Tenants battle for lower rents

Tenants battle for lower rents

Tenants battle for lower rents

First published in News

A roadside bedroom was set up by campaigners for a ‘living rent’.

The Living Rent Campaign and Generation Rent set up a make-shift bedroom in North Street, Brighton to highlight increasing rents and reduced quality of life for tenants.

Protestors sat in the pavement bedroom on Sunday brandishing placards with slogans ‘our future?’ and ‘time for a living rent’.

David Gibson, campaign co-ordinator, said: “Ever since de-regulation and the introduction of six month tenancies, conditions for private tenants have gone downhill badly.

“One member of our group has paid nearly £200,000 in rent for a house that cost her landlord £28,000 to buy, has been condemned by environmental health and is now facing court for eviction on the day her daughter starts secondary school.”

Campaigners are calling for rent controls so people can afford longer and more secure tenancies.

Mr Gibson said that in two hours 175 people signed their petition.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:14am Tue 2 Sep 14

monkeymoo says...

Wow, £821 for a 1 bed flat.
My mortgage is less than that for a 3 bed semi!
Wow, £821 for a 1 bed flat. My mortgage is less than that for a 3 bed semi! monkeymoo
  • Score: 12

8:21am Tue 2 Sep 14

hoveguyactually says...

The Clock Tower is a historical landmark in Brighton. it should not be used as the background to political protests, however important. Since the Greens took over, the city has become shabbier each day. I walked past this particular one last Sunday and it looked a mess. That is apart from the inconvenience to crowds of visitors.
The Clock Tower is a historical landmark in Brighton. it should not be used as the background to political protests, however important. Since the Greens took over, the city has become shabbier each day. I walked past this particular one last Sunday and it looked a mess. That is apart from the inconvenience to crowds of visitors. hoveguyactually
  • Score: -5

8:48am Tue 2 Sep 14

Max Ripple says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
The Clock Tower is a historical landmark in Brighton. it should not be used as the background to political protests, however important. Since the Greens took over, the city has become shabbier each day. I walked past this particular one last Sunday and it looked a mess. That is apart from the inconvenience to crowds of visitors.
Pray tell, what has this comment about the state of the clock tower got to do with a very legitimate protest against greedy landlords in Brighton and Hove? Why did you bother posting if you had nothing constructive (or even negative) to say about the story here?
The issue is a very serious one indeed. Most of these greedy landlords who have quite a few properties each in many instances, have bought these when they were really quite cheap and are now raking in vast sums from poor quality housing stock. For example, a house in Hanover which was once a two bed roomed family terraced home which would fetch around £1000 per month has now been turned into a FIVE bedroomed HMO for students and the landlord is asking £2000 per month! This is happening across the city.
Six month short hold tenancy agreements also give no security of tenure at all to anyone. How can you live knowing that you are quite likely to be turfed out of your home after only six months? Tenancy agreements of a minimum of three years is what is needed here.
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: The Clock Tower is a historical landmark in Brighton. it should not be used as the background to political protests, however important. Since the Greens took over, the city has become shabbier each day. I walked past this particular one last Sunday and it looked a mess. That is apart from the inconvenience to crowds of visitors.[/p][/quote]Pray tell, what has this comment about the state of the clock tower got to do with a very legitimate protest against greedy landlords in Brighton and Hove? Why did you bother posting if you had nothing constructive (or even negative) to say about the story here? The issue is a very serious one indeed. Most of these greedy landlords who have quite a few properties each in many instances, have bought these when they were really quite cheap and are now raking in vast sums from poor quality housing stock. For example, a house in Hanover which was once a two bed roomed family terraced home which would fetch around £1000 per month has now been turned into a FIVE bedroomed HMO for students and the landlord is asking £2000 per month! This is happening across the city. Six month short hold tenancy agreements also give no security of tenure at all to anyone. How can you live knowing that you are quite likely to be turfed out of your home after only six months? Tenancy agreements of a minimum of three years is what is needed here. Max Ripple
  • Score: 9

9:00am Tue 2 Sep 14

Skidrow says...

