Here's another story which puts the extra £1,000 (?) which Tube drivers wangled themselves for turning up to work during the Olympics into stark perspective:
Tenants are being driven out of their homes during the Olympics so their landlords can cash in on soaring rents. Even long-term residents have been told they will be evicted because of the shortage of accommodation expected in London in July and August.
One east London private tenant has allegedly been told to move out for a month during the Games – or sign a new contract permanently increasing the rent by £500 a month. Antonia Bance. from Housing charity Shelter, told Metro the Olympics were creating a ‘perfect storm’, exacerbating the shortage of homes in east London.
She said: ‘It’s a strong possibility that a large number of east London tenants may face eviction, rent hikes and losing their homes as a result of the Olympics.’
Property experts believe the temptation to cash in on the Games boom will be too strong for some landlords. Most could get tenants out legally by giving them notice in April or May. Monthly rent on a two-bedroom flat in Tower Hamlets or Hackney would normally be about £1,400. However, properties are being advertised for the Games at up to £7,500 a week.
Tough but fair
26 minutes ago
6 comments:
While an excellent example of land economics, I'm unclear as to a good policy response. I don't see LVT being much help here. Would the gov really up LVT assessments for an olympic year? Seems more trouble than it's worth, but landlords would (and are) cashing in if they don't. Maybe I'm missing something obvious...
F, is a response needed?
Assuming there is, we could
a) simply wade in and make it illegal for tenants to be evicted between now and the Olympics.
b) LVT will capture the long term gains due all the extra infrastructure spending and this short term rental boost anyway,
c) There might be some merit in slapping this extra rental income with a much higher rate of tax, say 75%, to the extent that the admin and faff makes it worthwhile.
"Tenants are being driven out of their homes during the Olympics so their landlords can cash in on soaring rents."
I wonder how many of those tenants were hoping to sub-let their homes and, er, "cash in"?
B, a fair few, but heck knows how many. Would I relocate my family for a month to sub-let my house for £30,000? I'd be daft not to consider it.
I wonder how many of those tenants were hoping to sub-let their homes and, er, "cash in"?
I know at least one person planning on it, good point. I just think it seems a shame to essentially require a standoff between the landlord and tenant over 2 months greatly elevated rent.
MW, is a response needed? Not entirely sure. This is more a theoretical exercise for me.
It seems a bit extreme for landlords to be evicting tenants (especially seeing as they're gonna have take them all back when the olympics are done), but you can see the incentive to do it. Some way of making it worthwhile for the landlord and tenant to strike a deal on a temporary vacancy, rather than a simple eviction would be nice. Someone's going to pocket that value, and it seems a shame to essentially force landlords and tenants to fight over it, especially when owner-occupiers could, in theory, get the best of both worlds.
Of course we are not told the numbers involved - it just says "tenants", so that could be as few as two. All the rest is the usual "allegedly", "experts believe", "strong possibility" (what is this with comparative possibilities? either something is possible or it's not) bullshit, padded out with a rentaquote from a fakecharity. Run of the mill journobollox AFAICS.
Post a Comment