Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Almost no-one escapes unscathed from London’s private renting market in north London, survey finds
"I have so many bad rental stories. In one case, an agency told us their £300 fees would include 'everything'. Then, the landlord decided to slap on another charge for drawing up the contract - one copied and pasted from the Internet. There was nothing we could do without giving up the flat at short notice and becoming homeless." This is the experience of Ronald Stewart, Green Party candidate in the recent by-election in St. Ann’s.
Ronald Stewart, Anne Clark and Jarelle Francis (right to left), Haringey Green Party prospective candidates for 2018 Council elections
Nine out of ten renters had experienced four or more serious problems during their time renting in London.
Another one of them is Anne Clark, one of a team Haringey Green Party members getting ready to contest the local elections in 2018:
"As a private renter in London, I've lived in houses that have literally been falling apart, where the landlord has invested nothing in maintenance, but still tried to put the rent up every year. On one occasion, the boiler broke in the middle of winter, and there was no hot water or heating in the house for nearly three weeks, but we were offered no help or compensation.
“London needs a housing policy that puts renters first and holds dodgy landlords and letting agencies to account."
London Assembly Member Sian Berry has launched a report “What are London renters thinking?” based on the results of her recent Big Renters Survey of London’s private tenants.[i]
The report lays bare the scale of dissatisfaction among London’s renters, over a range of areas including rocketing rent costs, incomplete repairs, lost deposits and fear of losing their homes at the end of each annual contract. It also reveals the appetite for an independent renter’s organisation to investigate bad landlords, provide a voice for renters and campaign for better standards.
Across the north London boroughs of Barnet, Enfield, Hackney, Camden, Islington and Waltham Forest, renters spent on average 44 per cent of their entire take-home pay on covering their rent. Fifty-three per cent of Enfield and Haringey renters reported that they had problems with landlords coming into their homes without permission. This was the highest percentage in London, compared with a London-wide average of 43 per cent.
Significantly, nearly six out of ten renters said they would be prepared to pay a small fee to join a London-wide organisation that helped them in these ways.
Sian said:
“As a renter in London for nearly 20 years, it’s important to me that I keep bringing the voices of London’s 2.3 million private renters into City Hall. In this report I’m recommending that the Mayor stands up for London’s private renters and support them in standing up for themselves.
“The willingness of renters to pay a small fee to join a renters’ organisation is very significant, as it means such a group could become self-sustaining once it has been set up. The Mayor should look seriously at providing practical help such as office space and seed funding to help found an independent London-wide organisation to represent renters in our city.”
Among other recommendations, Sian’s report suggests more support at the London-wide level for renters, including a central information source with links to existing renter’s groups and council schemes. In addition to this, Sian calls for continued pressure from the Mayor to push the government to devolve more powers over housing to London.[ii]
Sixty-eight per cent of the 1,530 renters who filled in the survey also wrote in additional information, telling Sian about their experiences in London.[iii]
A copy of the report is available here: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sian_berry_renter_sur...
An interactive map of results by GLA constituency area is here: http://www.sianberry.london/big-renters-survey/results/
[i] Sian launched the Big Renters Survey in July: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/sian-berry/launch...
[ii] The full recommendations of the report are:
1. Better engagement with renters
Including seed funding a London-wide organisation to carry out research and investigations and provide a voice for renters in dealings with City Hall and councils
2. More help and information for renters
Provided by the GLA, with a central information source and links to existing groups and council schemes.
3. Better regulation and support for landlords
With support at the London level to ensure consistent council enforcement, training and licensing
4. Enhanced regulation of the sector nationally
With continued pressure from the Mayor, Assembly and London’s borough councils for powers to be devolved to London
[iii] Sixteen case studies are quoted in the report.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Did you click on that link to see what the money is for? I always just wondered why it couldn't be packaged into the rent. Essentially the government have told the banks that when you loan someone money you are not allowed to charge them for the cost of insuring that they pay it back. Now that landlords have "rental income insurance" available to them they are passing some of the costs of this insurance onto tenants BEFORE they even get to move in.
When I rented 20 years ago these fees did not exist, just the rent and deposit (or as it was known then, last month's rent).
-
Permalink Reply by Charlotte A on
-
Yup. I am assuming that the rent is the 'market rate' (which is made/forced up by the estate agents, like house prices), and the owner of the property gets most of that (if not all). The estate agent then takes a load of that for management fees or processing the rental payments, so the fees to the tenant are separate upfront costs. If you added the fees to the rent you'd just drive up the rents. Probably.
I can remember paying agent fees as a student in the 90s (probably about £30, as that was about my weekly rent at the time), and when I moved to London, although I do remember being outraged when we had to renew our contract and the agency charged us a week's rent for literally printing a contract.
-
-
The landlords can essentially put up rent by about 3% per year knowing that the current tenant will, most of the time, wear it. This is because of the costs of moving not to mention the hassle.
The latest wheeze I've become aware of is to rent rooms out separately, take deposits separately, then threaten (ever so subtly) the deposits of the other tenant should you have issues with one of them.