So the landlord took on the financial risk of voids, damage, non payment of rent, house price falls etc in the hope of making a profit, and stuck in there and did so. Well done, you achieved what you set out to. There is a lesson to be learned there. 100% mortgages were availble to anyone with a pulse but if you don't weant to own your own home, don't complain about those who provide you with a roof over your head, just because they make a profit - if there wasn''t a profit, they wouldn't provide the housing which the council now fails to. Social housing is available, via housing associations at a cheapeer rent but the choice to rent privately is the tenant's.
So the landlord took on the financial risk of voids, damage, non payment of rent, house price falls etc in the hope of making a profit, and stuck in there and did so. Well done, you achieved what you set out to. There is a lesson to be learned there. 100% mortgages were availble to anyone with a pulse but if you don't weant to own your own home, don't complain about those who provide you with a roof over your head, just because they make a profit - if there wasn''t a profit, they wouldn't provide the housing which the council now fails to. Social housing is available, via housing associations at a cheapeer rent but the choice to rent privately is the tenant's. Skidrow
  • Score: 15

10:31am Tue 2 Sep 14

alyn, southwick says...

Skidrow wrote:
So the landlord took on the financial risk of voids, damage, non payment of rent, house price falls etc in the hope of making a profit, and stuck in there and did so. Well done, you achieved what you set out to. There is a lesson to be learned there. 100% mortgages were availble to anyone with a pulse but if you don't weant to own your own home, don't complain about those who provide you with a roof over your head, just because they make a profit - if there wasn''t a profit, they wouldn't provide the housing which the council now fails to. Social housing is available, via housing associations at a cheapeer rent but the choice to rent privately is the tenant's.
From the story:
“One member of our group has paid nearly £200,000 in rent for a house that cost her landlord £28,000 to buy, has been condemned by environmental health "

What risk. And must have been a huge profit with no expenditure, needed to provide the service charged for, though obviously not received!
[quote][p][bold]Skidrow[/bold] wrote: So the landlord took on the financial risk of voids, damage, non payment of rent, house price falls etc in the hope of making a profit, and stuck in there and did so. Well done, you achieved what you set out to. There is a lesson to be learned there. 100% mortgages were availble to anyone with a pulse but if you don't weant to own your own home, don't complain about those who provide you with a roof over your head, just because they make a profit - if there wasn''t a profit, they wouldn't provide the housing which the council now fails to. Social housing is available, via housing associations at a cheapeer rent but the choice to rent privately is the tenant's.[/p][/quote]From the story: “One member of our group has paid nearly £200,000 in rent for a house that cost her landlord £28,000 to buy, has been condemned by environmental health " What risk. And must have been a huge profit with no expenditure, needed to provide the service charged for, though obviously not received! alyn, southwick
  • Score: 7

10:42am Tue 2 Sep 14

redwing says...

One in four Tory MPs are landlords, as are one in eight Labour MPs. Ditto the new Conservative housing minister, Brandon Lewis.
Go figure.
One in four Tory MPs are landlords, as are one in eight Labour MPs. Ditto the new Conservative housing minister, Brandon Lewis. Go figure. redwing
  • Score: 5

11:07am Tue 2 Sep 14

Fred'smate says...

“One member of our group has paid nearly £200,000 in rent for a house that cost her landlord £28,000 to buy, has been condemned by environmental health and is now facing court for eviction on the day her daughter starts secondary school.”

Who forced her to stay, and how long has she lived there? What was it like when she moved in?
“One member of our group has paid nearly £200,000 in rent for a house that cost her landlord £28,000 to buy, has been condemned by environmental health and is now facing court for eviction on the day her daughter starts secondary school.” Who forced her to stay, and how long has she lived there? What was it like when she moved in? Fred'smate
  • Score: -6

11:08am Tue 2 Sep 14

Fred'smate says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
The Clock Tower is a historical landmark in Brighton. it should not be used as the background to political protests, however important. Since the Greens took over, the city has become shabbier each day. I walked past this particular one last Sunday and it looked a mess. That is apart from the inconvenience to crowds of visitors.
^^^ What he said.
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: The Clock Tower is a historical landmark in Brighton. it should not be used as the background to political protests, however important. Since the Greens took over, the city has become shabbier each day. I walked past this particular one last Sunday and it looked a mess. That is apart from the inconvenience to crowds of visitors.[/p][/quote]^^^ What he said. Fred'smate
  • Score: -5

12:16pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Man of steel says...

So one of the group has paid £200,000 in rent, even at the current ridiculous amount of £821, that means she has been there for over 20 years, and I do not believe she would have moved in and paid that 20 years ago.
Where is Victor Meldrew when you want him?
So one of the group has paid £200,000 in rent, even at the current ridiculous amount of £821, that means she has been there for over 20 years, and I do not believe she would have moved in and paid that 20 years ago. Where is Victor Meldrew when you want him? Man of steel
  • Score: -1

12:19pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Fairfax Aches says...

"battle" lol.
You'll pay your rent and you'll like it.
"battle" lol. You'll pay your rent and you'll like it. Fairfax Aches
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Tue 2 Sep 14

FatherTed11 says...

monkeymoo wrote:
Wow, £821 for a 1 bed flat.
My mortgage is less than that for a 3 bed semi!
Excluding the deposit I assume?
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: Wow, £821 for a 1 bed flat. My mortgage is less than that for a 3 bed semi![/p][/quote]Excluding the deposit I assume? FatherTed11
  • Score: 1

1:13pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Skidrow says...

alyn, southwick wrote:
Skidrow wrote:
So the landlord took on the financial risk of voids, damage, non payment of rent, house price falls etc in the hope of making a profit, and stuck in there and did so. Well done, you achieved what you set out to. There is a lesson to be learned there. 100% mortgages were availble to anyone with a pulse but if you don't weant to own your own home, don't complain about those who provide you with a roof over your head, just because they make a profit - if there wasn''t a profit, they wouldn't provide the housing which the council now fails to. Social housing is available, via housing associations at a cheapeer rent but the choice to rent privately is the tenant's.
From the story:
“One member of our group has paid nearly £200,000 in rent for a house that cost her landlord £28,000 to buy, has been condemned by environmental health "

What risk. And must have been a huge profit with no expenditure, needed to provide the service charged for, though obviously not received!
The risk is you have a tenant who lives in such a way that the environmental health people condemn the property. Must have lived there 30 + years.
[quote][p][bold]alyn, southwick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Skidrow[/bold] wrote: So the landlord took on the financial risk of voids, damage, non payment of rent, house price falls etc in the hope of making a profit, and stuck in there and did so. Well done, you achieved what you set out to. There is a lesson to be learned there. 100% mortgages were availble to anyone with a pulse but if you don't weant to own your own home, don't complain about those who provide you with a roof over your head, just because they make a profit - if there wasn''t a profit, they wouldn't provide the housing which the council now fails to. Social housing is available, via housing associations at a cheapeer rent but the choice to rent privately is the tenant's.[/p][/quote]From the story: “One member of our group has paid nearly £200,000 in rent for a house that cost her landlord £28,000 to buy, has been condemned by environmental health " What risk. And must have been a huge profit with no expenditure, needed to provide the service charged for, though obviously not received![/p][/quote]The risk is you have a tenant who lives in such a way that the environmental health people condemn the property. Must have lived there 30 + years. Skidrow
  • Score: -4

1:15pm Tue 2 Sep 14

fredaj says...

If a dwelling was purchased for £28,000 it must have been between 20 and 30 years ago as I paid more than that for the fixer-upper 1 bed Brighton flat I purchased in the early 90s.

