A peek at the possible: comparing the party manifestos

Not every promise made as part of a manifesto makes it into the real world. Priorities and budgets change and political systems crawl along. Some promises remain things the parties would like to do rather than things they manage to implement. But we thought it a good time, with the general election looming, to peek at how the main parties are thinking on the areas of policy that affect our sector.

As some of the smaller parties are still to publish their plans, we’re focusing on the three main parties, and we’re offering no opinion here, just a summary of what’s included in the plans.

All the manifestos make substantial housing commitments, pledging housebuilding programs and support for social housing. All three main parties aim to increase home ownership and back help-to-buy schemes, while the Liberal Democrats favour a rent-to-own model for those who can’t save a deposit. Both Labour and the Lib Dems plan to reinstate housing benefit for under-21s and scrap the “bedroom tax,” with the Lib Dems also proposing to raise Local Housing Allowances to match average local rents.

On private renting—our main focus—the Lib Dems speak most clearly. They back the proposed ban on upfront letting fees, propose a cap on deposits, and want to raise standards for rented homes. Like Labour, they support controlling rent increases by linking them to inflation. All three main parties aim to give tenants more security with longer tenancies, with Labour proposing a three-year standard.

An interesting idea is a government-backed tenancy deposit loan scheme aimed at first-time renters – a Liberal Democrat proposal, as is a suggestion that tenants should have first-refusal rights if their landlord decides to sell during the period of the tenancy.

There is a lot in these documents to protect and help tenants, but it seems that the desire to further regulate the sector is a common feature – the Lib Dems are proposing mandatory licensing for landlords and a tenant-accessible database of rogue landlords and property agents. While we too would like to see all rogue operators out of the business, we can’t help but feel that we’re getting more than the lion’s share of the blame for the country’s housing issues.

Our sector provides a valuable service. The vast majority of landlords and agents are fair and decent. They face considerable risk to their investment but also increasingly modest returns and more and more red-tape.

We’re trying to remain impartial, but where, in all these manifestos, is protection from rogue tenants? Where is the flexibility we need to respond to changing circumstances – as other businesses are able to do? Where is our incentive to keep doing what we do?