Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Rent crisis: how bad landlords avoid punishment" video.

It's all good and proper to say a landlord should do this or should do that, but I wonder how many landlords have the cash to immediately make those repairs on hand. This is why being a landlord shouldn't be a simple case of listing a property for rent. There should be more hurdles, such as a requirement to hold a trust for the property with a minimum amount of funds deposited prior to listing, and a percentage of all rental payments deposited into the trust each cycle. This would ensure a ready fund of monies available for short notice repairs.
20
@Nick_80599 Bond is for securing against the tenant, not incidental repairs. Insurance likewise isn't for incidental repairs and wear & tear. It's for accidents, thefts and acts of nature. It really does need to be held in a legislative trust as liquid currency prior to listing plus an ongoing percentage of rent. Just as an arbitrary example, say 2% of the market value of the property at the time of listing, plus 12.5% of rental income on a per property basis. Drawings on the trust would need to be accompanied by proof of need. There would be a need for statutory requirement that the initial capital not come from loans. There are multiple benefits to doing it this way • It ensures the landlord always has cash on hand to effect repairs in a timely manner. However prevents the landlord drawing on the trust for things it isn't intended for. • It raises the bar of entry such that only those whom already have the existing wealth to invest in a repairs trust can enter. This changes the calibre of landlord in the market and drastically reduced the instance of slumlords. People looking to get rich from the property market on borrowed money would all but cease. Existing wealth looking for long term investment would be the primary landlord. • Discourages business investment and limits any individuals portfolio as a separate trust is required per property. • Discourages frivolous or opportunistic evictions, as the amount required in trust is calculated as a percentage of market value at the time of listing. That means if the market value of the property increases and thus rental potential then to access that higher rent you either need to negotiate with the existing tenant or have additional savings to add to the trust, thus negating any immediate benefit to increased rents. Section 12 evictions should still be banned, but such a scheme would really push the market back into the direction where the rental market has been until quite recently.
2
@robe1811 One only needs to look to the north american rental market where corporate ownership is much further advanced to see how big a mess that is. Corporations are worse than the get rich quick crowd. Both are seeking quick ROI. Corporations have greater means to track ROI, and will ruthlessly seek it. What works is what has always worked. Individual, couple or partnership landlords, with existing wealth looking for long term hands off investment, managed through estate agents.
1
@declanl311 Again, landlord insurance does not cover the cost of general or incidental repairs. We aren't talking about insurance. Please actually read what I've written.
1
@shh_you_are_wrong Please point out where anyone in this thread, let alone me, in any way mentioned or referred to councils subsidising anything. This is a discussion about private landlords having a means test against them in the form of a trust fund before being able to list a property.
1
@shh_you_are_wrong Tenant bonds already exist to pay for unforeseen damages. Tenants already pay up front. The problem with the rental market currently is not the tenants. It's the get rich quick crowd who want toborrow money then live off rental income from the start. That needs to stop. Period. Rentals are long term investments. A trust scheme would achieve that goal by sending the correct signals to the market. It would keep corporations and slumlords looking for a fast buck at others expense out of the market.
1