Beware unscrupulous lettings agents

July 20, 2012 2:15 pm

Tom Copley’s London Eye

Around eighteen months ago I was going through the process of renewing my tenancy agreement as my flatmates and I had decided to remain in our flat for another year.  Like most tenants in the private rented sector we had a year long Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST), and the paperwork was dealt with by a lettings agency.

“The landlord wants to increase the rent,” we were told by the agency.

Naturally we were less than overjoyed at the prospect of paying yet more rent.  So we contacted the landlord directly to ask him to think again. We’d been good tenants and would not be able to afford to stay if the rent went up.  Straight away the landlord came back to us: “Ignore the agency,” he said. “I didn’t tell them I wanted to put the rent up.”

Stories like this are far from uncommon.  Both tenants and landlords suffer at the hands of unscrupulous lettings agents, a sector which is completely unregulated.  So I’d imagine I’m not alone in welcoming Labour’s review into private rented housing, launched on Wednesday, the same day that the London Assembly’s Housing and Regeneration Committee, of which I am a member, launched its own investigation into London’s private rented sector.

Once seen as a temporary step on the route to home ownership, renting in the private sector is becoming a long-term reality for many people, including an increasing number of families.

In 2000 the private rented sector accounted for just 10% of housing stock nationally.  That is now 17% – and in London it is 25%.

But this growth is not increasing the housing stock. Private landlords rarely build new homes, so the growth in the private rented sector has come at the expense of owner occupation.

Ironically Margaret Thatcher’s ‘Right to Buy’ policy helped to fuel the boom in private renting during the early 2000s.  Thatcher’s flagship policy, designed to create a nation of owner-occupying Tory voters, has instead led to a huge growth in private landlords as former council homes, bought at a huge discount by tenants, have been sold on by their owners.

The cannibalisation of the owner-occupied sector by the private rented sector was aided by the ready availability of buy-to-let mortgages, which are cheaper than ordinary mortgages.  The result is that owner occupation in Britain is at its lowest level since the late 1980s.  In London the number of owner-occupied homes has dropped by 150,000 while the number of private rented homes has increased by nearly 300,000.

The growth in the private rented sector, and in particular the growing number of families in the sector, means we need to take a serious look at how it operates and is regulated.  In particular, there needs to be a real clamp down on bad landlords.  We also need to look seriously at the soaring level of rents in the sector.  In London, private rents rose by a shocking 12% last year alone.

In his 2012 manifesto Boris Johnson had just three policies relating to London’s private rented sector.  The first was the London rents map, which is very helpful if you want to find out where you can’t afford to live.  The second was his voluntary landlord accreditation scheme, which includes just 10,000 of the estimated 300,000 landlords in London.  The third policy was to simply oppose tooth and nail any kind of rent regulation.

This kind of knee jerk reaction from the mayor against rent regulation of any sort is unhelpful, and demonstrates just how out of touch he is with the growing number of Londoners who rent privately.

Regulation of rents doesn’t mean going back to the system of rigid rent capping that existed in Britain until the 1988 Housing Act abolished it.  Nor does it mean adopting the system used in Manhattan.

Countries like France and Germany have systems of rent regulation that limit yearly rent increases within longer tenancies (three to five years).  This provides stability to both tenants and landlords.  Longer tenancies would particularly help the growing number of families in the private rented sector who want stability for their children.

The mayor advances the usual Tory argument that any kind of rent regulation would cause a massive slump in the number of private rented properties.  Yet with demand for housing vastly outstripping supply it is highly unlikely that rent regulation would lead to this.  Furthermore, in the decade following the abolition of rent controls in the UK the private rented sector grew by just 1%, and in 2000 it was smaller than it was in 1980.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Boris Johnson!

Johnson’s stock response when he is challenged to do something about soaring rents and bad landlords in the private sector is that it is not his responsibility.  “It’s up to the government and the boroughs,” he tells us.  Yet the fact that taxation and airport policy are not his responsibility has not stopped him lobbying hard for a tax cut for him and his rich mates, nor has it stopped him from spending time and taxpayers’ money on his barmy scheme for a Thames Estuary airport.

Let’s face it, there’s no way that Boris Johnson and the Tory-led government are going to get a grip on this – it’s going to be up to Labour.  That’s why it’s so important that our national policy review is taking this issue seriously, and that the London Assembly’s Labour-controlled Housing Committee is undertaking a serious investigation into the problems in the private rented sector here.

Tom Copley is a member of the London Assembly. He writes here in a personal capacity

  • Hugh

    “Thatcher’s flagship policy, designed to create a nation of
    owner-occupying Tory voters, has instead led to a huge growth in private
    landlords as former council homes, bought at a huge discount by
    tenants, have been sold on by their owners.”

    “Led to” extremely indirectly, surely. From what I can tell, for 20 years after the right to buy was introduced owner-occupation increased and private renting decreased. It is still well above its levels when the right to buy was increased.

    http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

    Furthermore, while there are undoubtedly unscrupulous landlords, your tale doesn’t seem to be an example: the agent (a broker largely acting for the owner in this case) tried to increase the rent after a year of significant inflation. You, an educated professional earning over £53k pa, fought against it and the rate was not put up. I’m struggling to identify the victim in this story.

    • Tom Copley

      I’m not criticising my former landlord (who was very good), I’m criticising the agency.  And for the record I was earning less than half that amount at the time.  I don’t think you’ve read the article properly.

  • Theo Blackwell

    The private rented sector has also been fuelled by ‘unregulated’ housing benefit.  

    Aside from the insanely high HB numbers in London, where – as the IPPR pointed out – we pay far more in rent subsidy than we do building new homes;  we also pay money to landlords with no strings attached – i.e. there is no requirement for the landlord to invest in their own homes, many of which are ‘non-decent’. 

    • Tom Copley

      Indeed.  A third of homes in the private rented sector in London don’t meet the Decent Homes standard.

      The problem with attaching strings to housing benefit is that there is already a major issue of landlords not accepting people who are claiming it.

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    This default, unthinking, unquestioning,  ‘it was Thatcher’s fault’ line really doesn’t cut it anymore.

    Yes she transferred the council housing stock to the private sector but she put it into the hands of owner-occupiers.

    To blame her for the huge growth of the buy-to-let sector which happened almost entirely under Labour is simply not credible, more over it makes Labour look stupid and unable to accept responsibility for its failings whilst in government.

    Labour could have took action, it could have changed the tax exemptions on BTL mortgage interest to make property investment less attractive, it could have delivered more house building to hold down prices and deter speculators looking for rising prices and ensured they remained affordable to first-time buyers.

    There are any number of things Labour could have done to prevent this but it didn’t.

    I sincerely home Labour do get a grip on the housing issue but we need to be honest, it didn’t during its time in office.

    • Mr 0a

      Indeed, Labour could have changed housing policy had they wanted to. The notion is was “Margaret Thatcher’s ‘Right to Buy’ policy” in the 2000s is disingenuous to say the least: after 3 years+ of Labour government it was Labour’s right to buy policy, as the banking crash happened under Labour’s financial services legislation.

      Governments are not helpless, especially one that had 13 years to correct any policies it thought were wrong.

  • Mr 0a

    “the landlord came back to us: “Ignore the agency,” he said. “I didn’t tell them I wanted to put the rent up.””

    Yeah right, I bet he said that, and you believed him!

    If you want lower rents, cut the ridiculous housing benefit levels offered, and stop uncontrolled immigration. Uncomfortable truths but the only way of fairly reforming the housing market.

  • Pingback: Beware unscrupulous lettings agents | Tom Copley AM

Latest

  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →
  • News Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently. It’s a total whitewash. The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own. Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party. I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour MPs will be encouraged to back this amendment – rather than that of Tory backbencher Tim Loughton – today: House of Commons Monday 20 May 2013 CONSIDERATION OF BILL New Amendments handed in are marked thus * MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT (a) As an Amendment to Secretary Maria Miller’s proposed New Clause (Review of civil partnership) (NC16):- Kate Green (a)(a * Line 8, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert ‘and include a [...]

    Read more →
  • News Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    In his interview with the Observer yesterday, Ed Miliband singled out Google as a company who aren’t “living up to their responsibilities” on tax, saying: ” I don’t think [Google] are living up to their responsibilities at the moment, and I will be very clear about that on Wednesday. It is part of a culture of irresponsibility. If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t [...]

    Read more →