When we left our shared house, our landlord demanded £10,000 for invented damages

Oh good. Image: Getty.

Most tenants you ask have a story to tell about an unreasonable landlord. Disputes over repairs, deposits and rent increases are part of life for those in the private rental sector. But this one was different. “WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO CONTRACT,” his email began, ominously. “THESE DAMAGES WILL USE UP YOUR DEPOSIT AND MORE TO WHICH I WILL BE LOOKING TO YOU ALL.”

Over the next month, we fired dozens of emails back and forth. Mine were long, poised, imploring: surely we could come to an agreement based on the proper process? His were brief, rude, often capitalised: we were terrible tenants, the neighbours were glad to see us go, what did we expect?

Each week this went on the number only grew. First it was the whole deposit of £5,500 – six weeks rent on our six-bedroom house. By the end of the month it was more than £10,000, including £4,550 to redecorate the entire property and £5,089 on refurnishing the house, including complete sets of high-end furniture in eight bedrooms (two more had appeared since we’d left). This was “with out Legal Cost” he told us, solemnly.

Throughout our exchange he declined to provide inspection reports or photos to support his claims, instead attaching invoices drawn up by his contractors. “It’s down to you to make me an offer,” he said. “Litigate or negotiate.”

So we went to arbitration – your only option as a tenant with an unresolvable dispute short of a trip to the small claims court. The companies that protect your deposit are legally required to offer you a free dispute resolution service. You each submit a document: your landlord sees yours; you don’t see theirs. You have one shot – and no right to appeal.

I submitted our case on a Friday evening. It had taken quite some time to put together – and I’d benefited from the advice of friends with legal experience (“less righteous”). Four months on – half a year after we moved out – the ruling came back. The landlord had provided no evidence of anything more than “fair wear and tear”, the adjudicator confirmed. He was seeking what’s known in the industry as “betterment” – to use our tenancy to end up in a better position than when we moved in. We got our deposit back. After a moment of celebration and relief, I asked what they would do about our unscrupulous landlord. The answer was clear: nothing.

When I’ve told friends and colleagues this story I’ve discovered that, while my landlord’s behaviour was extreme, such experiences are common. After she moved out, one friend’s landlord splashed mud on the walls of her flat and claimed deductions – without realising she had taken had timestamped photos of the rooms when they were spotless. Another friend was threatened with legal action for disputing that standard end-of-tenancy cleaning and repairs should run into four figures. A former colleague told me they’d been threatened with eviction if they didn’t agree to replace a faulty washing machine.

While there isn’t accurate data, a poll by Tenants Voice suggested 30 per cent of tenancies end in deductions, with 13 per cent of tenants losing their entire deposit. Another found that 29 per cent of tenants lost their whole deposit and estimated that deductions could amount to as much as £1bn per year. A fifth of tenants say that they have had their deposits unfairly deducted.

Why do landlords get away this behaviour?

If a tenant wants to report an errant landlord, it’s not easy to work out where to go. Unlike restaurants owners, market traders and taxi drivers, most landlords in England need no licence to operate (they do in Scotland, Wales and most other countries).

Many are not even registered. My old landlord owns more than thirty residential and commercial properties in my borough, but when I contacted the council they said there was little they could do: I should take it up with my deposit protection company. But while the arbitration system worked well in my case, the three companies created in 2006 to protect deposits are funded by… landlords. According to The Rent Trap, by Rosie Walker, the one chosen by my landlord – somewhat ambiguously called MyDeposits – for a long time had the dubious honour of being the only scheme which allowed landlords to keep their tenants’ money in their own account and earn interest on it. No help there either.

“First and foremost, there is no accountability,” says Ben Yarrow, founder of Marks out of Tenancy, a new platform for rating and reviewing landlords, agents and properties, which aims to fill this gap. Whereas on Airbnb you’d expect to see a rating and several reviews before booking a stay in a stranger’s house, tenants sign year-long contracts without any information about a landlord’s past behaviour. This means landlords might as well try it on. Seeking betterment is a one-way bet.