So what point is this trying to make exactly? Housing cost less and now costs more?
If a dwelling was purchased for £28,000 it must have been between 20 and 30 years ago as I paid more than that for the fixer-upper 1 bed Brighton flat I purchased in the early 90s. So what point is this trying to make exactly? Housing cost less and now costs more? fredaj
  • Score: 2

1:29pm Tue 2 Sep 14

fredaj says...

It is a fact of live that Brighton and Hove housing is expensive and that is because people who can afford to want to live there at almost any cost.

So that means some people are being priced out of the market and that's a shame for them, but there is significantly cheaper housing available in the area from Worthing to Peacehaven to Burgess Hill so why don't these people just move to those?
It is a fact of live that Brighton and Hove housing is expensive and that is because people who can afford to want to live there at almost any cost. So that means some people are being priced out of the market and that's a shame for them, but there is significantly cheaper housing available in the area from Worthing to Peacehaven to Burgess Hill so why don't these people just move to those? fredaj
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Tue 2 Sep 14

TescosEscalator says...

Fairfax Aches wrote:
"battle" lol.
You'll pay your rent and you'll like it.
lol, impressively snide.
[quote][p][bold]Fairfax Aches[/bold] wrote: "battle" lol. You'll pay your rent and you'll like it.[/p][/quote]lol, impressively snide. TescosEscalator
  • Score: -2

3:09pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Fred'smate says...

fredaj wrote:
It is a fact of live that Brighton and Hove housing is expensive and that is because people who can afford to want to live there at almost any cost.

So that means some people are being priced out of the market and that's a shame for them, but there is significantly cheaper housing available in the area from Worthing to Peacehaven to Burgess Hill so why don't these people just move to those?
On another thread, people are praising Brighton's recent economic success to the skies.

They are ignoring the problems that 'success' brings.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of live that Brighton and Hove housing is expensive and that is because people who can afford to want to live there at almost any cost. So that means some people are being priced out of the market and that's a shame for them, but there is significantly cheaper housing available in the area from Worthing to Peacehaven to Burgess Hill so why don't these people just move to those?[/p][/quote]On another thread, people are praising Brighton's recent economic success to the skies. They are ignoring the problems that 'success' brings. Fred'smate
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Tue 2 Sep 14

redwing says...

fredaj wrote:
It is a fact of live that Brighton and Hove housing is expensive and that is because people who can afford to want to live there at almost any cost.

So that means some people are being priced out of the market and that's a shame for them, but there is significantly cheaper housing available in the area from Worthing to Peacehaven to Burgess Hill so why don't these people just move to those?
Because if more than a few did that the prices would go up there too.
Because the places you mention are still unaffordable and where housing is really cheap (up north) it's often because unemployment there is higher and other facilities are less too.
Because they have always lived in this area and have family/jobs here.
Because if the Universities in Brighton weren't allowed to act like ever expanding businesses and take loads of the cheaper accommodation for students, we wouldn't be in mess locally that we are.
Because right to buy should never have been allowed without replacing the council housing sold.
Because decent housing is as vital as clean water, food and warmth, and landlords' profiteering from daylight robbery rent levels in a situation of deliberately created housing shortage is totally immoral.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of live that Brighton and Hove housing is expensive and that is because people who can afford to want to live there at almost any cost. So that means some people are being priced out of the market and that's a shame for them, but there is significantly cheaper housing available in the area from Worthing to Peacehaven to Burgess Hill so why don't these people just move to those?[/p][/quote]Because if more than a few did that the prices would go up there too. Because the places you mention are still unaffordable and where housing is really cheap (up north) it's often because unemployment there is higher and other facilities are less too. Because they have always lived in this area and have family/jobs here. Because if the Universities in Brighton weren't allowed to act like ever expanding businesses and take loads of the cheaper accommodation for students, we wouldn't be in mess locally that we are. Because right to buy should never have been allowed without replacing the council housing sold. Because decent housing is as vital as clean water, food and warmth, and landlords' profiteering from daylight robbery rent levels in a situation of deliberately created housing shortage is totally immoral. redwing
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree