Would a properly regulated Rental Sector deflate the rental bubble?

[Purple]

If tenants could sign 3 or 5 year leases with a fixed tenure and both tenants and landlords had clear duties and responsibilities and penalties for breaches thereof with swift access to adjudication would renting become a desirable and viable option for more people and families?

 

[Jim2007]

Well based on mainland Europe, it appears it would on the surface... however there would also need to be a change of mind set - people need to get away from this crazy thinking that property is a safe investment and the only thing worth having. In Switzerland for instance most people rent rather than buy and it is not 'cause they can't afford to, it's because owning property is not considered a smart move.

 

[Dermot]

If tenants could sign 3 or 5 year leases with a fixed tenure and both tenants and landlords had clear duties and responsibilities and penalties for breaches thereof with swift access to adjudication would renting become a desirable and viable option for more people and families?

I have commented before on the subject of Rent Leases. Every time I hear politicians when they are on a rant about landlords they generally come out about no security of tenure and it annoys me. I am a landlord in a relatively small way but for quite a length of time and my experience is that there are more Landlords than Tenants willing to go into 3 or 5 year leases all things being equal. Very few Tenants are prepared to do it and they may not want to do it for a variety of genuine reasons. That is fine but various vested groups should stop whining about it.
The ESRI in a recent report went on about it as well. I do not see the demand in reality for it and I would be very open to it. If what you quoted in your post was a reality it probably would become a viable option for families but I am not sure about desirable.
In reality I cannot see legislation being brought in in this country that will be fair and balanced. What is there now is not fair or balanced and favours bad Tenants. PRTB is pretty much biased in favour of the bad Tenant. I would state that the vast majority of Tenants are good but when a landlord gets stuck with a bad Tenant you are not going to get much satisfaction going the PRTB route.
It is a poor way of doing when a lease which is supposedly a legal document is not worth the paper it is written on.
Why do all the various groups that go on about security of tenure not comment on the fact that the majority of Co. Councils who administer the RAS now only want only 6 month contracts and month to month thereafter.

 

[Purple]

Dermot, I think the current system favours bad tenants and bad landlords. Basically the PTRB is useless and whomever is willing to break the law and brazen it out wins.
I am a owner, landlord (in a very small way) and a tenant. I have no real security and can't think of the house as my home because my landlord can kick me out whenever he wants. He's a great guy and we get on really well but at the end of the day he could just decide to sell and then I'm out on my ear. Why can't it work like a business lease? That would mean people would do work on their homes, decorate them etc as they would know they would be staying for 3 or 5 or 10 years.
Then there would be stability for landlords and tenants and less pressure on the housing market.

 

[Dermot]

I may be criticised for this by some landlords but I generally would have an excellent relationship with my tenants. I would personally like to be have good tenants like yourself for as you say 3, 5 or 10 years but while tenants have been with me for periods of up to 8 years they never wanted to sign up to anything more than 2 years at any time.
I am no defender of bad landlords no more than bad tenants.
I wonder sometimes if I were to give a tenant say a 7 year lease and allow a degree of flexibility along the lines that you are thinking and allowing a discount in rent because of the stability of the income what would happen if after 3 years the tenant leaves. I have based my rent at lower than market rent because of the 7 year initial contract. Tenant could claim that the decoration was beneficial to the property etc etc. Where would I make good my loss.
I never want to lose a good tenant and even at the risk of taking a lower rent which I have done in order to hold on to them. I provide good accommodation and give a good service. I attend promptly to repairs and both sides respect one another. I have never been engaged with PRTB nor would I want to unless it was an extreme case.
Effectively anything longer than 4 years at a time is not recognised in law in this country.
What would be wrong in revamping the legislation and making it fair and equitable to each stakeholder and keeping it simple. It would need to be based on a simple logical system.
A tenant would have a decent right to privacy/ have repairs etc done within a very reasonable period and the accommodation is of a reasonable standard for the rent etc
A landlord would have their property kept in a proper manner and that the rent is paid as and when it is due. If the rent is due it is due
Any disputes to be adjudicated within a month. A system of collecting the adjudicated compensation from both sides needs to be put in place and not a one sided version.
What we have now is a nightmare if you have a bad landlord or a bad tenant. It is all too technical and too legalistic. I have seen too many instances where the problem was simple but was complicated with technicalities.
I am sure you are aware of how hard it is to get rid of a tenant who has decided that they will not pay and the games that can be played to prolong this.
Bad people make it difficult for the vast majority of the good people in the rental sector.