The Government is rumoured to be planning to scrap plans to introduce mandatory minimum three-year tenancies.
Reports in The Sun newspaper claim the Treasury opposes the move as it fears it will deter property investors, while Downing Street wants to make it voluntary.
A consultation on introducing three-year tenancies closed just last month.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government told EYE: “Everyone deserves a decent and secure place to live, and we are committed to protecting the rights of those living in rented homes.
“We have consulted on options for making longer-term tenancies the norm, including seeking views on three-year tenancies, which tenants could end with two months’ notice.
“Ministers are now considering responses ahead of announcing next steps.”
It comes as a poll of 2,000 tenants by online letting agent MakeUrMove found that renters aren’t interested in being offered three-year tenancies.
The survey found that only 7.2% of tenants would prefer a tenancy lasting three years, with 30% favouring 12 months and a further 20% wanting tenancies to last for no more than two years.
A third said flexibility was the most important factor when looking at the length of their tenancy.
Alexandra Morris, managing director of MakeUrMove, said: “Many tenancy agreements are currently set at 12 months with a six months break clause, and we’ve found nearly a third of tenants are happy with this length. Our findings reinforce that the majority of people want either the flexibility of a shorter rental, or the security of a much, much longer term.
“While we don’t yet know the outcome of the consultation, our study suggests three-year minimum tenancies aren’t going to address tenants’ key concerns around their rental properties.
“The Government has once again looked at an issue in isolation with no regard for other related issues and proposed regulations.
“We believe that in order to make the rental market work for everyone, someone needs to take a step back and look at the cumulative effect of all changes to the market.”
Comments (3)
Nothing other than a vote winning policy which would backfire big time.. generally this government seems to not worry about the consequences but more about what will win generation rent voters over so watch this space !
Whilst I only offer 6 month tenancies my tenants generally stay 3-5 years. I want my tenants to remain as it costs each time they change so its is all a bit of a nonsense. What I don’t want are tenants who don’t pay their rent, who cause anti social problems and adversely impact neighbours. I want tenants that respect the property and the people around them so my investments do not adversely impact on the the value of my neighbours homes. I like tenants who comply with our mutual contract. If you have to legislate to achieve longer rentals it is probably because you have the type of tenants you don’t need. As landlords we have bullying legislation by licensing where council penalise good landlords for what? Those tenants who are anti-social and puts it on landlords to do the jobs of others such as councils and the police to deal with anti social problems. After all a major justification for licensing is because of alleged anti social behavior in some areas. Then they complain if problem tenants are removed and shelter then scream out nasty landlords!! I support the fact that tenants are entitled to a decent place to live but equally that costs. The bad landlords offering poor property probably attract those tenants that good landlords might not accept. The whole market is a two way street but the politicians have blinkered views driven by so called charities that represent a small, but unfortunate part of the market and have a desire to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. Most of the market works fine for both landlords and tenants. The difficulties have been, to some extent, by Government asset stripping the social housing market since Thatcher was in power.
A cautious step back would be most apposite, especially whilst major changes are already underway within the housing market generally.
If the private letting market is largely supplied with properties from private investors (which it is), it’s a question of balancing the aspirations of both landlords and tenants there.
If tenants of private lettings don’t actually want longer term commitments but would mostly prefer flexibility, then already knowing that private landlords don’t want minimum three year tenancies, rather suggests that such a requirement would not help the provision, by private landlords, of more properties available for rent and nor would it help tenants by allowing them the flexibility they need whilst renting in the private sector.
From this, the private sector appears to only be capable of managing short-term lettings.
The clear inference from this is that those tenants who wish for added security ought to be provided with property owned and managed by the public sector. This has worked perfectly well in the past so there are substantial reasons directing that all governments (of whatever persuasion), should provide such tenanted property in the future. Housing associations and charities may naturally be involved in supplying these services as well.
There should of course be a symbiotic working relationship between both private and public sectors providing adequate levels of social housing, each supplying properties to suit the different tenants requirements in the best way they can.
Surely it can’t be right to try and turn the private sector into an arm of the public sector?