Metropol

Gavin Scott wrote:

Stuart* wrote:She may end up in the 'big house', but you could potentially end up in the local burns unit, or even worse, in a box in the ground.

Well when you gotta go, you gotta go.

I admire your commitment to fatalism, Gav. However, I've always been of a mind to try to put off the inevitable event as long as possible, by any means at my disposal, where it wouldn't unnecessarily affect other lifestyle choices.

But, each to their own, I suppose.

Isonstine wrote:Well of course it's never worth risking your life for anything. Gavin has asked and is content with the situation as it stands.

Are you Gav's new spokesperson, Jimmy?

Stuart* wrote:I admire your commitment to fatalism, Gav.

I'm not a fatalist. I'm a realist.

Isonstine wrote:Well of course it's never worth risking your life for anything. Gavin has asked and is content with the situation as it stands.

Are you Gav's new spokesperson, Jimmy?

Yes. Yes he is.

An announcement will be made in due course.

Stuart* wrote:

Isonstine wrote:Well of course it's never worth risking your life for anything. Gavin has asked and is content with the situation as it stands.

Are you Gav's new spokesperson, Jimmy?

I make no more assumptions about people than you do, Stuey.

Gavin Scott wrote:
FYI I hate the word "snigger". "Chuckle" preferably, and "titter" if you really must.

I'm a sucker for chortle and cackle

Stuart* wrote:We may all snigger at some of the rather obvious or over-protective health and safety regulations; but is it worth risking your life for the sake of a cheaper rent?

I don't think that's the right question to be asking. If everyone who wanted rental accommodation could afford the higher rent there would be no issue. But that's not realistic. In fact, as you make renting more expensive - which you invariably do the more regulations you impose on landlords - then some people are going to be priced out of the market. They won't be able to afford accommodation. The most extreme consequence of that is that people are left homeless. So the question is, are they better off sleeping in a cardboard box on the street than in a rental property which might not have all the desired safety features?

Mr Q wrote:

Stuart* wrote:We may all snigger at some of the rather obvious or over-protective health and safety regulations; but is it worth risking your life for the sake of a cheaper rent?

I don't think that's the right question to be asking. If everyone who wanted rental accommodation could afford the higher rent there would be no issue. But that's not realistic. In fact, as you make renting more expensive - which you invariably do the more regulations you impose on landlords - then some people are going to be priced out of the market. They won't be able to afford accommodation. The most extreme consequence of that is that people are left homeless. So the question is, are they better off sleeping in a cardboard box on the street than in a rental property which might not have all the desired safety features?

Yeah yeah. but are you are a chortle, snigger or titter guy?

HMO only affects properties of three bedrooms and over shared by non-related peoples.

familes therefore should be able to get non-hmo rentals, as should those with a bit of spare cash or under two people. in theory those too destitute for even this should be able to get a council house / housing association property.

Lorns wrote:

Mr Q wrote:

Stuart* wrote:We may all snigger at some of the rather obvious or over-protective health and safety regulations; but is it worth risking your life for the sake of a cheaper rent?

I don't think that's the right question to be asking. If everyone who wanted rental accommodation could afford the higher rent there would be no issue. But that's not realistic. In fact, as you make renting more expensive - which you invariably do the more regulations you impose on landlords - then some people are going to be priced out of the market. They won't be able to afford accommodation. The most extreme consequence of that is that people are left homeless. So the question is, are they better off sleeping in a cardboard box on the street than in a rental property which might not have all the desired safety features?

Yeah yeah. but are you are a chortle, snigger or titter guy?

Chortle. Good word is chortle - and frankly underused.

Hymagumba wrote:HMO only affects properties of three bedrooms and over shared by non-related peoples.

familes therefore should be able to get non-hmo rentals, as should those with a bit of spare cash or under two people. in theory those too destitute for even this should be able to get a council house / housing association property.

Point taken - however I was following on from Gavin's point about him being content with the fact that his landlord perhaps hasn't dutifully fulfilled every single responsibility imposed by the regulations relating to general rental properties.

Not everyone who can't get a rental property will end up out on the street. It might simply mean they live at home with their parents for longer than they might have intended. The point is that where regulation imposes additional costs (and thus higher rents), resulting in people not being able to afford rental accommodation, there is a problem. People who might be willing to sacrifice some level of safety in favour of lower rents are denied the opportunity - they are left worse off.

Mr Q wrote:Point taken - however I was following on from Gavin's point about him being content with the fact that his landlord perhaps hasn't dutifully fulfilled every single responsibility imposed by the regulations relating to general rental properties.

