Radical, liberal rental reforms are needed

The government has launched a consultation on banning letting fees, a proposal originally tabled by Liberal Democrat peer Olly Grender. It’s responsible and right to address the shortcomings for tenants of a private rental market that now accounts for 19% of all households. And as the consultation paper sets out, there’s an economically liberal logic to the ban as well.

As a liberal, I’m not against market-based proposals for social problems. On the contrary, I’m all for them. In the summer after I left school, I worked temporarily as a Housing Allocations Officer. I see no reason in principle why housing associations should be the main providers of homes to people on benefits, for example — providing there’s enough housing to go round, and so long as people aren’t trapped in poor-quality accommodation. Indeed, greater choice for those on benefits within the private sector may be to their advantage, and improve social mobility overall. What’s more, it’s cost effective provision from the point of view of the state. However, there’s an obvious barrier to decent private rental accommodation frequently faced by those on benefits: the reluctance of so many private landlords to rent their properties to them. For many people, this is unfair discrimination. Banning letting fees is a positive step, but won’t tackle this sort of problem. My issue with the government’s plans is that they’re another example of Theresa’s tokenism.

Private landlords, with perhaps a “buy to let” as their pension pot, and renters are both likely to be among our party members. What could we as Liberal Democrats propose to help groups of tenants with little available capital beyond their rent money into better quality accommodation and, at the same time, keep landlords on board who want to protect their assets from risk? 

We could reform the practice of deposits. The government says in its consultation that it is keen to consider a maximum cap of deposits (paragraph 72). I support that, but we could protect properties more radically, and more fairly.

Private landlords are often put off renting to those on benefits, for example, because the buildings insurance premiums become prohibitively expensive. I do not know what statistical evidence forms the basis for prejudicial premiums against such tenants, and whether that evidence base could be regulated to ensure it’s applied reasonably rather than unjustly. As a party, we could explore that.

What’s more, in Switzerland it’s the tenant who shows proof of a personal insurance policy that covers any damage they might do to the property they’re renting while living in it. For a small Swiss flat I lived in, this “insurance bought by the tenant” was in lieu of a large deposit.

So in the Swiss scheme there’s still a small upfront cost for tenants, and — as insurance — it would be an expense that’s non-refundable. But because of that, the cost should be all the lower than a deposit, and the funds would be easier for tenants to muster (especially without lettings fees). The policy price would be variable depending on the tenant’s profile, encouraging personal responsibility. On the introduction of any such insurance, safeguards would have be put in place so that premiums would be calculated on proper evidence, rather than impressionistic stereotypes of specific social groups.

It’s not just letting fees that need to be addressed in Britain’s rental market. We need to make it easier for private landlords to accept tenants with little spare capital, but who can afford the rent. Doing so would ease the housing crisis among the most vulnerable in a cost-effective way, and it would keep small-time landlords on board with policy — who are increasingly important players in the marketplace.

* Sean Williams is a Lib Dem member in the Sheffield Hallam constituency

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

4 Comments

  • An interesting idea about tenant insurance rather than a deposit. But the main problem in the private rental sector is the lack of security of tenure. The problem with the deposits and fees is that they can be payable so often and at such short notice on the whim of the landlord. Give people 3/5 year tenancies and many of the other problems are solved too. Although ideally the solution for those with little capital but who can afford the rent would be more social housing.

  • A Social Liberal 19th Apr '17 - 3:31pm

    Good question.

    My first, overiding policy would be to cancel ‘Right to Buy’. I would also include a fair rents policy and a limit to how much rents can be increased by – I could also be convinced to include a moritorium on ANY rent increases.

    Further, I would reverse the decision to force councils and housing associations to charge 80% of market rents – this obviously means that we would have to reverse the destruction of meaningful grants for building new social rent units.

    Finally, two points. Reverse the limitation of the amount of benefits a person can claim – this is THE cause for the massive rise in homelessness. And on that note, pevent councils from moving their homeless to housing hundreds of miles away. Such a disgusting policy should be removed as soon as possible.

  • 2004 act envisaged insurance based schemed as well as TDS/DPS protection. Underwriters failed to offer policies. Presumably too risky. There does need to be a solution but the the roots need to be planted deep. See recent Shelter reports and Will Self’s recent radio 4 muse on the 1947 housing act. It should not be beyond the capabilities of a society to offer housing to it’s citizens but it will mean treading on a quite a few toes.

  • John Littler 20th Apr '17 - 11:40am

    Housing, like a lot of policy areas, needs radical solutions.
    The latest rip off that needs jumping on are houses sold on leases often by the builders, where the buyer or their solicitors has not noticed small print enabling leases to be sold on between anonymous, secretive buyers who keep multiplying the costs, such as ground rent and lease sale cost.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarManfarang 25th May - 4:16am
    James "Big question – what happens when Muslims decide to set up their own political party?" There was an Islamic Party of Britain set up...
  • User AvatarLorenzo Cherin 25th May - 3:40am
    James We do not need a post Liberalism, we need a robust Liberal Democratic agenda and stance. There is a discussion on Lloyd George, Asquith,...
  • User AvatarLorenzo Cherin 25th May - 3:19am
    David Evans People like you, is not a phrase I like, why not be more specific and less combative . That gets to my point....
  • User Avatarjames 25th May - 1:07am
    And the left are doing NOTHING about it. Where's the dialogue, where's the policy innovations, where's the intellectual bravery in saying `we were wrong`. As...
  • User AvatarPeter Watson 25th May - 12:13am
    @John Littler "A lot of Labour people seem to like it." That raises an interesting point. While being anti-Tory and anti-UKIP, the poster is not...
  • User AvatarGlenn 24th May - 11:38pm
    James. The thing is most of these problems are caused by the ideas of the Right. Religion, regime change, war, economic inequality and so on....