Property owning

The wicked landlord

Ruth Carter

Publicly condemned as the source of much social evil and discontent, a landlord nowadays hardly dare admit his own existence without apology. Everyone from Shelter tOyour local friendly pressure group compete for the honour of championing tenants in the ways of staying put.

Presented in the manner of 'The State versus Public Enemy Number One,' television and radio programmes devote lengthy and frequent air space to the subject of beating your landlord in the game of eviction. Government departments buy space in the national press publicising tenants' rights. But not a line for the landlord. One would almost ,,rather admit being a child-beater than a landlord. ''; But what about the landlord's rights? Certainly there are bad landlords; thereAre bound ' to be some good Ones too. More significant, 'however, iS the host of reluctant landlords.

I am one of the reluctant landlords. I hang ' my head nOt inShame, but in angry bewilderment. The various housing Acts have ensured that tenants of unfurnished controlled • properties were there for life and that such a tenancy can be inherited twice over."" ' This can meana Wait 'of a century -and half before the property reverts to itS'ownerS.-• ' By which time it will probably 'have 'rotted. from neglect since a controlled dwelling Valued at t10,000 today is likely tO'produce a rental of about £3 gross. This shows a landlord 'a return' of 1.5 per cent. Or* £150 arintially. It

• 'doesn't 'leave nititfi' for repairs' and renovadons. Yet the ' local ' • council can 'force 'landlords't0 modernise these prernises`Which are fixed at totally unrealistic rent values. It is' riot interested In' the financial iNustice to the' "'landlord. Nor are the Inland Revehue Officers ' who fix rateable values and arrive at a completely different valuation on the property from the Fair Rents people. A very much higher one.

So under the present laws not only is the landlord of a controlled tenancy obliged to see his present tenant into the grave, but the tenancy can be inherited by his son, nephevv, grandson, daughter-in-law — in fact, any relative who cares to move in six months before the rentbook holder's death. And then it can be inherited once more by their offspring. There is nothing to prevent such a relative moving in to inherit, providing it is not sub-let, which is almost impossible to prove. So the landlord in such a situation gets clobbered twice. He has to accept a low fixed rent and has no way of repossessing his property. What it comes down to is that, as 3 result, no landlord out of a lunatic asylum will these days let unfurnished.

There are plenty of houseowners with spare accommodation who could provide homes for the homeless. Many of them, especially the alone and elderly, could do with the cash. But they are too afraid to let. Too many have discovered that if and when they no longer wish to be landlords they have little choice in the matter.

There are people working overseas with homes here who would rather risk squatters moving into their unoccupied house than get a rent and the aggro that goes with it when they want their property returned to them. 1. And so the "to let unfurnished" property market has dried up. Even if a tenant wants to move on there is no place he can go. The hope of finding alternative unfurnished accommodation is like waiting for a premium bond number to turn up. And the odds of shifting a sitting tenant are even more remote. In many cases landlords genuinely need to repossess their properties. I do. The owner of a pair of tiny cottages, I have a growing family of three children. We live in a constant squeeze. We haven't room for a bath. My eldest daughter's bedroom consists of a shower unit and bed. There isn't room for anything else. There isn't room for anyone to come and stay. The loo has to be outside. We eat in the kitchen. No great hardship perhaps and I'm willing to put up with it. But not for ever.

My tenants are an elderly couple. When we bought the cottages we were prepared for discomfort, feeling it worth the sacrifice if we could expand into the second cottage after the death of the present occupiers.

When it comes to dispossessing people of their home I feel my social conscience is as acute as the next. I would not want to boot out old-established tenants. But now a grandson and his wife have moved in with my tenant and they recently gave birth to a child. They have made it quite clear that they, too, are waiting for the day when my tenant's cottage can be their exclusive home. They know their rights backwards and can quote half a dozen tenant-championing bodies who will come to their aid.

What makes the situation more galling is that they are quite well off and could presumably buy their own home. The grandfather claims he is not receiving rent. Too right he isn't. One of my obligations as a landlord is to ensure that my tenant is aware he Can claim social security benefit to meet his rent.1 can well understand the grandson's reaStining: Why should he buy his own home When he 'can inherit one for life for £3 a week plus rates? And I have little doubt his children will take a similar view and hang on to such a gift. What is happening is that my family is subsidising his.

"Legal experts say there is nothing I can do about it. A county court judge would return 'thy' property to me only if I could prove desPerate need. I asked the local council about overcrowding. Have several more children of mixed sexes and you might have a

chance, I was advised. But should my tenant's grandson beat me to it (and he is younger than I), well, tough luck. His hardship could then be shown to be more pressing than mine. I could, of course, offer my tenant alternative accommodation, if I could find it. I could bribe him out, if I could afford to. (On a rental of £3 a week, it's going to take me several generations to save that much.) Or I could move out and find more suitable housing for my family. The catch is that I can't, because with a new generation of sitting tenants attached to my property now, the value has chminished. Meanwhile, Harry Hyams makes a fortune out of empty office blocks.

-1 am not angry with my tenant — he is merely making the most of a ludicrous law. I am angry with the one-sided system that says I am obliged to subsidise him. I'd rather give the money to worthier charities.

And I am angry with the propaganda put out by social welfare bodies who have made landlord-bashing something of a new national sport. By allowing tenants of unfurnished properties and their relatives security in perpetuity, by ensuring that such tenants have all the rights on their side, the housing ministers ensure a permanent shortage of rented houses.

I can appreciate that tenants need protection, but the pendulum seems to have swung so far that many of them are living off the backs of those less well-off than themselves — and with every encouragement to cling on. As a national slogan 'A Home of Your Own' is fine. But is it fair that the 'sin' of being a landlord should be visited unto the second generation?

Ruth Carter, freelance journalist, housewife and mother, formerly worked for newspapers in London and Kenya and now lives in rural Sussex