “Thank Christ”.
“We need rent controls, and we need them quickly. Imagine the loud and joyous carolling across the land when it actually happens.”
Penny offers up several reasons why and also states that unlike Chicken Little the sky won’t necessarily fall.
No disrespect to Penny but I would have expected her to say just that, the same way I would also expect me old mucka and property investment specialist David Lawrenson over on Lettings Focus to say the opposite.
“But Mr. Corbyn does not need to go back to research the old days of rent control – which spawned the career of notorious criminals-as-landlords such as Peter Rachman in London. “
Despite being on opposite sides of the fence David and I actually get on well. I’ve even presented at a few of his landlord investment events and spoke to him a couple of weeks back but I’m not convinced about the Rachman analogy there, or the comparison with the general housing situation of the past.
Not much has changed
I don’t know what the situation was with rent control in the late 50s and early 60s when cuddly Uncle Pete was plying his trade but I do know there were loads of migrants coming into London that other people wouldn’t rent to, which is exactly the same situation as now, in fact, the problem for migrants is even enshrined in legislation through the right to rent.
Also, people oppose rent control precisely because it makes being a landlord less financially attractive, whereas a free for all does exactly the opposite and attracts organised criminals into the field in order to make a killing, in the same way as Deadwood and Tombstone of the 1870s. A lot of money to be made and nobody to stop you.
We had more social housing back then
Back in the days of rent control, there was also a large social housing sector. When I worked in night shelters we were virtually giving flats away to street drinkers who spent their DHSS grant for white goods on booze and went back on the street.
In response to Corbyn’s announcement, the Tory Communities Secretary Sajid Javid kicked off their conference announcing that private tenants will be given rights to crack down on rogue landlords and agents
Javid announced:-
“The Government will also bring in new laws requiring all letting agents to be registered, ending current rules that allow people to operate in the role without qualifications or professional oversight.”
Tory Government wanting regulations?
About 3 years ago I recall Cameron responding to calls to regulate letting agents as a distraint on trade in a free market that wasn’t going to happen, now the Tory government are openly referring to giving renters more “Power to challenge rip-off fees”.
So at what point did the benefits of a free market economy morph into a rip-off?
When you realised voters were swinging the other way perhaps?
As Groucho Marx once said:-
“These are my values. I hold to them firmly. If you don’t like them I have others”.
Javid added for the crowd:-
“Everyone has a right to feel safe and secure in their own homes and we will make sure they do.”
Well thanks, Numb-nuts, enforcement officers have been doing this work for decades without your help actually.
The sweaty one shouted in outrage:-
“For too long, tenants have felt unable to resolve the issues they’ve faced, be it insecure tenure, unfair letting agents’ fees or poor treatment by their landlord with little to no means of redress. We’re going to change that.”
All Change
Suddenly the Conservatives are on the side of tenants. Forgive me if I’m a little cynical.
Does this mean they will all be voting for Karen Buck’s Bill at the second reading?, ably outlined on Nearly Legal
First time out it was talked out of time by a couple of landlord Tory MPs and the second attempt was voted down twice when attempts were made to jemmy it into the Housing and Planning Bill and lets not forget what it is, a simple call to make it illegal to rent out properties that aren’t fit for human habitation.
Is that so radical or onerous?
Lets hope, post-Grenfell and now that the Tories are all for the people, that they will champion the Bill and wave flags in support of renters everywhere.
A fitness for human habitation rule would prevent people like Gerry Fitzgerald from creating shanty towns in his back garden.
Mr F, a neighbour of Arsene Wenger, constructed a bunch of sheds to house 120 Eastern European migrants, netting him around £40,000 a month in rent to add to his construction business millions.
The reporter spoke to some of the residents and were told that if anyone complained they were immediately evicted. Understandably people shut up.
So let’s hope, now that we have a shiny new, tenant-friendly government that this sort of thing will never happen again.
What made me smile this week.
Two things actually, purchasing a knife sharpener that actually works and that has allowed me to rescue several old kitchen knives from the scrap heap.
And discovering the excellent Buckwheat Zydeco a fantastic blend of funk, gospel and Zydeco that has somehow missed my radar for about 40 years.
Sublime
See ya in a fortnight…..