And it’s a bet landlords often win because tenants in the UK have weaker rights and more limited access to advocacy than tenants in most wealthy countries. Tenancies are much shorter – six to twelve months, on average, compared with four to six years in Italy and Germany – and tenants in England can still be evicted with two months’ notice having committed no-fault, although the government has announced plans to end this. Whereas in Germany renters are organised into powerful unions, with over 3 million members, many in the UK don’t know where to go. The arbitration system seems opaque and risky. Those who are less aware of their rights, unwilling for various reasons to take on landlords or simply need some money back quickly for their next house make for easier targets.

In New South Wales, Australia, deposits are protected by a state-run company entirely funded by the interest earned on them (some AU$56m), which also covers tribunals, free advice and advocacy for tenants. Lloyd Russell-Moyle, MP for Brighton Kemptown – otherwise known for grabbing the parliamentary mace – recently introduced a ten-minute bill calling for the UK to adopt this model, using the £4bn currently held by deposit protection companies. After the speech, a cabinet minister crossed the floor to tell him it was a sensible idea.

Cross-party efforts to improve tenants’ rights such as this are especially overdue because the nature of private renting in Britain has changed: 11 million people in the UK now rent their homes from private landlords. The number of privately rented homes has increased by almost two thirds in the last decade, driven by social housing cuts and rising property prices. By 2025, half of under 40s will still be living in properties owned by private landlords, while, according the Resolution Foundation think tank, a third of millennials face renting from cradle to grave. What was once considered a stopgap has become a long-term reality for many, including families and the elderly. It’s time the law and policy caught up.

Tom Sasse is a senior researcher at the Institute for Government. He is writing in a personal capacity.


How the pandemic is magnifying structural problems in America's housing market

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Long before Covid-19, the United States suffered from a housing crisis. Across the country, working class and low-income Americans struggled to pay rent, while the possibility of home ownership receded into fantasy. In hot markets, affordability became a struggle for even the middle class: In California, 41 percent of the population spends over a third of their income on housing costs. 

The coronavirus pandemic will only make these trends worse as millions are unable to work and the economy dives into a recession. Building could slow down in the medium term, as construction loans (risky bets in the best of times) become harder to come by. Unsubsidised affordable housing is often owned by small landlords, who are more likely to struggle during recessions, prompting flips to home ownership or sales to rental empires. 

New York Times reporter Conor Dougherty documented America’s longstanding housing crisis – and California’s efforts to battle it – in his book Golden Gates, which debuted just before the pandemic hit. “My sense is that right now coronavirus is magnifying a lot of things that were already happening,” Dougherty says.  

While Covid-19 adds new pressures, he says that many of the same issues we were facing still loom over the issue, from developers crowding the higher end of the market, to escalating construction costs, to stagnating wages and vulnerable service-sector jobs that leave ordinary Americans struggling to keep a roof over their heads. “That’s my larger message,” Dougherty says. “I think the structural problems continue to be a much bigger deal than the cyclical problem in housing.”

CityMetric spoke with Dougherty about how his thinking has changed since Covid-19, Donald Trump’s pro-suburban rhetoric, and the apparent exodus from San Francisco. 

I’ve really been struck by how strong the housing market seems to be despite the epic economic crisis we are facing. Costs seem to be higher everywhere. I've heard realtors talk about bidding wars like they haven't seen before in Philly, where I live. But perhaps that's just pent up demand from the big shutdowns?

What you have is an economy that has bifurcated. You have fewer middle-income jobs, more lower-income service jobs, and more higher-end jobs in software and finance. That's how our economy looks and that's a problem that is going to take the rest of our lives to solve. In the meantime, we have this housing market where one group of people have so much more money to spend than this other group. Cities reflect that. 

What's important about this bifurcation isn't just that you have gross inequality, but that these people have to live next to each other. You cannot be someone's Uber driver and telecommute. You cannot clean someone's house remotely. These lower-end service workers have to occupy the same general housing market as the super-high-end workers. 

All the pandemic has done is thrown that even more out of whack by creating a situation where one group of people is buying and expanding homes or lowering their home cost by refinancing, while another group are at income zero while trying to live in the same housing market with no demand for their services. When you see home prices booming and an eviction tsunami coming in the same newspaper, that tells you the same thing the book was trying to show you.

