Calls for renters to be protected by Government

Calls for renters to be protected by Government

Calls for renters to be protected by Government

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Crime Reporter

A HAMPSHIRE MP is calling for a fairer deal for renters in Southampton who are paying £1,000 a year more than they were just four years ago.

Alan Whitehead, MP for Southampton Test, has blasted the Department for Communities and Local Government for failing to “get their act together”

when it comes to protecting renters.

In a debate at the House of Commons, the MP criticised the Government department for not passing legislation to improve the quality of rented housing.

There are around 25,000 privately rented homes in Southampton – which is about a quarter of all the properties in the city.

And half that number – around 12,000 – are houses of multiple occupation where tenants are let part of a house or a room to live in.

With renters in Southampton now paying on average £1,000 more a year in rent than they did in 2010, Mr Whitehead wants action to be taken to ensure everyone gets a fair deal for the money they are paying. Mr Whitehead wants changes made to stop renters facing rip-off charges by letting agents, unpredictable jumps in their rent, insecure tenancies and poor quality housing.

He also recently called on the Prime Minister to explain why the Government had not included measures to tackle sky-high rents and insecure tenancies in the Queen’s Speech, but he has so far received no serious assurances from David Cameron.

Speaking during the debate, Mr Whitehead said: “There are many first class landlords in Southampton that really look after the people who come to them for lets.

“But the point is that the nature of the rented market at the moment, couched as it is in insecurity, means that there is always the fear among renters that [unreasonable behaviour by landlords towards their tenants] may happen to them.”

“There needs to be a basic understanding that homes will be fit to live in when rent and tenancies are agreed, so why is the Department for Communities and Local Government trying to stop this from happening?”

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:06am Tue 1 Jul 14

thesouth says...

If the rent was unreasonable, then surely you would move over out
If the rent was unreasonable, then surely you would move over out thesouth
  • Score: 1

7:14am Tue 1 Jul 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit.

We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?
Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit. We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this? FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -3

8:08am Tue 1 Jul 14

southy says...

We need Councils to be allowed to build there own homes again with having to ask for government permission to build, local council rates will keep private rents down
We need Councils to be allowed to build there own homes again with having to ask for government permission to build, local council rates will keep private rents down southy
  • Score: -1

8:22am Tue 1 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit.

We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?
Well, they have promised the Rent Acts, which will return this country to the earthly paradise it was in the 60's and 70's. If you can suggest a way I could have stopped my life savings evaporating in the first ten years of my retirement apart from buying a house to rent out then say so and you will be entitled to call me "get rich quick"-and to be the most successful Fund Manger in the history of the world.
PS Quantitative Easing created the problem, not me, so why the state should be able in your view to repair the damage it created with that, goodness alone knows.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit. We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?[/p][/quote]Well, they have promised the Rent Acts, which will return this country to the earthly paradise it was in the 60's and 70's. If you can suggest a way I could have stopped my life savings evaporating in the first ten years of my retirement apart from buying a house to rent out then say so and you will be entitled to call me "get rich quick"-and to be the most successful Fund Manger in the history of the world. PS Quantitative Easing created the problem, not me, so why the state should be able in your view to repair the damage it created with that, goodness alone knows. Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

8:57am Tue 1 Jul 14

oldage says...

I was renting from private landlord for 3 years paying £750 a month i was paying his morgage ,something he has never declaired ,The house was cold and damp nothing we did eased the situation ,,He took the gas fire out as it was condemened ,the gas central heating kept going wrong ,Then he wanted to put it up to £820 a month luckily we found a lovely place with Clarkes and Sons :) .
I was renting from private landlord for 3 years paying £750 a month i was paying his morgage ,something he has never declaired ,The house was cold and damp nothing we did eased the situation ,,He took the gas fire out as it was condemened ,the gas central heating kept going wrong ,Then he wanted to put it up to £820 a month luckily we found a lovely place with Clarkes and Sons :) . oldage
  • Score: 0

8:57am Tue 1 Jul 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit.

We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?
Agree with the comment and answer to very valid question "Can a Labour Government deliver this?" is:

A true Labour Govt is likely to do that BUT The NuLabour like the last one under Blair and Brown will not.