For the start of my last 3 Newsrounds, after which you can all relax at my often cheeky landlord taunting political rants
From the same article;
“He did it because villainous letting agents encourage owners to do so, insisting on “market rents”, which they alone seem to set, and which are often much higher than levels of frozen local housing allowance”
Unsurprising seeing as LHA rates were set at the lowest 30th percentile based on market rents, not the other way round.
It would be a refreshing change to see a knowledgeable, logical, rational argument for rent controls rather than the usual emotional lefty rant with no thought for the consequences .
I might be wrong here but homes may not be technically fit for human habitation but all the standards required by landlords make them in effect fit for habititation?
And as for the MP that fillibustered go to the theyworkforyou website and look for remarks made by phillip davies (the guy who fillibustered) on 16 october 2015 and it is not as high and dry as the articles about what he did make out.
I’m sorry Ben but you really should have done a little research before talking about the history of rent controls – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rent_control_in_England_and_Wales
Rent controls were first introduced in 1915 when there was very little social housing. Council house build started after WW1. The controls basically froze rents. The biggest period of council housing building was in the 50s, under the Conservatives.
Rachman bought diplapidated properties then got rid of the existing tenants with controlled rents (first by ooffering to pay them, then by making their lives miserable if they did not accept). Then he converted them into what would now be called HMOs and let them to immigrants. He also ran nightclubs and brothels.
In the mid 60s there was a shortage of property to let in London so Labour introduced regulated tenancies, where rent rises every 3 years to the fair rent was allowed. The fair rent was supposed to be based on the market rent, but as there wasn’t a working market the rent officers had to guess and usually guessed low (as was proven in the 1990s). The act failed to achieve its pirpose of increasing the size of the PRS.
In 1972 the Conservative governemt temporarily froze all rents, until 1975.
In 1980 the remaining controlled tenancies were converted to regulated ones.
In 1989 most but not all controls were abolished for new tenancies. It is still possible to refer an “excessive” rent to a committee.
By 1999 there was a working marker so Rent Officers were raising “fair” rents to the market rents they had always supposed to be. These could be very large rises, so the Labour government restrict such rises to less than the “fair” rent.
Rent controls make letting less profitable so landlords woudl withdraw from the sector – leading to s shortage of housing, and making it more profitable to act criminally. If honest landlords can’t satisfy the demand criminal ones will, as they are doing now.
Rising rents are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself, which is that in some areas there is a shortage of housing. That leads to an increase in prices, which means that to pay decent amount after costs (including mortgage and taxes) the rent at which a landlord can afford to rent goes up. Even if they are largely speculating on prices rising as in most of the South, they still need to cover their costs.
I wish there was a “like” button.
Pure market forces. Where demand exceeds supply the price will rise – simples! If you want to reduce the price of rental properties what you need are more of them rather than fewer. If tenants have a greater choice then the quality will be higher and the price lower. Forcing good landlords out will only drive prices up and quality down. I wish more people studied economics.
I forgot to say that I won’t forgive you for being cynical about the Conservatives wanting to help tenants. They have a long record of wanting to do so, though like Labour they often fail, or adopt measures that address one issue whilst causing others. Of course the Conservatives prefer to help tenants by helping them become home owners, though right to buy was originally a Labour policy (1959 manifesto).
As an example of a well meaning policy that caused unintentional problems, consider Labour’s Decent Homes Standards. That required that local authorities improve the thermal qualities of their housing stock, which is why many of them installed cladding around their tower blocks.
It is perhaps necessary to go back further to find the best record of council housing to Labour’s Wheatley Housing Act of 1924 that laid the foundations and financial security of council housing. His Act resulted in some half a million council properties being built. He regarded rent controls in the private sector as a temporary measure whilst the stock of council homes was vastly increased as he believed that council housing was the best form of tenure. Post war consensus meant that the then Tory govts continued the programme.
As for right to buy in the 1959 General Election; citing that as a labour policy is misleading as it was only a part of a wider programme. Right to buy was to go along with rent control in the private sector and security of tenure. In addition councils would enforce repairs in the private sector thus bringing up standards, if necessary by CPOs. There was not going to be huge RTB discounts and it was only expected that RTB would operate when there was stock to justify sale of public asset, unlike the policy from 1980 that dropped the post war consensus and introduced RTB whilst restricting council’s ability to build more. It also abolished rent control and then post 1989 made Shorthold tenancies the default status
For God’s sake lighten up people. It’s Newsround, a regular trawl around landlord tenant stories with a particular slant, which I hope has been entertaining more than anything else. Its not housing law and I dont have time to research when I write it.