Does America writ large have the same housing shortage crisis as California and the Bay Area more specifically? There are other super hot markets, like New York City, Boston, or Seattle. But in Philly, or in Kansas City, is there really a lack of supply? 

There are three kinds of cities in America. There are the really out of control, fast-growing, rich cities: the Bay Area, Seattle, New York. There are declining Detroits and Clevelands, usually manufacturing-centric cities. Then there are sprawling Sun Belt cities. This book is by and large concerned with the prosperous cities. It could be Minneapolis, it could be Nashville. But the housing crisis in places like Cleveland is much more tied to poverty, as you pointed out. 

Those kinds of cities do have a different dynamic, although they still do have the same access to opportunity issues. For instance, there are parts of Detroit that are quite expensive, but they're quite expensive because that's where a lot of the investment has gone. That's where anybody with a lot of money wants to live. Then you have Sun Belt cities like Dallas and Houston, which are starting to become a lot more expensive as well. Nothing like the Bay Area, but the same forces are starting to take root there. 

I think that the Bay Area is important because throughout history, when some giant American industry has popped up, people have gone to Detroit or Houston. Now tech, for better or for worse, has become the industrial powerhouse of our time. But unlike Detroit in its time, it's very hard for people to get close to and enjoy that prosperity. There's a certain kind of city that is the future of America, it has a more intellectual economy, it's where new productive industries are growing. I think it's an outrage that all of them have these housing crises and it's considered some insane luxury to live there. 

A recent Zillow study seemed to show there hasn't been a flood of home sales in the pandemic that would signify a big urban exodus from most cities, with the glaring exception of San Francisco. Do you think that could substantially alleviate some of the cost pressure in the city proper?

On the one hand, I think this is about the general economy. If unemployment remains over 12% in San Francisco, yes, rent is going to be a lot cheaper. But is that really the reality we're all looking for? If restaurants and bars that were key to the city's cultural life remain shut, but rent is cheaper, is that what everyone wants? I bet you when this is all over, we're going to find out the tech people left at a much lower rate than others. Yes, they can all work from home, but what do you think has a bigger impact on a city: a couple of companies telling people they can work from home or the total immolation of entire industries basically overnight?

I don't want to make predictions right now, because we're in the middle of this pandemic. But if the city of San Francisco sees rents go down, well, the rent was already the most expensive in the nation. It falls 15%, 20%? How much better has that really gotten? Also, those people are going to go somewhere and unless they all move quite far away, you're still seeing these other markets picking up a lot of that slack. And those places are already overburdened. Oakland's homeless problem is considerably worse than San Francisco's. If you drive through Oakland, you will see things you did not think possible in the United States of America. 

Speaking of markets beyond San Francisco, you have a chapter about how difficult it is to build housing in the municipalities around big cities – many of which were just founded to hive off their tax revenues from low-income people.

That’s why you see Oregon, California, or the Democratic presidential candidates talking about shaking this up and devising ways to kick [zoning] up to a higher level of government. We've always done this whenever we've had a problem that seems beyond local governance. Like voting rights: you kick it to a higher body when the local body can't or won't solve it. 

But for better or for worse, this suburban thing is part of us now. We cannot just undo that. This notion of federalism and local control, those are important American concepts that can be fiddled with at the edges, but they cannot be wholesale changed. 

The first time I ever met Sonja Trauss [a leader of the Bay Area YIMBY group], she told me she wasn't super concerned about passing new laws but that the larger issue was to change the cultural perception of NIMBYism. We were living in a world where if you went to a city council meeting and complained about a multifamily development near your single-family house, you were not accosted for trying to pump up your property values or hoard land in a prosperous city. You were seen as a defender of the neighbourhood, a civically-minded person.

What is significant about YIMBYism is that the cultural tide is changing. There is this whole group of younger people who have absorbed a new cultural value, which is that more dense housing, more different kinds of people, more affordable housing, more housing options, is good. It feels like the tide is turning culturally and the movement is emblematic of that. I think that value shift will turn out to have been much more lasting than anything Scott Wiener ever does. Because the truth is, there are still going to be a bunch of local battles. Who shows up and how those places change from within probably will turn out to be more important. 

As you said, we've been seeing a lot of Democratic candidates with proposals around reforming zoning. How does Joe Biden's plan compare to the scope of the ambition in the field? 

There are two big ideas that you could pull from all the plans. First, some kind of renter's tax credit. It is obscene that we live in a country where homeowners are allowed to deduct their mortgage interest, but renters aren't. It is obscene that we live in a world where homeowners get 30-year fixed mortgages that guarantee their house payment pretty much for life and renters don't. If we think that it's a good idea to protect people from sudden shocks in their housing costs, that is as good of an idea for renters as it is for homeowners. 

I tell people that in this country, homeowners are living in the socialist hellscape of government intervention and price controls. Renters are living in the capitalist dream of variable pricing and market forces. Homeowners think they're living in this free market, but actually they're in the most regulated market – there are literally price controls propping up their market mortgages. 

Then there is Section 8 housing. Right now homeowners get access to the mortgage interest deduction. That programme is available to as many people as can use it, yet only about a quarter of the people eligible for Section 8 can get it. I think rectifying that is hugely important and a lot of the plans talked about that. 

The second big idea is using the power of the purse to incentivise people to more robustly develop their regions. You should have higher density housing in fancy school districts, near job centres, near transit. We're going to use the power of the purse to incentivise you, within the bounds of your own local rules, to do this right. Of course, that’s what Donald Trump is running against when he talks about Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). 

When I was a local reporter in Philly, the city went through with that AFFH regulation despite Trump and HUD Secretary Ben Carson not being interested in enforcing it anymore. The city produced a fat report that maybe a few people read, but I don't think it changed policy. It's this phantom that Trump is running against, an ideal version of the policy that did not exist. It's also a phantom no one's heard of until Trump started tweeting about it. 

It’s been bizarre to watch. But Trump does seem to recognise that suburban politics don’t neatly fit into a red or blue construct. People who live in Texas and claim to want a free market system will turn around and erect local regulation to make sure nobody can build apartments near them. People in the Bay Area who claim to be looking for a more diverse place will use different logic, anti-developer logic, to keep apartments being built near them. 

People like that regardless of how they feel about things nationally. The bluntness with which Trump is doing it is discordant with the electorate and quixotic because people don't know what he's talking about. But the basic things he recognises – can I make voters feel like their neighbourhoods are threatened – he's onto something there. As with many things Trump, his tactics are so off-putting that people may ultimately reject them even if under the surface they agree.

You hear people on the left say the scary thing about Trump is that one day a good demagogue could come along. They're going to actually tax private equity people and they're actually going to build infrastructure. They're going to actually do a lot of popular stuff, but under a racist, nationalist banner. I think the suburban thing is a perfect example of that. There's a lot of voters even in the Bay Area who [would support that policy] in different clothing.

The world has changed completely since Golden Gates debuted just a few months ago. Has your thinking about housing issues changed as a result of the seismic disruptions we are living through?

The virus has done little more than lay itself on top of all of the problems I outline in the book. Whether we have an eviction tsunami or not, a quarter of renters were already spending more than half their income on rent. There's a chapter about overcrowded housing and how lower-income tenants are competing with each other by doubling, tripling, and quadrupling up for the scant number of affordable apartments. We now know that overcrowded housing is significantly more of a risk [for Covid-19] than, say, dense housing. If you live in a single-family home with 15 people in it, that's a lot more dangerous than 40 apartments in a four-story building.

Housing is just a proxy for inequality, it's a way of us building assets for one group at the exclusion of another. It is an expression of the general fraying of American society. I don't feel like that larger message has been affected at all, it's only been enhanced by the pandemic. With the caveat that this can all change, it just doesn't seem to me like there's some uber housing lesson we can learn from this – other than having a bunch of people crowded together is a really bad idea. 

Jake Blumgart is a staff writer at CityMetric.