The opportunist self serving and unprincipled mob led by Milliband will promise everything before the next elections but if elected will break the pledges in manifesto as they did last time when elected after promising us the electorate a vote on the EU after Lisbon.

It is sad fact of life that compassionate decent and very intelligent people like Dr. Alan Whitehead MP are not apperciated within NuLabour, which has betrayed virtually all the good Labour values, in which Alan still believes.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit. We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?[/p][/quote]Agree with the comment and answer to very valid question "Can a Labour Government deliver this?" is: A true Labour Govt is likely to do that BUT The NuLabour like the last one under Blair and Brown will not. The opportunist self serving and unprincipled mob led by Milliband will promise everything before the next elections but if elected will break the pledges in manifesto as they did last time when elected after promising us the electorate a vote on the EU after Lisbon. It is sad fact of life that compassionate decent and very intelligent people like Dr. Alan Whitehead MP are not apperciated within NuLabour, which has betrayed virtually all the good Labour values, in which Alan still believes. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: -1

10:51am Tue 1 Jul 14

Torchie1 says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit.

We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?
You clearly don't have a knowledge of the Buy to Let market or you would understand that these so called 'get rich quick' landlords are subject to even more stringent mortgage requirements than the buyers of a normal residential property. Going in to the Buy to Let market typically involves forking out a lot of money on surveys and arrangement fees, the mortgage company normally requires a 25% deposit and that the rental level be set at 125% of the mortgage repayments. An established landlord with a number of Lets in their portfolio can allow income from one property to buffer a loss on another but the owner of only one property has to rely on the rent to pay the mortgage unless they want to subsidise it themselves. Being too greedy can leave a property empty so it's important to keep the rental demands at the same level as others in the area or the owner will be having to find the entire months mortgage payment on top of their other monthly bills. It is not a 'get rich quick' scheme but simply an investment that can be killed off by greed but can reap rewards over the long term if the rental is set at a level to attract interest from the potential tenants.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit. We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?[/p][/quote]You clearly don't have a knowledge of the Buy to Let market or you would understand that these so called 'get rich quick' landlords are subject to even more stringent mortgage requirements than the buyers of a normal residential property. Going in to the Buy to Let market typically involves forking out a lot of money on surveys and arrangement fees, the mortgage company normally requires a 25% deposit and that the rental level be set at 125% of the mortgage repayments. An established landlord with a number of Lets in their portfolio can allow income from one property to buffer a loss on another but the owner of only one property has to rely on the rent to pay the mortgage unless they want to subsidise it themselves. Being too greedy can leave a property empty so it's important to keep the rental demands at the same level as others in the area or the owner will be having to find the entire months mortgage payment on top of their other monthly bills. It is not a 'get rich quick' scheme but simply an investment that can be killed off by greed but can reap rewards over the long term if the rental is set at a level to attract interest from the potential tenants. Torchie1
  • Score: 1

11:12am Tue 1 Jul 14

Jesus_02 says...

Torchie1 wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote: Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit. We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?
You clearly don't have a knowledge of the Buy to Let market or you would understand that these so called 'get rich quick' landlords are subject to even more stringent mortgage requirements than the buyers of a normal residential property. Going in to the Buy to Let market typically involves forking out a lot of money on surveys and arrangement fees, the mortgage company normally requires a 25% deposit and that the rental level be set at 125% of the mortgage repayments. An established landlord with a number of Lets in their portfolio can allow income from one property to buffer a loss on another but the owner of only one property has to rely on the rent to pay the mortgage unless they want to subsidise it themselves. Being too greedy can leave a property empty so it's important to keep the rental demands at the same level as others in the area or the owner will be having to find the entire months mortgage payment on top of their other monthly bills. It is not a 'get rich quick' scheme but simply an investment that can be killed off by greed but can reap rewards over the long term if the rental is set at a level to attract interest from the potential tenants.
the rental level be set at 125% of the mortgage repayments.. Therein lies problem #1

An ongoing investment should be that, I understand that its banks reducing their risk but really its the banks job to make sensible risks. Basically they are mitigating the fact that buy to let owners can aford an ongoing investment.