In writing Newsround I sit with a cup of tea and a KitKat and surf around to see what catches my eye, usually without any particular theme unless I can work one into the writing of it, which usually only occurs to me at the end. The aim is to amuse myself and hopefully you.
I’m currently penning a piece for the Housing Law Journal for Prof Caroline Hunter, in which my i’s will be dotted and my t’s crossed. A different animal..The focus of my ire in that one is incompetent local authorities, so I’m nothing if not even in my scorn.
Of course I’m provocative. I’ve been working in housing and homelessness for 30 years and too old to bother who I upset.
Sometimes my pieces are more political and at other times they are just surreal because thats the mood I’m in. I dont hide my politics. I’m actually far more anarchist in tendency than socialist and I loathe the Tory party and everything it stands for but Colin Ward is closer to my way of thinking than Jeremy Corbyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ward, by which I mean I wouldnt bother with rent control, I would just occupy houses haha Rent control is for wimps.
I was recently approached by the local Labour party to help with some form of rental campaign that they have in mind but I blew them out. Too lightweight for my tastes.
But anyway, you only have another 3 from me to put up with. I am stopping at 300 and Tessa is taking over after 5 years.
I’m busy designing an apprenticeship for housing advisers and homelessness workers to help them make legally correct decisions, supported by the Legal Education Foundation, The City of London University Law School and the Institute for Apprenticeships, which is why I dont have the time to do Newsround anymore.
In a few months you shall be Ben free
Yes, it’s all going to be a bit more boring when I take over. Sorry …
Ben,
Even though I’m on the opposite side of the fence to you, I always read and enjoy your input. Please reconsider your decision to stop
thanks Burt but as my work targeting rogue landlords picks up pace working across 4 different London boroughs (and about to be 6), and the apprenticeship I mentioned above, I’m finding it really difficult to commit to anything regular, which is why i cut it down to fortnightly recently and after 300 editions its time for a change.
I’ll still be writing for Tessa’s excellent blog and will probably do the odd Newsround as a guest I dare say
I am sorry to see you go. Though I think your politics are misguided and can’t see any reason not to check your facts in the age of Google I think you are well meaning. I also think you do an important job well – enforcing laws that seem to be rarely enforced. (BTW enforcing the law is something the Tories stand for).
I wouldn’t respond if I didn’t find your articles interesting.
Thanks Peter but as I say, Newsround is a light piece and I dont research much when the aim is primarily to make people laugh. The article I’m currently doing for the Journal of Housing law is a 3,000 word jobby, its the industry magazine for housing lawyers so I’m entrenched in research for that one, digging out statistics to expose the poor prosecution rate of local authorities..(you see, I’m not always digging at landlords) although the point of my article is that it isnt just inefficiency and incompetence that causes it but also the denuding of staff caused by budget cuts imposed by government
As for my politics being misguided, I feel that same about yours. Thank god we dont live in North Korea, I’d have to kill you haha.
I do agree with you that the recent and most useful enforcement tools have indeed come from the Tories, which 5 years ago I certainly wouldnt have bet on. The local authorities have to pick up the cudgel and cant solely blame budget cuts. When I was at Lewisham we went from serving 9 prohibition notices on slum properties in 2 years, to 84 prohibition notices, also in 2 years and we did that without employing extra staff, just sharing intelligence and working smarter, which is the bee in my bonnet because I KNOW it can be done, I’ve done it.
Just a final point – when you say you are not convinced about something, don’t be surprised if someone tries to convince you.
When I got started in this game I actually thought I was providing a service which was also a social service, working hand in glove to relieve the burden caused by the lack of social housing. I really couldn’t understand why local housing benefits teams treated me like some kind of vermin. Surely private rented sector relieves the government from the burden of having so much money tied up in property, the costs associated with managing and maintaining the property, managing the tenants etc etc, all now done by private landlords. I’d really like to see a price comparison of what the real cost to councils is of housing a tenant in council housing per month compared to what it costs them to pay housing benefits to a tenant in private rented accommodation. I think it would be interesting…God forbid we make any money for a fairly provided service.
Perhaps councils could allocate some of the savings they make by not having to provide each and every tenant with a council owned and operated property into providing more staff to enforce existing housing regulations and prosecuting those landlords who flout the law to its fullest extent, then we may have a functional system.