Controversial lobbying group Generation Rent has taken a swipe at letting agents.
It has also slated tenancy deposit protection service DPS.
In a new blog on its site, Generation Rent is repeating calls for longer tenancies.
But the blog says: “Achieving this is going to entail hacking through a thicket of special interests.
“Where it’s not the landlord replacing tenants every six months, it’s letting agents who want their annual renewal fee, or mortgage lenders demanding easy access to the property if the landlord does a runner.
“Even deposit protection schemes – government-licensed organisations which supposedly exist to protect tenants – are throwing up roadblocks to reform by spreading misinformation.
“Last week, the Deposit Protection Service (DPS), one of the three schemes, put out a press release claiming that private renters don’t want longer tenancies.
“Luckily it didn’t get picked up beyond the property press because it’s a load of rubbish.”
The DPS survey found that by far the most tenants wanted a tenancy duration of up to 12 months, on a rolling contract with two months notice.
But Generation Rent says in its blog: “This whole line of questioning is a red herring.
“It’s probably true that most renters want flexibility to move out when they want, but the whole point of the long-term tenancies that are being proposed is that tenants get both the knowledge that the landlord can’t turf them out with two months’ notice, and the flexibility to leave if their circumstances demand it.
“I bet this wasn’t communicated to the respondents, who might reasonably decline an inflexible 3-year tenancy if they’ve just moved into a new place with a landlord of whom they know nothing.
“A better question would have been about how easy it should be for landlords to kick their tenants out.”
The blog goes on: “It is, of course, in DPS’s interests to promote their fantasy about tenant desires when the company benefits directly from churn in the lettings market.
“Every time a tenant moves, that’s another fee they stand to pocket if they protect the new deposit.”
The full blog, by Dan Wilson Craw, is here
Comments (14)
Interesting that some may assimilate residential lets with commercial (who clearly have no idea what they are talking about) – however, if they believe to think they get a better assurity of let if run along similar of that of a commercial let – then most landlords would I am sure welcome that the tenants also enter into a FULL REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE contract too, plus pay full rent obviously! – you see, the bit I have a problem with is the selectiveness of the argument. Generation rent – welcome your comments??
So even Generation RAnt acknowledge the vast majority of tenants (on a tenant biased campaigning site) over 80% want tenancies of 1 year of less. I call that a vast majority!
notice afterwards DPS stats but likely to be less biased than Generation Rant.
“Every time a tenant moves, that’s another fee they stand to pocket if they protect the new deposit.” …. Really? I thought the whole idea of DPS was that they are a FREE service?
Also need to remember, no landlords, no rental property … no rental property???
Flexibility of a break clause yet have security of tenure; as a letting agent, I would not have an issue with that, but most of my landlords will. Landlords also want flexibility to allow for change of circumstances; and if deprived of it would, in my opinion, have a negative impact on private landlord property stock.
I see no reason why professional/company landlords can’t offer what Generation Rent want as well as what a lot of other landlords want. It’s a free market, let the tenant decide; I suspect they might even be prepared to pay a premium for security of tenure. Online business opportunity for Lastminute.com!
Ignoring all the emotive disinformation spouted by Generation Rent, their argument regarding the DPS having a vested interest in a high tenancy churn is an accusation that they stand to pocket another fee with each new tenancy.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the deposit organisations know that the DPS scheme is free to use. In fact I would suggest that for that very reason the DPS would prefer longer tenancies to reduce their administration and scheme running costs.
Why is the voice of quiet reason never used to shut down Generation Rents unsubstantiated claims?
YL – only their custodial offering is free, their new insured service is not. But point taken, I think most people still use the custodial scheme.
As with any stats or opinion polls, the size of the sample is key. How many tenants do the DPS have access to – how many tenants without an axe to grind does Generation Rant have? It’s clear they want tenants to have everything they want and Landlords dance to that tune.
This sort of spiteful and vitriolic diatribe is becoming the norm from GR. If they put up some meaningful data to support their claim that tenants want longer tenancies it might help their credibility, but as it is they sound just like a spoilt child not getting their way.
What ever happened to open negotiation? Why does every pressure group out there feel they should dictate what tenants want and what landlords want? Why do these people feel that they (some arbitrary mouthpiece) should dictate terms? If a tenant wants a landlord to be bound by a longer term surely it is only fair the tenant should be equally bound by the same term? What ever happened to common sense and mutual agreement?
So why isn’t this the same for a commercial let? There’s no way of evicting a commercial tenant “without fault”. Why shouldn’t residential tenants be the same?
The “mutual” agreements you refer to is asymmetrical because the impact is different. How would you feel if your bank decided to repeal your mortgage and you had to pay up or move out? At the same time, a mortgage payer can pay back at anytime an, fixed terms aside, there is no penalty.
The impact on one party (bank/landlord) of having to move out is much greater than the impact on the other (homeowner/tenant).
It is incorrect to state that “there’s no way of evicting a commercial tenant without fault”.
Because if a commercial tenant does not pay the rent, or keep to the T&C of the tenancy, then it is quick to remove them! Likewise landlords are not blamed for anti-social of commercial tenant being expected to sort it out.
Well, if that’s what Generation Rent say, then it must be right!