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 Antoinette on
-
No it's the lack of social housing stock we really need to address; 50% of which has been sold off under the "right to buy" without being replaced. If you didn't get a chance to watch "No Place to Call Home" on BBC2 you should watch it on iPlayer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=no%20place%20to%20call%20home
As one of the Housing Officers working for Barking and Dagenham put it; "We are a Housing Options service with no options".
-
Permalink Reply by Ian on
-
You now say its the lack of social housing that we really need to address. What happened with taxing B to L landlords out of existence.
You appear inconsistent. Many people on DHSS are housed by private B to L landlords. There will always be good and bad people including landlords but opportunities were opened with a lack of housing and investment focused people filled the gap. Who is at fault? Now if 100% of landlords were eventually forced to sell up, the gap could be filled by private / government partnerships buying houses which could be subject to no stamp duty and also discounted by tax payers on purchase and then all rented housing stock would be in the hands of large corporations. What next, get rid of small scale self employed builders, plumbers and electricians with high regulation, pension and health and safety policies, so that british gas and other big players can take over the market.
-
-
-
Ian. Because there is more than a single issue that affects our housing crisis doesn't make me inconsistent. And you are wrong about "buy to let" landlords housing DHSS claimants. Most "buy to let" mortgages prohibit DHSS claimants. You are not filling a gap...you are not building new homes are you. I would also hazard a guess that none of your tenants are DHSS claimants.
-
-
-
as stated before some councils work against landlords by indirectly informing DHSS tenants of their rights to legally defraud a landlord of payments until they are evicted if they are in financial difficulty. Rent payments go directly to the DHSS tenant, which is a risk for landlords. An own goal scenario of advice and policy which is why I and many thousands of landlords will not rent to DHSS tenants. Maybe why some DHSS private landlords are reluctant to provide quality housing. Change the rules and I will rent to DHSS at a fair rate.
-
-
-
Well working for a Council as I do, I can categorically state no one is EVER advised to defraud Landlords. You really are grabbing at straws now.
-
-
-
You're also absolutely wrong that housing benefits get paid to the tenants and not direct to the Landlord.
-
-
-
Antoinette, some councils rent properties from private landlords on long term contracts (5 years) which gives some landlords security of income but at lower rate than market rental values. At the end of the contract any tenant caused defects and damage is fixed by the council and the property is returned. My friend rented 2 properties in such a way and I remember even seeing adverts from councils solitciting properties. Can you explain how this is not filling a gap? You obviously cannot. You do not have to build properties to fill a gap. where do you get your knowledge about B to L mortgages prohibiting DHSS tenants. I am in this space and I have never had a mortgage that prohibit DHSS. Would'nt that in any event be discriminatory policy. You need to now put down typically 25% cash for B to L mortgage, with some you don't even need to provide proof of income or have a job as the 25% is sufficient cash to cover and leave profit for them if you default your payment. It is seen as a business and can never be your principle place to live for that reason. You appear to lack knowledge and experience given your claims of working for the council, insinuating within the housing department or is it any job within the council automatically makes you an expert on housing. Unfortunately your utterings are not showing much credibility, maybe a cyber fraudstef, a young early 20 something with little experience. You want to tax B to L out of existence but councils use us. Really!
-
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Hey! No calling Antoinette names!
Let's say that you put 25% down in cash and borrow the other three quarters to buy a lovely 3 bed house on Graham Rd. You have £150,000 in cash, you now turn that into £600,000 via leveraging that the bank charges you a fat fee to engage in. Your mortgage payments are £2134 per month at 3% over 25 years (of which £1124 is interest). The trick is that you don't pay this, your tenants do and the rental of £2150pcm covers your repayment mortgage (e.g.) You may notice that things are a little tight here but I'm sure you're aware of the risks.
Now, how would you feel if, upon getting married, a couple were given £150,000 deposit by the government to buy a house to have a family in? We can presume that they can afford the repayment mortgage as they could afford the rent which is more but in actual fact, they'd need a combined income of over £80,000 to be allowed to borrow that much in the first place. This would probably preclude them from child support payments. If after a couple of years they had a baby then they'd either lose one of the incomes or pay over £1,000pcm in child care.
The government doesn't need to do this as we can bring in ready made families from overseas and the public find it more palatable to do this and house them with landlords such as yourself (and after six years of this they'll have paid out more than £150,000 in rent too!) rather than gift money to heterosexual couples intending to have families.
The system is wrong, and you're just taking advantage of it but please don't tell me I'm a fool for not doing the same. I'm just not that kind of person. Good on you for thinking about your future. I'm interested in what you think the country's future might be like, indeed even just London's if the scenario I've outlined above continues. Are you thinking about the future of the city you are living upon? Your revenue stream's sustainability?
-
-
-
I really don't have to justify who or what I am to you. Are you perhaps a fantasist who'd like to think they are a north London Trumpesque property magnate who actually lives in shack under a bridge? There are at least a dozen people on this site who know me personally who could verify that I am in charge of Freedom of Information and Data Protection at a large London council. I read and approve dozens of Freedom of Information responses which gives me a pretty good knowledge of how Council services are delivered. I never purported to work in Housing, and my comments around Housing Benefit were made on the basis that earlier that day I had signed off the release of a housing file to a tenant with all their housing benefit payments going direct to their landlord. That particular file pre-dated universal credit so I accept that I hadn't taken on board those changes when I posted. I choose not to declare which Council I work for because we all sign up to a Social Media Policy that insists when we express our views online that we make it clear they are own views and not that of the Council. Anything else you want to know?
-
-
-
John, your scenario is not feasible due to incorrect knowledge. If a landlords mortgage is repayment then you get no tax relief whatsoever as that type of mortgage ultimately pays of the capital hence why B to L mortgages are interest payment mortgages only.
Now we pay taxes that should be used fairly,to help the most needy in society plus many other uses including weapons of mass destruction. Giving one group (a couple)£150,000 that is already solvent is not exactly fair given that money is contributed by other tax payers. I don't really see you making a viable scenario here.
Next you seem to be talking about the EU project and maybe a countries duty to help unfortunate people outside of your own country with housing. However, the greatness and compassion of a society could be measured in how well they treat the sick, needy and less fortunate members in their society and also others in the world.
The overall system is flawed and by that I mean MUCH bigger issues than the concept and practise of people renting out a house that they have legally purchased to get ahead within the rules of society that we call capitalism. We play to the rules of surviving in a competitive society, equally I cannot blame people with money sending their children to private schools.
I have taken opportunity not advantage which implies doing something wrong.
and....no free movement of people is only feasible with balance otherwise you get major problems without control.
-
-
"John, your scenario is not feasible due to incorrect knowledge. If a landlords mortgage is repayment then you get no tax relief whatsoever as that type of mortgage ultimately pays of the capital hence why B to L mortgages are interest payment mortgages only."
I made no mention of tax relief on mortgage repayments. They would make it ridiculously obvious as a vehicle for getting rich. I was talking about the government's predisposition for bringing in pre-made families and supporting them through the public housing system vs. the way we treat young people who are from here (let's say they went to school here) should they want to do the same.
-
-
also, I never called you a fool.
"The system is wrong, and you're just taking advantage of it but please don't tell me I'm a fool for not doing the same. I'm just not that kind of person."
Well what kind of person are you. Do you subscribe to being a good soldier ant in society. Have you actually ever read rich dad poor dad. You are however bemoaning or showing jealousy to landlords that you see as having more than you. so what person does that make you? I assume you own no property and is a renter? So you are "not that kind of person" but you are happy and live hand to mouth?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
