wrote in message
...
On Friday, 14 June 2019 14:18:16 UTC+1, Theo wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

taking S21 away makes it far worse. We have a nationwide problem with
antisocial tenants, one that is so simple to solve. The failure to
understand & solve it is blighting great nubers of people's lives. Now
the govt wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction to any solution.

We also have a housing crisis.

we do

Reducing the predatory aspects of private
renting is supposed to improve that.

Hang on. I've not seen any LL predatory activities in a very long time.
That's long gone.

And adding further restrictions on LLs is obviously not going to put more
properties on the market, that's an argument with not one foot in reality.


Typically the LL is in a much stronger
position than the tenant (they typically own at least two properties, for
instance).

Why would any landlord out a tenant who is not a problem? Lls want to
get
paid & avoid costs, losses & hassles. The paperwork issue you mention
there is simply the direct result of bad government policy.

Because they want to increase the rent?

Lls, like any business, either increase rent in line with market forces,
or lose out. The ones that keep acting like fools & losing out fail to
compete with competent LLs.

But it doesn't work like that out in the real world

LL - pay me an extra 50 pound per month in rent or you'll have to pay a
thousand pounds to move house

T - perhaps I'll pay you the 50 pounds

OTOH there are occasionally situations where the Ll has a serious
financial or family problem and must regain posesssion. Why should the
tenant's wish to remain in the same house for life trump that? Why
should
people go bankrupt or homeless rather than a tenant get reasonable
notice
to move?

That's covered by proposed amendments to Section 8 (LL can take
possession
to sell or live in the property).

to provide it for family members? Where in the 192 pages is that? I didn't
find it.

Well, they're only superficially illegal. They just get incorporated
into
the rent, none of that fiddling changes the total costs any.

The government has very poor comprehension of the sector.

The argument is that there's no competitive market in hidden fees. The
customer of the letting agency is the landlord, who gets to select the
agency based on their offer. For a given property, the tenant doesn't
have
a choice in which agency to use.

No no no. Tenants are not welded to choosing one property, they have a
whole market to choose from.

you obviously don't live in the real world of renting

This is what has resulted in agency fees
to tenants skyrocketing.

it isn't

By incorporating fees into the rent (or the fees charged to the LL),
competitve pressure is supposed to keep them under control.

whether they are incorporated or separate makes zero difference to the
cost.

you have had it explained to you

Yes it does

Obviously incorporating them does not control them.

It Economics 101 that it does. So it's not even a tiny bit obvious that it
doesn't

That is the sort of nonsense one hears from politicians keen to smooth
through their agenda.

And you obviously know absolutely nothing about something you have seen fit
to come here and discuss

tim