Tried and failed

York Press: Tried and failed Tried and failed

PROPOSED capping of private rents has nothing to do with reducing City of York Council’s housing benefit costs, but everything to do with Labour’s antipathy towards capitalism and private landlords.

Housing benefit is already restricted to a maximum payment for each property type, no matter what the rent is. Therefore rent controls would make no difference unless these were deliberately set below accepted benefit rates. But this is what it is all about: introducing new regulations to damage wicked landlords for the benefit of virtuous tenants.

It has already been tried and failed. Long before James Alexander was born, arbitrary rent controls were introduced which took no account of the cost of building or purchasing the houses in the first place; maintenance and repair; insurance and administration; or the losses suffered when tenants from hell failed to pay rent, trashed the house, stole the contents and disappeared leaving enormous unpaid bills.

The only thing achieved by rent capping would be to persuade existing and prospective providers of rented housing that this is not the business to be in.

Following regulations that have already persuaded so many builders to no longer construct new homes, the housing crisis would deteriorate from critical to catastrophic as a direct consequence.

Matthew Laverack, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:17am Thu 20 Feb 14

Zetkin says...

Nonsense.

Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible.

The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants.

Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine.
Nonsense. Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible. The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants. Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine. Zetkin

11:44am Thu 20 Feb 14

rking1977 says...

Capping private rent seems like a very good idea to me.

It addresses not only the housing benefit bill, but also the inter-generational unfairness in the property market and living standards.

Living standards and home ownership in this city, as in the UK overall, seem to be largely determined by when you were born.

Many born in the 1980s or later pay disproportionately high rents and mortgages simply because they missed out on the house price boom of the late 90s/early 2000s. They struggle to afford even the most modest homes, let alone a second, third or fourth property.

Why? Because demand is outstripping supply. So restricting rents would prevent landlords from capitalising on someone else's misfortune.

It could also encourage landlords to sell off less profitable properties (which are likely to suit first time buyers), which would help ease supply and demand.

If (as we're constantly told) we are experiencing a "housing crisis", we either need ideas like this, or we need to cover our countryside in even more new homes to meet demand. Which is better?
Capping private rent seems like a very good idea to me. It addresses not only the housing benefit bill, but also the inter-generational unfairness in the property market and living standards. Living standards and home ownership in this city, as in the UK overall, seem to be largely determined by when you were born. Many born in the 1980s or later pay disproportionately high rents and mortgages simply because they missed out on the house price boom of the late 90s/early 2000s. They struggle to afford even the most modest homes, let alone a second, third or fourth property. Why? Because demand is outstripping supply. So restricting rents would prevent landlords from capitalising on someone else's misfortune. It could also encourage landlords to sell off less profitable properties (which are likely to suit first time buyers), which would help ease supply and demand. If (as we're constantly told) we are experiencing a "housing crisis", we either need ideas like this, or we need to cover our countryside in even more new homes to meet demand. Which is better? rking1977

11:46am Thu 20 Feb 14

roadwars says...

High rent boosts the profits of landlords meaning they are able to snap up more and more private houses. This keeps the house-prices high meaning that no first time buyers can get on the housing ladder so there is a massive requirement for rental properties, this means that the rent stays high...
All very good for landlords and builders...Mr Laverack.
High rent boosts the profits of landlords meaning they are able to snap up more and more private houses. This keeps the house-prices high meaning that no first time buyers can get on the housing ladder so there is a massive requirement for rental properties, this means that the rent stays high... All very good for landlords and builders...Mr Laverack. roadwars

1:03pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Prob says...

"Housing benefit is already restricted to a maximum payment for each property type, no matter what the rent is. Therefore rent controls would make no difference unless these were deliberately set below accepted benefit rates. But this is what it is all about: introducing new regulations to damage wicked landlords for the benefit of virtuous tenants. "

What a load of absolute dribble.

Not everyone who lives in private rented accomodation is in reciept of housing benefit. Very few are, i'd wager.
"Housing benefit is already restricted to a maximum payment for each property type, no matter what the rent is. Therefore rent controls would make no difference unless these were deliberately set below accepted benefit rates. But this is what it is all about: introducing new regulations to damage wicked landlords for the benefit of virtuous tenants. " What a load of absolute dribble. Not everyone who lives in private rented accomodation is in reciept of housing benefit. Very few are, i'd wager. Prob

1:26pm Thu 20 Feb 14

The Great Buda says...

