Posted by: madkentdragon | January 24, 2012

A Fair Rent


One thing I’ve noticed about the welfare changes is that a lot of those claiming are subjected to very high rents. Until now, if you didn’t work no one cared how much rent you had to pay – after all the local council/government would be paying it – not you!

The fact that those in employment and just over the cusp of the qualification criteria could not afford these prices only bothered those employed people – was this fair?

Many buy-to-let landlords charged these high rents because they could – and because these rents were set so high, especially in a desirable area like near an excellent school, the mean average of house rental costs rose. Therefore the lower end of the rents would rise.

Public housing and good landlords issue secure or assured tenancies and these are subject to the Fair Rents Act which means that any of their tenants can apply to have the rent formally assessed by a tribunal which is binding.

However private landlords usually do not come under this legislation and can charge a “fair market rent” which means as much as he/she can get for the property. So rents for similar properties can vary from town to town or even from school catchment area to school catchment area.

Is this fair?

No it’s not, but neither is homelessness fair; what the government are aiming for with their reforms probably aren’t fair either – I don’t understand them all so I won’t comment on it as that wouldn’t be fair either.

What would be fair is for all those hyper-expensive rents to be examined and explained. It would also be fair for more public housing to be built – I’ve said this before and no doubt I’ll say it again – when the council houses were sold off – more should have been built with the proceeds.

I’m writing this as a tenant and a pensioner who receives no housing benefit but is fortunate to pay a reasonable rent – OK it’s more expensive than the housing association ones just down the road in the housing estate, but it is not unmanageable. There may come a time, when my savings run low, that I apply for help – but at the moment I am keeping my head above water.

However, when I was looking for a property to rent – I can’t buy before you shout, too old and too many health problems to be insurable – I looked at two houses in a row of terraced properties, they were both built exactly the same with two bedrooms and very little difference in maintenance, but one was £200 dearer than the other – why?

As it was I didn’t opt for either property as they were opposite a 24hour garage and I didn’t fancy the noise! But the first house I rented was a three bedroom property and it was cheaper than the lower priced one above!

It did need redecorating and there were one or two minor faults that were soon sorted, but the landlord had inherited the property from his parents and therefore it was free profit. When he sold it – he had retired and wanted to take his wife on a round the world cruise – I moved to a smaller one which I still live in – again the rent is reasonable but it is smaller.

There are two other properties for rent in the same terrace and each one is dearer than this one – one has had to reduce the rent required because it was so high – £300 more than I pay!

So there is a solution to greedy landlords – if the council/government won’t pay the high rents – will the property remain empty because no one can afford it – in which case the cost will have to drop.

I’m sorry if you are affected, but could you afford to pay that rent if it wasn’t subsidised?

Don’t get me wrong help where needed should be given, but not for these exorbitant rents.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I entirely agree Pat. I know that when Maggie was in power she froze all the monies which councils received from people who were buyimg their own homes so they could not provide more housing. (surprising what working for a political party uncovers) so of course now we are faced with not enough homes for people.

    I think that if some of the older buildings were revamped and modernised it would provide adequate housing, plus jobs and perhaps a kick start for the building industry. But of course the old thing of others first and English second would still rear its ugly head, because, I am sorry to say, of the ‘do gooders’. It is about time people accepted that the English are being pushed aside in preference of others, and that ‘English’ does NOT necessarily mean white.

    Greed and mans unkindness to his fellow man, places people in positions they really do not want to be in, and your comments show this quite clearly. Its a bit like the companies which make a good profit but because of the greedy shareholders not content with a nice profit end up closing and putting people out of work and homes.

    I hope you don’t mind my comments but sometimes the truth is a little bit nasty. Keep up the blogs I look forward to reading more.

    regards

    Michael


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: