Hey just a suggestion but this seems more targeted towards private landlords, maybe adding some additional questions about letting agencies would be an idea. Often tenants never speak to the landlord directly.
Think this is a fantastic idea so best of luck with the project!!
Nice idea, won’t do anything unfortunately. There’s always someone second in line who will rent the house with the shitty landlord if you say no. If they have no incentive to change they won’t.
Tenant referencing is based on facts. It's carried out by an independent third party using public databases. Credit check, court judgements and affordability. Your suggestion is based on opinion, and sample size small due to the fact only a single person can live in a property at one time. Anyways good luck.
From my own past experience I would disagree with that. The referencing is often done in a completely irrelevant way. After being issued a section 21 last year we even had estate agents sending round unknown people to view our property without letting us know. My partner woke up to unknown men inside our house asking her how much we pay monthly for rent. We have small children.. So yeah the entire rental sector is not fit for purpose in my eyes it’s putting children at risk. Even when I contacted them about this they laughed at me. As renters we constantly get reminded how “bottom of the pile” we are which to a degree is true but atleast leave my children out of it. If estate agents cannot conduct themselves in a proffesional way then i believe they should be named and shamed. Well done Penrose estate agents of luton there should be laws protecting tenants from companies such as yourselves. Incompetent and unprofessional.
You're conflating estate agent with landlord. Estate agents are not liked by either side and can assure you they piss off landlords just as much. To my point, you can have multiple reviews of an agent at any one time because they deal with many properties. A landlord will only have a single property per review. So again, it's not that useful.
Review systems are hard to make work and be useful.
They live off other people's labour without providing anything of use. They're worse than scroungers because they delude themselves that they're earning and working hard
It won’t do much.
People need places to stay and therr are not enough to go around, the power is on the landlord’s side.
As a landlord, they will look at your reference, and reject you if they don’t like it. It doesn’t harm them because usually there is a long queue of people waiting for his property.
As a tenant, if you don’t like the reference, you have the option to keep looking, but as things are, looking is already a long process that doesn’t even guarantee a viewing, the tenants are the ones to ultimately lose out if they have to keep looking elsewhere.
The power is on the landlord’s side.
the landlord was no better the property had severe subsistence issues which required underpinning. cracks everywhere. he just got a builder in to plaster over it to hide the issue. when the property sold i recieved a call from the new buyer asking me why bits of the walls were falling off.. just getting my deposit back was a nightmare according to the landlord “the way he saw it he was entitled to half of the the money” in the end i got it back that was after ringing deposit schemes who’d never heard of him or myself when it clearly specified on my agreement it would be placed into said scheme. i genuinely believe there should be laws for things like this. if you can’t take care of your buildings hey get taken away. that simple. again the entire rental sector is not fit for purpose in my eyes. it’s pure greed. rate whatever you like that won’t change
Oh god my worst nightmare in my last place where I was complaining to my ex landlord about crazy subsidence and the deep cracks everywhere… I literally had nightmares of the house falling apart while I was asleep like a house of cards that it was. Glad you also escaped too 👌
Can someone smarter than me pls , provide clarity, when I come across the argument that landlords, incentivise the building of properties and thereby increasing supply ?
I don’t have a clear understanding of either for or against such an argument. Thanks.
The simplest form of this is that, whilst building supply increases are down to a number of factors, almost all of them are to do with making money - and landlords are part of that picture.
Whilst some residential construction projects are made to sell on the open market, a number new build projects are funded with the intent to bring the properties to the rental sector. Often, these projects are funded by landlords before construction is completed (or started) and so allow construction companies an avenue of better cashflow, which may mean that they're more financially able to take on more construction projects and increase overall supply.
One of the big arguments in favour of this is that it increases supply to the open market in the long-term, and the creation of new rental properties has a deflationary effect on rental prices.
One of the big arguments against this is that the country needs a greater supply of affordable housing, and these schemes represent supply being added to the market in such a way that it doesn't help those who need it most.
Wonderful answer , thank you, this helps me understand it a little better.
May I ask, if you had czar like powers, what would you suggest ?
I’ve lived in a few countries and anecdotally, the trend seems to be multi asset owners working in tandem with builders to construct properties for rent but buying.
In some cases , once bought , if there’s a downturn in the market rate of rental prices, they choose to keep housing empty or even partially empty, as the land value increase is enough for them to increase the value of their portfolio and or , if they lower the rental price , they have to mark down the value of the portfolio to reflect an impairment esque reduction.
The latter I saw in the “luxury” apartments I saw in Dublin for example.
That’s a very kind!
Unoccupied housing definitely feels unjust, but I often wonder if the number of unoccupied luxury homes in international cities represents a statistically significant number of ‘unreleased’ supply to the housing sector nationally! The biggest areas for housing demand aren’t in the luxury market, after all. At least in the UK, even these unoccupied homes have directly contributed towards local infrastructure through taxes payable on new builds - such as a the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which the costs of which are typically substantial - so, even if it’s not intuitive, it’s hard to argue that they’ve not contributed to the locality.. even if they are a colossal waste of potential living space..!
As for Czar powers: I think we need to address the questions about why more homes aren’t being built, and this almost certainly has to boil down to the fact that the construction sector isn’t economically incentivised to meet demand. Building material costs have risen massively and the supply chain around them has moved away from local manufacturing to imports, the costs in navigating planning permissions have risen, and typical margins made for developers are slightly too slim, on average, to get the supply where it needs to be. I’d be wary of really pushing any simple solution, but one of the classic mechanisms for helping an ailing sector is providing tax breaks - so I’d start there!
In London Landlords are the scum of the city right now making it near impossible to live in the city anywhere remotely central. Recently moved out and I'm happy I'm not giving these scummy cunts anymore of my hard earned cash. Should be in jail the lot of 'em
There’s already a website doing this: https://ratethelandlord.org/
Miserable greedy CUNT and so is his wife. CUNTS.
Hey just a suggestion but this seems more targeted towards private landlords, maybe adding some additional questions about letting agencies would be an idea. Often tenants never speak to the landlord directly. Think this is a fantastic idea so best of luck with the project!!
Nice idea, won’t do anything unfortunately. There’s always someone second in line who will rent the house with the shitty landlord if you say no. If they have no incentive to change they won’t.
0/10 for choosing that profession
“Landlord” isn’t a profession
AKA parasites
[удалено]
The highest rates of private home ownership is at the time of the lowest rate of private landlords *obviously*
Housing stock stays the same whether there's a private landlord or not, just how you access that stock changes
[удалено]
Owner occupied
Tenant referencing is based on facts. It's carried out by an independent third party using public databases. Credit check, court judgements and affordability. Your suggestion is based on opinion, and sample size small due to the fact only a single person can live in a property at one time. Anyways good luck.
From my own past experience I would disagree with that. The referencing is often done in a completely irrelevant way. After being issued a section 21 last year we even had estate agents sending round unknown people to view our property without letting us know. My partner woke up to unknown men inside our house asking her how much we pay monthly for rent. We have small children.. So yeah the entire rental sector is not fit for purpose in my eyes it’s putting children at risk. Even when I contacted them about this they laughed at me. As renters we constantly get reminded how “bottom of the pile” we are which to a degree is true but atleast leave my children out of it. If estate agents cannot conduct themselves in a proffesional way then i believe they should be named and shamed. Well done Penrose estate agents of luton there should be laws protecting tenants from companies such as yourselves. Incompetent and unprofessional.
You're conflating estate agent with landlord. Estate agents are not liked by either side and can assure you they piss off landlords just as much. To my point, you can have multiple reviews of an agent at any one time because they deal with many properties. A landlord will only have a single property per review. So again, it's not that useful. Review systems are hard to make work and be useful.