-
-
Because they can? Because tenants will pay because they have no option and so it's become standard? Because estate agents are out to make money and profits, and don't operate for the good of society? In my experience, landlords put up the rent because their managing agents tell them they can (or because they read something in the paper about rent rises). It's the interests of the agents to have a turnover of tenants because then they can charge the landlord another finders fee.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
But the difference Billy is that mortgage payments stay relatively stable over time (and of course can go down as interest rates do) and people's salaries usually increase over the years, so mortgage payments tend to decrease as a proportion of salary. Rental prices simply go up, often faster than inflation. When I first took out a mortgage back in the days of 2 figure inflation it really was rice and potatoes for the first few years but we stuck it out as we knew our salaries would eventually allow more disposable income after the monthly payment.
Isn't having a roof over your head one of things that a country as rich as ours should consider a basic need along with food and healthcare? Market forces may be acceptable for some things; but a place to sleep at night?
By the way, there are as some posters have said, exemplary landlords. As an example as friend lives in a house in Tottenham divided into two flats. My friend has rented for 3 years and has a great relationship with his landlord. The upstairs flat (different landlord) has had a succession of tenants over the same time, only one of whom he has known to leave because they want to. Each time it is relet it is at a higher rent.
As John as said elsewhere, there is no other kind of investment that brings in such a high rate of return.
-
Permalink Reply by Ian on
-
John, because a person has rental properties, that does not spell a wealthy person, but we would first have to define wealth before we have this conversation and what has prevented you to acquire wealth. I guess the west is wealthy in contrast to the other worlds and that includes renters. You do not know the history and background of these home owners including myself. All you see is someone having something that you don't and you now want to impose national council housing laws onto private home owners that you now want to make responsible for housing shortages and the long term security of renters. The government is doing a good job of turning people against anyone called a landlord and people buy into this devisive narrative.
For example a person does not buy new expensive cars, flash holidays etc etc but chooses to look at the long term, saves, goes without stuff but invest in property. The other person, travels the world, lives loose and fast and reports to have lived a full life and eventually becomes a renter for life. Its the government and my taxes that need to look after these people if needed. It is not my responsibility even though I treat my tenants well with never a complaint in over 15years. I provide a short term contract, the contract is accepted and therefore it is not for me to secure my tenant a home for years if I choose to sell. I have had no bad experiences as I select my tenants personally by intrusion and wisdom firstly and checks secondly.
I have been a renter, lived in shared housing for many years before they were called HMO's. In fact I have seen both sides of the fence and even lived in housing without electricity, oil lamps. Yes, having a home is like a utility, we all need them and there are lives behind a contract, just like there is a human also in front of the contract that has a life (landlord). The type of long term stable rent and housing that you want is the GOVERNMENTS job. Rally, march and protest for council housing, not for private micro landlords to be held accountable for providing long term housing.To answer some specific questions.
It is written in the contract, short term assured tenancy, 1 year then rolling month by month for both parties, Therefore it is written I can sell within 5 years if needed.
"wealthy for sure" is answered above
-
-
You make a lot of assumptions about me and they're wrong but anyway, as I said earlier, you could be an MP with an attitude like that.
-
-
I talked hypertetically about the path that potential people can take in life, not you. I made assumptions based only on information and comments you provided about what you think should happen to people called landlords. Regardless of the self serving nature of some MP's that are in it for the power and influence and blight the system, I would rather elect one of them or a group of them to debate and make rules rather than many of the general people in society lacking critical thinking and only want to meet their owns needs. I will therefore accept your compliment "MP" muchos gracios
-
-
A long time ago a friend of my father's who was a financial adviser told me that I should be saving 10% of my gross salary every year for my retirement. I was aghast and asked him just what did he think would happen if everyone did that? I think we can now see the result in the current savings glut and low interest rates.
Those people who earned money and spent it, especially locally, enabled the people who rent your property to pay their rent because they were employed in something that "people who make bad choices" spend their money on. You've thought not far past your own interests.
-
-
10%?? You know it's more like 25% now? And that's if you start contributing to a pension in your 30s. Most people actually don't save anywhere near enough for their retirement, and even now that workplace pensions are compulsory, the statutory contributions are low.
People can save for a pension AND spend money - but what will they spend if they don't make sure they have provision for their old age?
-
-
10% of gross salary is a lot. I'm not talking about your employer saying you get £X and then Y% pension on top, I'm talking about taking money that you could spend and saving it instead, taking it out of circulation.
My father died a year before he could begin to enjoy a pension, I rather think that the government pushing this risk onto us is mean. Ian's method for provisioning for his retirement is sadly much more sensible, from a purely selfish point of view. He will be able to leverage via bank lending and he will have someone ELSE make the contributions for him.
-
-
10% of gross salary isn't enough though. I'm talking about deductions from salary or paying into a private scheme, not contributions from your employer, although 25% is the total amount to be saved, so obviously if your employer contributes then you can take that % off. Most employers expect a contribution to the pension from the employee. It's tax deductible though, at marginal tax rate, so you only contribute 80% or 60% in terms of actual money.
Why is it mean of the government? Isn't it personal responsibility to ensure you can afford to continue your lavish lifestyle once you're on the scrapheap? The government provides a pittance so you don't starve to death, but why should they be responsible for anything else?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
