What would be the effect of a law stating that a property cannot be rented out unless the landlord has lived in it for at least a year themselves first?

17 comments

1. [Private] rental properties would become the preserve of commercial landlords.

2. They’d fix them up to make it cosy for themselves then rent at an exorbitant amount to recoup what they spent fixing it up.

3. How would that work with commercial landlords?

4. Nah, but there should be better regulations to the minimum standard a rental property can be in. A lot of landlords do the bare minimum and expect to be paid a premium for it.

5. People would find loopholes. Who would check this? Making letting agents do the checks would mean anyone that uses a platform to bypass the agent would get away with it.

6. I guess, IRL, what would happen is that private landlords would turn themselves into housing companies.

7. Less people would be landlords due to the effort.

   Which would have two impacts, slightly lower house prices allowing more people to buy. However people still need to rent for various reasons. Supply of rental properties would fall which would lead to higher rents.

   We are seeing it a bit now and there are less landlords due to higher interest rates, but people still can’t afford to buy houses and having to rent. However I am still not sure who is buying the houses.

8. Well, the supply of new properties to the rental market would be massively constrained. This will lead to a massively increasing shortage of available rental properties, and a huge increase in rents.

9. Landlords would set up Ltd companies to own and manage their properties (as many do now).

   If that too was banned, then there would effectively be no private rental market at all. House prices would fall, but with ‘only’ 20% of homes privately rented perhaps not massively, and not enough to allow everyone to buy. 20% of UK families would be at risk of homelessness overnight, so the government would have to step in, buy the houses, thereby propping up house prices and transferring billions of taxpayers money to private landlords.

   This system would eventually settle down into a fairly well run public housing system, on a par with schools. With everyone living in a ‘council house’ standards would quickly improve and the magic money tree would be thoroughly shaken down to allow middle class families, young professionals etc to continue to live in housing to which theybare acusstomed to.

   The landlords would invest in the stock market providing a slight boost to the FTSE and offsetting some of the economic shock of the whole thing.

   tl;dr: Private landlords get a instant cash windfall, public housing actually becomes half decent, but it takes a long time and costs a lot of taxpayer money.

10. How would you police this, landlord could just say they lived in it when they hadn’t

11. It appears some people just want properties lent by massive corporations.

12. The rental market would collapse.

13. Doesn’t matter it will never happen being a landlord is a legitimate form of earning money it’s only on Reddit that people believe it shouldn’t happen.

14. Meaningless.

    They’d setup limited companies. Now the landlord is a company.

    “You should make it so the company director has to live there.”

    Also meaningless.

    By having a buy to let property of a Ltd company the director is legally obligated to NOT live at the property and signs to say to.

    “But what if we changed this law too?”

    Also meaningless.

    If the prospective tenants want to live there then the tenants would be setup as directors as part of the tenancy agreement.

15. There are a few potential effects of a law that requires landlords to live in a property for at least a year before renting it out:

    Reduced supply of rental housing: If landlords are required to live in a property for a year before renting it out, it could reduce the overall supply of rental housing. This could potentially lead to higher rents and a tighter housing market.

    Increased costs for landlords: Landlords who are required to live in a property for a year before renting it out may incur additional costs, such as temporary housing or storage fees for their personal belongings. These costs could be passed on to renters in the form of higher rent.

    Inconvenience for landlords: Landlords who are required to live in a property for a year before renting it out may find it inconvenient to temporarily relocate or store their personal belongings. This could be particularly burdensome for landlords who own multiple properties.

    Potential impact on housing discrimination: It is possible that a law requiring landlords to live in a property for a year before renting it out could disproportionately affect certain groups, such as landlords who live in a different city or state from the rental property. This could potentially contribute to housing discrimination.

    Overall, the effect of such a law would depend on the specific circumstances of the housing market and the landlords and renters involved. It is important to carefully consider the potential consequences of any policy change that could impact the availability and affordability of housing.

16. It would have zero effect. No law in this country is enforced effectively, especially if that law gets in the way of profit

    If enforced at all, I’d wager that the current slum landlords would just employ a stooge to pretend to live in the property for them whilst letting the property out illegally to desperate tenants anyway

    Start enforcing the laws we do have before introducing new ones. There have been a fair few laws proposed and enacted over the last few years to appease the “something must be done!” baying mobs, but _where is the enforcement?_

17. There was a reality TV program a couple of years ago where “out of touch” small time landlords agreed to stay in their tenants homes for a week or a month or so, and some were genuinely shocked at the condition of the housing they expected their tenants to put up with

    I think sometimes the management companies shielded the landlord from complaints, or the landlord thought the tenant was just being “difficult” – let’s face it, anyone in the service industries has dealt with an arsey customer with no basis for genuine complaint before

    I’m pretty sure, unless, it was a different program, that one tenant was making formal complaints because of things like having to change lightbulbs themselves ffs

    But, credit to (some of) those landlords, _some_ of them did try pretty hard to rectify the problems once they realised just how bad some of their properties were

    The agencies are complicit in this too, it’s in their interest to keep the landlords property empire ticking over smoothly, especially if there is an “arms length agreement”, if they can get away with ignoring a tenant’s concerns and give the impression of plain sailing they absolutely would