Not everyone who can't get a rental property will end up out on the street. It might simply mean they live at home with their parents for longer than they might have intended. The point is that where regulation imposes additional costs (and thus higher rents), resulting in people not being able to afford rental accommodation, there is a problem. People who might be willing to sacrifice some level of safety in favour of lower rents are denied the opportunity - they are left worse off.

In principle that may be true, but that's not really what happens.

Protection for tenants (and let's be clear - that is the function of housing regulation) is relatively cheap. Mains powered smoke alarms, yearly gas and electrical check-ups and extractor fans more or less cover the mandatory requirements for private letting.

The expensive part isn't regulated - redecoration, new appliances, furtniture, bathrooms, carpets and so on. A lot of that is discretionary.

Landlords tend to put in what they believe they can charge back in rental. No one is being kept out of accommodations because of smoke alarms and a gas man once a year.

If anything, some can't afford the free-market dictated entry-level.

In the case of me - I rent from someone I know who hasn't been in the property for 8 years. As such my rental increases in real terms has stayed below the inflation rate - but that means I haven't had the benefit of repairs and renewals. Its a perfectly satisfactory deal which has allowed me to pay off a third of her mortgage with no involvement from her, save one or two things.

For HMOs, the legislation is more strict - but largely its designed to stop MANY people from burning to death - doors with intumescent linings and fire breaks being the main requirements. Across the larger number of rentals received, the price passed on to tenants is nominally the same for an individual in a small private let.

Gavin Scott wrote:Protection for tenants (and let's be clear - that is the function of housing regulation) is relatively cheap. Mains powered smoke alarms, yearly gas and electrical check-ups and extractor fans more or less cover the mandatory requirements for private letting.

The expensive part isn't regulated - redecoration, new appliances, furtniture, bathrooms, carpets and so on. A lot of that is discretionary.

Landlords tend to put in what they believe they can charge back in rental. No one is being kept out of accommodations because of smoke alarms and a gas man once a year.

Let be clear, I certainly agree that there's not going to be a mass of people who can't get rental accommodation because of the cost of smoke detectors. That would be silly. I was making a general point about the impact of excessive regulation and the need to avoid it in all contexts, not simply in the HMO-relevant market. I suspect Gavin if your landlord was subject to reviews every couple of months by relevant authorities, it would represent a substantial disincentive for them to rent out their property.

In terms of the discretionary expenditure, that's absolutely right - and entirely a good thing. It's what gives people choice when it comes to renting a property. Without that discretionary element, everyone would be living in Soviet-inspired residential blocks with no variation from flat to flat. High quality furnishings will contribute to higher rental values, and will cater to those who are on higher incomes and are willing to pay. The less that the landlord puts into the amenity of the property, the less they would expect to receive in rent (but that's not necessarily an issue, because they will also face lower costs). It enables those properties to be affordable for those on lower incomes. It is the ability of the market to cater to different needs - not regulation - which ensures that rental properties can be available to a large number of people with vastly different preferences, needs and abilities to pay.

If anything, some can't afford the free-market dictated entry-level.

Well, I would argue that there is no free-market level when it comes to property. The property market is fundamentally distorted by a range of tax and other policy distortions. There are direct effects in terms of regulations pertaining to rental properties, but also various incentives or disincentives (depending on which policies are being employed at any point in time) to buy property relative to renting. You can go a step further and assess the relative distortions between different types of investments as well - obviously where other types of investments are made more attractive, then this might result in fewer investment properties, which drives an artificial scarcity in the rental market and pushes prices up.

For HMOs, the legislation is more strict - but largely its designed to stop MANY people from burning to death - doors with intumescent linings and fire breaks being the main requirements. Across the larger number of rentals received, the price passed on to tenants is nominally the same for an individual in a small private let.

Well, that's not entirely clear to me if in just a matter of months lukey's property has been subject to three different reviews by relevant authorities. Is there really a huge safety issue with loose sink plugs instead of having them chained like a pen at a bank?

what is of particular note however is the manner in which landlord's behave. If i were a landlord, it would make sense to me to get the properties as near to flawless with regards to the regs as possible, so although its a greater initial spend, when new rules such as fitting strips to doors appear, it's pretty minor to make sure I'm still up to date.

however there is a particular style of landlord who instead try to avoid paying any money and end up costing themselves more out of misplaced greed and stupidity by only trying to patch things up to the basic minimum.

course having said that, the council have their favourites when it comes to pouncing with checks (clue: "don't go with .....") and I suspect luke's particular landlord is midrange on that scale.