Four very good and on the button replies there.

I expect his friend will be along soon, to shout you all down.
Four very good and on the button replies there. I expect his friend will be along soon, to shout you all down. The Great Buda

1:41pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

everything to do with Labour’s antipathy towards capitalism and private landlords.

Antipathy. That's quite moderate.
Because according to Mr L's mate, the cowardly anonymous Off His Rocking Horse - "It's all about cutting out the private sector (starving capitalism)" to feed a Marxist agenda.
[quote]everything to do with Labour’s antipathy towards capitalism and private landlords.[/quote] Antipathy. That's quite moderate. Because according to Mr L's mate, the cowardly anonymous Off His Rocking Horse - "It's all about cutting out the private sector (starving capitalism)" to feed a Marxist agenda. Buzzz Light-year

2:07pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

Zetkin wrote:
Nonsense.

Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible.

The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants.

Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine.
Strictly speaking, Thatcher did not abolish rent controls, they are still very much in place for the few remaining tenants on statutory/protected tenancies. What she did was introduce the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Act encouraging more private landlords to enter a sector that was in decline with low rents alongside often very poor housing, and offering a viable third choice to the main two post war options of buy/rent a council house. The problem that exists today was more the mass sale of council houses and more specifically not reinvesting the proceeds in social housing, so you can still blame Thatcher, but you are doing so for the right reasons. Thatcher did genuinely believe in home ownership for the masses (vote winner) and I don't think it was part of any plan to have those who wanted to own stuck in rented accommodation as is now happening and which would be a requirement if the plan was actually "to make landlords as rich as possible".
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Nonsense. Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible. The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants. Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine.[/p][/quote]Strictly speaking, Thatcher did not abolish rent controls, they are still very much in place for the few remaining tenants on statutory/protected tenancies. What she did was introduce the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Act encouraging more private landlords to enter a sector that was in decline with low rents alongside often very poor housing, and offering a viable third choice to the main two post war options of buy/rent a council house. The problem that exists today was more the mass sale of council houses and more specifically not reinvesting the proceeds in social housing, so you can still blame Thatcher, but you are doing so for the right reasons. Thatcher did genuinely believe in home ownership for the masses (vote winner) and I don't think it was part of any plan to have those who wanted to own stuck in rented accommodation as is now happening and which would be a requirement if the plan was actually "to make landlords as rich as possible". Mulgrave

3:39pm Thu 20 Feb 14

rking1977 says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
Nonsense.

Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible.

The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants.

Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine.
Strictly speaking, Thatcher did not abolish rent controls, they are still very much in place for the few remaining tenants on statutory/protected tenancies. What she did was introduce the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Act encouraging more private landlords to enter a sector that was in decline with low rents alongside often very poor housing, and offering a viable third choice to the main two post war options of buy/rent a council house. The problem that exists today was more the mass sale of council houses and more specifically not reinvesting the proceeds in social housing, so you can still blame Thatcher, but you are doing so for the right reasons. Thatcher did genuinely believe in home ownership for the masses (vote winner) and I don't think it was part of any plan to have those who wanted to own stuck in rented accommodation as is now happening and which would be a requirement if the plan was actually "to make landlords as rich as possible".
Some people on here clearly know what they're talking about, so here's a question that's always puzzled me.

I know Right to Buy is commonly criticised for leading to a housing shortage, but how did it alter the ratio of tenants to homes (whether it was private or public housing), which surely is the root cause of a shortage? Didn't it mean people who would rent simply lived in the same place but owned it? Or did Thatcher allow anyone to buy up council houses, or just council tenants through Right to Buy?