The cost of the rent does not reduce over time like a morgage


"forking out a lot of money on surveys and arrangement fees, " here is problem #2. Basically estate agents take the P1SS. Solicitors (villains though they are painted) have years of training and serious negative consequences of dodgy dealing (dis-barring ect) . In comparison to Estate agents they are also cheaper!

Estate Agents can, and do simply move on to other companies when things go wrong. There needs to be greater control on this group of people that have a an unacceptable strangle hold on our economy.

Not all Estate agents are bad, I am sure that those that do a good job would welcome stricter regulation.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit. We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?[/p][/quote]You clearly don't have a knowledge of the Buy to Let market or you would understand that these so called 'get rich quick' landlords are subject to even more stringent mortgage requirements than the buyers of a normal residential property. Going in to the Buy to Let market typically involves forking out a lot of money on surveys and arrangement fees, the mortgage company normally requires a 25% deposit and that the rental level be set at 125% of the mortgage repayments. An established landlord with a number of Lets in their portfolio can allow income from one property to buffer a loss on another but the owner of only one property has to rely on the rent to pay the mortgage unless they want to subsidise it themselves. Being too greedy can leave a property empty so it's important to keep the rental demands at the same level as others in the area or the owner will be having to find the entire months mortgage payment on top of their other monthly bills. It is not a 'get rich quick' scheme but simply an investment that can be killed off by greed but can reap rewards over the long term if the rental is set at a level to attract interest from the potential tenants.[/p][/quote]the rental level be set at 125% of the mortgage repayments.. Therein lies problem #1 An ongoing investment should be that, I understand that its banks reducing their risk but really its the banks job to make sensible risks. Basically they are mitigating the fact that buy to let owners can aford an ongoing investment. The cost of the rent does not reduce over time like a morgage "forking out a lot of money on surveys and arrangement fees, " here is problem #2. Basically estate agents take the P1SS. Solicitors (villains though they are painted) have years of training and serious negative consequences of dodgy dealing (dis-barring ect) . In comparison to Estate agents they are also cheaper! Estate Agents can, and do simply move on to other companies when things go wrong. There needs to be greater control on this group of people that have a an unacceptable strangle hold on our economy. Not all Estate agents are bad, I am sure that those that do a good job would welcome stricter regulation. Jesus_02
  • Score: 1

4:44pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit.

We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?
,,

FoysCornerBoy... local Councils to undertake a massive house building programmes

Why doesn't the Councils (Southampton) buy up the HMOs ( as they become available) to provide accommodation for young low income working people ?.. NOT STUDENTS

Lets faces it.. it's all the Councils HMO regs that are putting up the RENTS!!

40 yrs ago you could leave school (at the age of 15/16 yrs) get a manual low paid job/apprenticeship ( if away from home paid by your employer) and afford a bedsit, if you were lucky the landlady would throw in a hot dinner and breakfast..

Today those 15/16 yrs now grown up are left wondering if their stay at home children and grandchildren are ever going to get a life...

Career politicians Whitehead and Denham have no idea... soulless headline catchers the pair of them..


,,
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Alan Whitehead is bang on the money here. More and more young people and hard working families are struggling to find enough money to be able to afford their own home. This means that they are increasingly dependent on the private housing rented sector leaving many vulnerable to buy to let (get rich quick?) landlords. The exorbitant rents that these landlords charge, coupled with low wage and uncertain employment prospects, means that is even harder for these people to save sufficient money for a deposit. We need radical change in the private rented sector to protect tenants from unfair treatment. This should be linked to more powers given to local Councils to enable them to undertake a massive house building programme. Can a Labour Government deliver this?[/p][/quote],, FoysCornerBoy... local Councils to undertake a massive house building programmes Why doesn't the Councils (Southampton) buy up the HMOs ( as they become available) to provide accommodation for young low income working people ?.. NOT STUDENTS Lets faces it.. it's all the Councils HMO regs that are putting up the RENTS!! 40 yrs ago you could leave school (at the age of 15/16 yrs) get a manual low paid job/apprenticeship ( if away from home paid by your employer) and afford a bedsit, if you were lucky the landlady would throw in a hot dinner and breakfast.. Today those 15/16 yrs now grown up are left wondering if their stay at home children and grandchildren are ever going to get a life... Career politicians Whitehead and Denham have no idea... soulless headline catchers the pair of them.. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree