Bully for social and economic rights then

Enhancing the status of economic and social rights in the UK legal system would lead to important changes. For example, English law currently unfairly permits landlords to evict tenants without giving a reason, but to comply with the right to adequate housing no-fault evictions would have to be abolished.

If someone wishes to change the use of their own property then why shouldn’t they? Isn’t the right to property a social and economic right?

28 comments on “Bully for social and economic rights then

  1. But more interestingly what are the consequences?

    As letting becomes more expensive for the landlord do house prices fall… rents increase…? A bit of both I presume.

    Then what? Government steps in to cap rents or try to inflate house prices by restricting new builds?

    Do these things actually get thought through?

  2. Is it me or is being a landlord becoming a mugs game? I know one person who has stopped renting out their flat to long term tenants. He has gone fully over the AirBnB. He became sick and tired of tenants treating his property badly and having to repair and redecorate the flat every six months.

    Makes me wonder how folks will find a place to rent ion the future.

  3. @Salamander

    Which is one of the reasons the Irish government restricted the number of days one can rent out your property on AirBnB.

    In other, non unrelated news, the housing shortage increases.

  4. The right to enjoy your property is enjoyed mainly by the middle-classes and above, so it’s suspect. The right to adequate housing is for the poor, so it trumps all other rights.

    Poverty has become our latest religion, making a change from the environmentalism of the last couple of generations. Just as the eco-loons preached environmental chastity whilst jetting off to far-flung destinations, so the poverty pimps don’t live in anything resembling poverty.

  5. Well, more like landlords can give notice as per the tenancy agreement and/or not renew the tenancy.

    Just as tenants can give notice and/or renew the lease as per the tenancy agreement. And tenants don’t need to give a reason.

    So, uh, what.

  6. Contins: But Why Should Housing Developers Pay For Schools?

    Hmm, let me think for 1 nano second – Gov’t wants more expensive houses

  7. A landlord can end an assured shorthold tenancy during the term for breach of a tenancy obligation. At the end of the term the contract has ended and so the landlord is iunder no obligation to grant a new tenancy. This makes letting property attractive as you can always get a bad tenant out without having to go through costly court proceedings. If this property right is taken away it will make letting property considerably more risky with obvious consequences for the letting market.

  8. “For example, English law currently unfairly permits renters to move out without giving a reason.”

  9. “. . . to comply with the right to . . . ”

    By the way, if the ‘right to’ involves forcing someone else to provide the ‘to’ then its not a right.

    I wonder how these people justify this. ‘The right to . . . ‘ requires the enslavement of someone else. What in the world would you have a right to that justifies doing that?

  10. “But Why Should Housing Developers Pay For Schools?”

    Because they create the need. Build a development for a thousand families, the local government must provide schools for the kiddies.

    My county has an $18,000 impact fee on new development.

    School operations are paid for by property taxes; the impact fee covers the initial capital outlay by the county for the schools.

    It’s a good idea.

  11. Recently was reading something said about Rights come with duties, both sides of the same coin and that people need to respect their duties not just demand rights

  12. @BniC

    Gandhi was big on that ideal. Probably bigger. He thought duties were more important than rights. You can have your rights taken away. No one can take away your sense of duty and determination to uphold it.

  13. Surely the need for schools etc. is created by the existence of people. The fact that they have other needs, say housing, is a separate issue and should be treated as such.

  14. @BnC
    The important thing is there are no rights without duties. You can claim any right you like, but unless there’s someone to discharge it, you can’t have it. So, in essence, only duties exist. Rights are their shadow.

  15. Think of everything the scum of the state now do in the frame of–“How can this be used to impoverish ordinary people?”

    It hits landlords and makes life worse for tenants. Can’t buy/can’t rent–welcome to being too worried about keeping a roof over your head to organise/fight back against state oppression.

  16. “But Why Should Housing Developers Pay For Schools?

    Hmm, let me think for 1 nano second – Gov’t wants more expensive houses”

    Try again. Think longer.

    Developer wants to build x homes in a town. That town now needs one extra school. So the developer has to build it.

    So he divides the cost of the school by x and bumps up all the prices.

    Except… he can’t do that because the houses aren’t worth any more that all the other houses in the town, which are not sold with a premium to pay for the school (they’re sold for a premium which takes the existence of school into account.. but that’s different and said premium is unaffected by our development because the school/house balance is maintained as it was)

    So how does he get his money back? Easy, he pays less for the land upon which he builds his houses. Cos his best price taking into account the market value of what he will build and the costs to build it (inc the school) is still the best offer that landowner is going to get. The developers who build projects big enough that they are expected to make infrastructure contributions buy land through options and other contractual devices that deal with it all. They know what they’re doing.

    Houses are not priced on a cost plus basis and only an absolute idiot thinks otherwise.

  17. @Gamecock,

    One would think it was to pay into the fund, but we all know that’s not the case …

  18. As a landlord, my strategy has to been to buy single family homes and then lease them out. I always make sure that it is one that I would be willing to live in. That way I can always use the reason for eviction that I will be moving into the property. As long as the lease term is completed, there is no legal way to fight the eviction. Careful vetting of tenants is important. It is also easier to sell than an apartment block.

    Government keeps adding to the cost of new housing and then complains about not having enough “low income housing”. They are producing more low income housing, it’s just that it is low income for the landlord. 😉

  19. ‘my strategy has to been to buy single family homes’

    Good call. Bob Bruss advocated single family dwellings as the best residential real estate investment for many years.

  20. ‘So how does he get his money back? Easy, he pays less for the land upon which he builds his houses.’

    Long term, maybe. But not around here now. Too much demand; too much growth. Landowners aren’t going to sell for less in this market.

  21. Whether buying residential property for rental is a good investment depends on whose money is used to buy. Using your own money, possibly. Using borrowed money is a mug’s game, depending on the percentage of equity. Simple gearing. And property is not a “safe as houses” investment. It has the fault that not only the commodity being invested in is essentially fungible. But the investors tend to be the same class of investor with the same financial constraints. You need to liquidate your investment you’re likely to find there’s a whole lot of investors, much the same as you, trying to liquidate their investment to. Out of such, house price crashes are made

  22. I suspect that neither of the authors own rental properties.

    If I am correct, everything else most probably flows from that fact.

  23. @BiS

    Buy to let has produced a lot of millionaires – not sure how it compares to the number it’s sent to bankruptcy! Easiest way for Joe Bloggs to get access to that kind of gearing – even on something like a teacher’s salary. You can’t go to your stockbroker in that situation and borrow hundreds of thousands, promising to pay it back with the dividends your portfolio will earn. But with houses, you apparently can…

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.