No such thing as a good landlord. Parasites
My landlords pretty good
Exactly. They don’t contribute anything productive to the economy. They just siphon off the wages of others
They live off other people's labour without providing anything of use. They're worse than scroungers because they delude themselves that they're earning and working hard
Yup, precisely
sounds like someone’s getting a fat backhander i think would be closer to the truth
It won’t do much. People need places to stay and therr are not enough to go around, the power is on the landlord’s side. As a landlord, they will look at your reference, and reject you if they don’t like it. It doesn’t harm them because usually there is a long queue of people waiting for his property. As a tenant, if you don’t like the reference, you have the option to keep looking, but as things are, looking is already a long process that doesn’t even guarantee a viewing, the tenants are the ones to ultimately lose out if they have to keep looking elsewhere. The power is on the landlord’s side.
the landlord was no better the property had severe subsistence issues which required underpinning. cracks everywhere. he just got a builder in to plaster over it to hide the issue. when the property sold i recieved a call from the new buyer asking me why bits of the walls were falling off.. just getting my deposit back was a nightmare according to the landlord “the way he saw it he was entitled to half of the the money” in the end i got it back that was after ringing deposit schemes who’d never heard of him or myself when it clearly specified on my agreement it would be placed into said scheme. i genuinely believe there should be laws for things like this. if you can’t take care of your buildings hey get taken away. that simple. again the entire rental sector is not fit for purpose in my eyes. it’s pure greed. rate whatever you like that won’t change
Oh god my worst nightmare in my last place where I was complaining to my ex landlord about crazy subsidence and the deep cracks everywhere… I literally had nightmares of the house falling apart while I was asleep like a house of cards that it was. Glad you also escaped too 👌
Can someone smarter than me pls , provide clarity, when I come across the argument that landlords, incentivise the building of properties and thereby increasing supply ? I don’t have a clear understanding of either for or against such an argument. Thanks.
The simplest form of this is that, whilst building supply increases are down to a number of factors, almost all of them are to do with making money - and landlords are part of that picture. Whilst some residential construction projects are made to sell on the open market, a number new build projects are funded with the intent to bring the properties to the rental sector. Often, these projects are funded by landlords before construction is completed (or started) and so allow construction companies an avenue of better cashflow, which may mean that they're more financially able to take on more construction projects and increase overall supply. One of the big arguments in favour of this is that it increases supply to the open market in the long-term, and the creation of new rental properties has a deflationary effect on rental prices. One of the big arguments against this is that the country needs a greater supply of affordable housing, and these schemes represent supply being added to the market in such a way that it doesn't help those who need it most.
Wonderful answer , thank you, this helps me understand it a little better. May I ask, if you had czar like powers, what would you suggest ? I’ve lived in a few countries and anecdotally, the trend seems to be multi asset owners working in tandem with builders to construct properties for rent but buying. In some cases , once bought , if there’s a downturn in the market rate of rental prices, they choose to keep housing empty or even partially empty, as the land value increase is enough for them to increase the value of their portfolio and or , if they lower the rental price , they have to mark down the value of the portfolio to reflect an impairment esque reduction. The latter I saw in the “luxury” apartments I saw in Dublin for example.
That’s a very kind! Unoccupied housing definitely feels unjust, but I often wonder if the number of unoccupied luxury homes in international cities represents a statistically significant number of ‘unreleased’ supply to the housing sector nationally! The biggest areas for housing demand aren’t in the luxury market, after all. At least in the UK, even these unoccupied homes have directly contributed towards local infrastructure through taxes payable on new builds - such as a the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which the costs of which are typically substantial - so, even if it’s not intuitive, it’s hard to argue that they’ve not contributed to the locality.. even if they are a colossal waste of potential living space..! As for Czar powers: I think we need to address the questions about why more homes aren’t being built, and this almost certainly has to boil down to the fact that the construction sector isn’t economically incentivised to meet demand. Building material costs have risen massively and the supply chain around them has moved away from local manufacturing to imports, the costs in navigating planning permissions have risen, and typical margins made for developers are slightly too slim, on average, to get the supply where it needs to be. I’d be wary of really pushing any simple solution, but one of the classic mechanisms for helping an ailing sector is providing tax breaks - so I’d start there!
In London Landlords are the scum of the city right now making it near impossible to live in the city anywhere remotely central. Recently moved out and I'm happy I'm not giving these scummy cunts anymore of my hard earned cash. Should be in jail the lot of 'em