I was a child of the 80s so never really took things like this on board at the time but they've clearly left a legacy.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Nonsense. Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible. The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants. Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine.[/p][/quote]Strictly speaking, Thatcher did not abolish rent controls, they are still very much in place for the few remaining tenants on statutory/protected tenancies. What she did was introduce the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Act encouraging more private landlords to enter a sector that was in decline with low rents alongside often very poor housing, and offering a viable third choice to the main two post war options of buy/rent a council house. The problem that exists today was more the mass sale of council houses and more specifically not reinvesting the proceeds in social housing, so you can still blame Thatcher, but you are doing so for the right reasons. Thatcher did genuinely believe in home ownership for the masses (vote winner) and I don't think it was part of any plan to have those who wanted to own stuck in rented accommodation as is now happening and which would be a requirement if the plan was actually "to make landlords as rich as possible".[/p][/quote]Some people on here clearly know what they're talking about, so here's a question that's always puzzled me. I know Right to Buy is commonly criticised for leading to a housing shortage, but how did it alter the ratio of tenants to homes (whether it was private or public housing), which surely is the root cause of a shortage? Didn't it mean people who would rent simply lived in the same place but owned it? Or did Thatcher allow anyone to buy up council houses, or just council tenants through Right to Buy? I was a child of the 80s so never really took things like this on board at the time but they've clearly left a legacy. rking1977

4:18pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Prob says...

rking1977 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Zetkin wrote: Nonsense. Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible. The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants. Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine.
Strictly speaking, Thatcher did not abolish rent controls, they are still very much in place for the few remaining tenants on statutory/protected tenancies. What she did was introduce the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Act encouraging more private landlords to enter a sector that was in decline with low rents alongside often very poor housing, and offering a viable third choice to the main two post war options of buy/rent a council house. The problem that exists today was more the mass sale of council houses and more specifically not reinvesting the proceeds in social housing, so you can still blame Thatcher, but you are doing so for the right reasons. Thatcher did genuinely believe in home ownership for the masses (vote winner) and I don't think it was part of any plan to have those who wanted to own stuck in rented accommodation as is now happening and which would be a requirement if the plan was actually "to make landlords as rich as possible".
Some people on here clearly know what they're talking about, so here's a question that's always puzzled me. I know Right to Buy is commonly criticised for leading to a housing shortage, but how did it alter the ratio of tenants to homes (whether it was private or public housing), which surely is the root cause of a shortage? Didn't it mean people who would rent simply lived in the same place but owned it? Or did Thatcher allow anyone to buy up council houses, or just council tenants through Right to Buy? I was a child of the 80s so never really took things like this on board at the time but they've clearly left a legacy.
People don't generally claim it has lead to an overall shortage of housing, but certainly a shortage of social housing for those who cannot afford to rent privately or buy. Private rents have since become very high in comparison to social housing, making the problem worse.

There is an argument to suggest that less local authority income = lower local authority building, but i don't buy that.
[quote][p][bold]rking1977[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Nonsense. Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible. The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants. Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine.[/p][/quote]Strictly speaking, Thatcher did not abolish rent controls, they are still very much in place for the few remaining tenants on statutory/protected tenancies. What she did was introduce the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Act encouraging more private landlords to enter a sector that was in decline with low rents alongside often very poor housing, and offering a viable third choice to the main two post war options of buy/rent a council house. The problem that exists today was more the mass sale of council houses and more specifically not reinvesting the proceeds in social housing, so you can still blame Thatcher, but you are doing so for the right reasons. Thatcher did genuinely believe in home ownership for the masses (vote winner) and I don't think it was part of any plan to have those who wanted to own stuck in rented accommodation as is now happening and which would be a requirement if the plan was actually "to make landlords as rich as possible".[/p][/quote]Some people on here clearly know what they're talking about, so here's a question that's always puzzled me. I know Right to Buy is commonly criticised for leading to a housing shortage, but how did it alter the ratio of tenants to homes (whether it was private or public housing), which surely is the root cause of a shortage? Didn't it mean people who would rent simply lived in the same place but owned it? Or did Thatcher allow anyone to buy up council houses, or just council tenants through Right to Buy? I was a child of the 80s so never really took things like this on board at the time but they've clearly left a legacy.[/p][/quote]People don't generally claim it has lead to an overall shortage of housing, but certainly a shortage of social housing for those who cannot afford to rent privately or buy. Private rents have since become very high in comparison to social housing, making the problem worse. There is an argument to suggest that less local authority income = lower local authority building, but i don't buy that. Prob

5:36pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

rking1977 wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
Nonsense.

Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible.

The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants.

Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine.
Strictly speaking, Thatcher did not abolish rent controls, they are still very much in place for the few remaining tenants on statutory/protected tenancies. What she did was introduce the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Act encouraging more private landlords to enter a sector that was in decline with low rents alongside often very poor housing, and offering a viable third choice to the main two post war options of buy/rent a council house. The problem that exists today was more the mass sale of council houses and more specifically not reinvesting the proceeds in social housing, so you can still blame Thatcher, but you are doing so for the right reasons. Thatcher did genuinely believe in home ownership for the masses (vote winner) and I don't think it was part of any plan to have those who wanted to own stuck in rented accommodation as is now happening and which would be a requirement if the plan was actually "to make landlords as rich as possible".
Some people on here clearly know what they're talking about, so here's a question that's always puzzled me.

I know Right to Buy is commonly criticised for leading to a housing shortage, but how did it alter the ratio of tenants to homes (whether it was private or public housing), which surely is the root cause of a shortage? Didn't it mean people who would rent simply lived in the same place but owned it? Or did Thatcher allow anyone to buy up council houses, or just council tenants through Right to Buy?

I was a child of the 80s so never really took things like this on board at the time but they've clearly left a legacy.
Right to buy was limited to the tenants, but I think it was often the case that it was actually family members buying on their behalf, the original tenant would remain initially, but a lot have now moved to retirement housing or died and the houses sold on, some owner occupied and a fair few on the private rental market.

Prior to this period, there was a large amount of subsidy for all types of housing, low rents with plentiful council housing, and tax relief on homebuyers mortgage interest and some maintenance - of course today it is taxed at 20%. Stamp duty was only payable on upmarket priced homes, councils offered cheap mortgages, and grants to add bathrooms and do up old Victorian houses.
[quote][p][bold]rking1977[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Nonsense. Rent controls worked perfectly well, from their introduction in response to the Glagow rent strike of 1915 until their abolition by Thatcher who was keen to make landlords as rich as possible, as quickly as possible. The Glasgow rent strike was a response to landlords hiding behind the wartime "all in it together" rhetoric whilst increasing rents to levels that wilfully deepened the hardship being experienced by their tenants. Perhaps Cameron, Osborne, Smith and the rest need a dose of the same medicine.[/p][/quote]Strictly speaking, Thatcher did not abolish rent controls, they are still very much in place for the few remaining tenants on statutory/protected tenancies. What she did was introduce the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Act encouraging more private landlords to enter a sector that was in decline with low rents alongside often very poor housing, and offering a viable third choice to the main two post war options of buy/rent a council house. The problem that exists today was more the mass sale of council houses and more specifically not reinvesting the proceeds in social housing, so you can still blame Thatcher, but you are doing so for the right reasons. Thatcher did genuinely believe in home ownership for the masses (vote winner) and I don't think it was part of any plan to have those who wanted to own stuck in rented accommodation as is now happening and which would be a requirement if the plan was actually "to make landlords as rich as possible".[/p][/quote]Some people on here clearly know what they're talking about, so here's a question that's always puzzled me. I know Right to Buy is commonly criticised for leading to a housing shortage, but how did it alter the ratio of tenants to homes (whether it was private or public housing), which surely is the root cause of a shortage? Didn't it mean people who would rent simply lived in the same place but owned it? Or did Thatcher allow anyone to buy up council houses, or just council tenants through Right to Buy? I was a child of the 80s so never really took things like this on board at the time but they've clearly left a legacy.[/p][/quote]Right to buy was limited to the tenants, but I think it was often the case that it was actually family members buying on their behalf, the original tenant would remain initially, but a lot have now moved to retirement housing or died and the houses sold on, some owner occupied and a fair few on the private rental market. Prior to this period, there was a large amount of subsidy for all types of housing, low rents with plentiful council housing, and tax relief on homebuyers mortgage interest and some maintenance - of course today it is taxed at 20%. Stamp duty was only payable on upmarket priced homes, councils offered cheap mortgages, and grants to add bathrooms and do up old Victorian houses. Mulgrave

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree