Finland’s great idea is a way of renting called ‘Right of Ownership’ and it works like this (seriously – it’s great – prop your eyes open and keep reading…) (Honest – it’s as good as Santa and saunas, and the collected works of director Aki Kaurismaki - even Leningrad Cowboys Go America!)
‘Right-of-ownership housing is an alternative to renting or buying your own home. By paying a right-of-ownership fee – about 15% of the total price of the apartment – and a monthly charge (rent), you get the same rights to your home as if you owned it.
You cannot buy a right-to-ownership apartment outright. However, you can sell your right-of-ownership or change it for another apartment.’
What a brilliant idea: the best parts of owning (the certainty, the security) coupled with the freedom of renting. How many of us wouldn’t pay a hefty lump sum for security? The worst thing about renting is that your home is never your home, and many people endure landlords (usually those who used to live in the property themselves) waltzing through the door without knocking. Farewell to all that!
Renting is now seen by landlords as a much begrudged, fleeting right to infest their home at great inconvenience, a barely tolerated incursion. Renting has always been a right to occupy, but the right to a form of ownership is even better. I am presuming this system permits subletting and renovating by subscribers.
So let tenants pay to ‘live’ in the flats they rent (that’s live, not exist, infest, or blight.) It would spell out to owners that the tenant has the biggest possible package of rights, and that they in turn have renounced many of their privileges accompanying their de facto feifdom. Presumably this puts an end to tenants being given notice on a whim – such as because the owner has taken randomly to disliking you, or because they feel like it. Renters have a greater bundle of rights, and what’s more you’ve paid for them, and can stay long term. Hooray!
I’m quite curious about what happens if tenants cause vandalism or don’t pay rent, and about implications in an era of increasing unemployment. With growing casualisation of work, how would it affect benefit claims, since there is no job security anymore: renters are often in lower income groups (and they’d buy if they could.)
The scheme depends on the house price, so that lump sum could be expensive ie in the entire South East of the UK. That in turn might produce varying tiers of renters: some able to afford and enjoy those coveted extra rights. People unable to pay would be cursed with a lesser bundle of rights, stuck, unable to stay, compelled to move on a whim. A bit like now really.
I am certain there must be problems. I am sure there are drawbacks, but I am also convinced that many pay would pay for clarity and certainty, and money talks. Either that or we could start a root and branch reform/reinforcement of renting rights. Either really.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Wow, that sounds like my kind of system. Must do some searching around to find out how it works...
Thats definitely an interesting system. I'll ask friends in Norway and Sweden if they know anyting about it. Its certainly a good idea to grant "premium" rights to tenants for higher rent payments. One of the key issues in the extreme free-market model of renting at the moment is that there is no relationship between rent levels and quality of rental levels. In fact there is a lot of evidence in some regions that socially subsidised tenants are actually charged more, simply because local government are able to pay higher rent levels.
I only just found about this. There are of course, pros and cons. IMO: renting should long term ie decades unless expressly stated, and tenants should have as many rights as owners (not knocking down walls obviously!)
Hi RG
Interesting.
Right of Occupancy (not ownership aiui) seems to be a public sector type of tenure for a property - so an alternative to assured not ast tenancies. It is permanent, so balkanises the housing stock.
It also sounds very similar to either short leases (think Crown Estate or Grosvenor Estate) properties in London or low percentage shared ownership schemes.
Short leases are not popular in the UK outside London afaik.
>The worst thing about renting is that your home is never your home, and many people endure landlords (usually those who used to live in the property themselves) waltzing through the door without knocking.
I'd say we are better - indeed too restrictive - on that. Walzing in is already a criminal offence without a Court Order.
And that causes hellish problems where Ts have vanished and it routinely takes 3-5 months to get a right of access back. There can be a tap left running or a garden full of food waste and nothing LL can do about it legally until there is an emergency.
Tenants in Eng/Wales (and I think he UK) already have an absolute right to change their locks to keep LL out, which costs from a tenner to a few tens of pounds.
>Renting is now seen by landlords as a much begrudged, fleeting right to infest their home at great inconvenience, a barely tolerated incursion.
:-) That is a caricature based on a tiny fraction of landlords and grumpiness, as you know very well.
>Renting has always been a right to occupy, but the right to a form of ownership is even better. I am presuming this system permits subletting and renovating by subscribers.
I'd be interested to see if that also includes the duties of ownership - mending ridge tiles and replacing soffits, cleaning gutters and ventilating chimneys, repainting windows every 5 years etc.
If you are going to insist on the widest possible package of rights, then the responsibilities have to go with it.
>I am certain there must be problems. I am sure there are drawbacks, but I am also convinced that many pay would pay for clarity and certainty, and money talks.
Here there's nothing stopping a T requesting a longer term agreement; I'm looking for a 3 year T on a refurb at the moment.
If an extra dollop of rent is offered - pay for certainty as you suggest - there's no reason why it won't work now.
>Either that or we could start a root and branch reform/reinforcement of renting rights. Either really.
I hope you don't get what you wish for on that without someone thinking through all the implications; it would create a lot of problems.
Here is the problem Matt: when you ask a landlord not to waltz in they give retaliatory notice. And add that to most things here: if you complain you get thrown out. And no - people won't sign up longterm unless certain they have rights and can trust the landlord. Renting for many tenants is hellish: they simply move on, as insisting on their rights means they could be given notice anyway.
"I hope you don't get what you wish for on that without someone thinking through all the implications; it would create a lot of problems."
For whom?
I think the problem with that scheme is that there are no caps on the rent, which I think is one of the main issue.
Post a Comment