In short because this would be wrong and unfair on a lot of people who own property. They shouldn’t pay the price for a failing Housing system. It also doesn’t address the issue, which is ongoing. As a principle, I also don’t think you should restrict what individuals can own. You can tax to try to mitigate the issue, but preventing individuals from owning more than one property isn’t fair or reasonable. What would be though is dealing with foreign investors who purchase (particularly in London) huge stocks of new housing. There was a case in East London where virtually an entire block of housing was purchased by a foreign investor and was kept empty. These type of deals is commonplace and all it does is push the price of housing up. This is what needs to be tackled by the Government.
I do however agree with you about the ability of the Government (although by this I think you mean Local Authorities) to start building housing again themselves. There are also huge shortages of skilled construction workers and something that doesn’t get talked about at all, is that there is a huge shortage of materials. Bricks are a real problem in the construction sector because the lead in times to get them is just crazy now.
I’m fully in favour of regulation. Ultimately if you are a good Landlord there isn’t anything you should be worried about. The idea that all single people are excellent tenants and all young families and single Mums/Dads are problematic because they have children is ridiculous. Unfortunately you will always get some people who are bad tenants but you cannot label a whole group of people in society as bad tenants and refuse to offer them housing. It is a very sad state of affairs if as a country we have got to a position where young families or a single Mum/Dad cannot get housing because they are being discriminated against. This is not acceptable in any way.
I do however appreciate concerns from Landlords, about how they deal with a bad tenant. There have been plenty of documentaries which highlight the difficulties some good Landlords have faced with tenants who have moved into their property, refused to pay any rent, done damage to the property and then refused to leave. While there absolutely has to be the right and necessary safeguards in place to protect tenants, there also has to be a balance that bad ones can be dealt with expediently. I also think that if this was in place, we wouldn’t have so many concerns from private Landlords about regulation.
Unfortunately, all this debate just goes to highlight how bad the housing situation has got. As a country we should not be dependant on the private rented sector to provide housing. Interest rates are making it even more difficult for people to buy a home, so this pressure is only going to increase. Local Authorities no longer have the expertise or resources to suddenly start building Council housing again, and even if they do, as with affordable housing secured through the planning system, the right to buy means that affordable housing can ultimately be purchased. Before anyone says it, the situation is also not solved by simply granting permission for more homes.
False dichotomy though. It could be neither or both. You can be an extremelly loud child or a quit, single make.
In the case given, I’d rather the rowdy adult, at least there is a chance they’d stop playing the music. It’s not possible for children to stop being loud orwaking up at night.
I’d say it’s fairly reasonable for a home owner to have preferences as to who lives in their home.
Sorry for replying to this message specifically - there were a few similar.
How is this the same as a blanket rule against kids? I’m not sure if you have worked in banking but it’s more the opposite when actually factoring this stuff in.
I never said it’s the same. I’m giving a comparative example of how variables affect the overall liability of a lender and why it’s a natural and acceptable practice for a commercial entity to seek to minimize its potential liability in any commercial agreement.
If a single parent of three kids has access to less credit is that discrimination because they has kids?
That’s not to say letting families automatically mean they’ll be bad tenants or that they’ll be unable to pay rent, it is a safer option on paper not to let to a tenant with kids if you don’t have to for a variety of reasons
But that isn’t always the case, is it? It would require an assessment of the individual situation to determine that, and that is what happens. A blanket rule against kids wouldn’t allow for any such assessment to be made.
I’ve lent to plenty of families with kids and denied credit to plenty of people without kids. It isn’t specifically about whether they have children or not, a single high income earner could also have the same access to credit as that single mother if he uses his money poorly.
In this case, it is purely a determination of whether the prospective tenant has kids or not.
And for the record, I actually don’t have an issue with people not wanting to rent their home to kids, I just don’t think using lending is a good example to use in this instance.
I gave blanket generic comparators for a reason, I’m not trying to delve too deeply as it skew the example.
I said it was common practice to consider personal economic variables in commercial agreements. It’s natural for a Landlord\lender to seek to minimize over liability where possible
That rarely happens even in England nowadays. Things have quietly changed over the years, where unless you are carrying an amount which might suggest you’re a dealer/supplier, you’ll just end up with a fine.