Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rose's avatar

You're entirely correct on this point. Did the government really think that random private individuals (which is what most landlords are) were going to provide cheap, secure, quality accommodation indefinitely to low income tenants? If that was ever a serious premise it is a crazy one. The PRS is for people who do not want or need permanent accommodation and can afford to rent (I am assuming we can get back to a situation where rents are reasonable). This is, as you say, students, young people, people starting out in relationships, people after a relationship breakdown, people who have to move temporarily for work purposes (your University must have academics and researchers coming and going the whole time), people between houses ie. sold their house and are building a new one etc. etc. If the PRS is so confined most of the problems we have now vanish. Historically, there were always slightly more landlords than tenants which meant that rents were reasonable. If the landlord did not provide a good service, the tenants could move relatively easily. In any event, regulation can solve any problems with quality, rate of rent increases etc. Honestly, I'm amazed that nobody else seems to see this point except you; though admittedly I did not see it until you pointed it out. Also PRS so confined wouldn't prevent a landlord and tenant agreeing to a long term lease and that would be attractive to some - the tenant would have absolute security and the landlord would have the certainty of the good long term tenant.

Expand full comment

No posts