National says that it will reinstate landlord rights to end periodic tenancies on notice if it wins the election. Currently, tenants have a more or less permanent right of occupancy. While it is commendable that National is upfront about this policy, it is not one that will sit well with many.

A house is not a mere commodity. It is an extension of our very beings into the physical environment. We rightly believe that people should feel secure in the place they call home. 

The landlord-tenant relationship often involves an imbalance of power. Like employment law, therefore, we recognise that it is not a matter of mere contract. There is a significant social dimension in these matters.

Despite this, on balance, I find myself in support of National's proposed reset.

The government had good intentions when it abolished the landlord termination rights. Good intentions do not always secure good results, however. Several problems have arisen from the government's reforms. 

It has become almost impossible to evict destructive tenants. When  the law changed, landlords were promised a three-strikes regime for anti-social behaviour. The strictness and complexity of this process, however, render it ineffective in practice. 

Landlords must serve notices in conformity with struct rules. If they do this three times within 90 days, they can then apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for termination. The Tribunal will then make a decision in accordance with its arbitrary and inconsistent procedures. 

While this accords with the Labour Party's love of forms, process and bureaucracy, it is just unworkable. Tenants can easily contest claims of anti-social behaviour. There is little clarity on what evidence landlords need to gather.

Here’s an example (not too removed from real life). The landlord of an apartment is struggling with an abusive, destructive tenant who, among other things, threatens and intimidates his neighbours. The landlord serves notices correctly and then applies to the Tribunal. The Tribunal might well refuse to act unless the neighbours front up in person to give evidence, despite the fact that they are terrified of the tenant in their midst and justifiably fearful of reprisals.

What this all adds up to is a system in which nobody can have any certainty about when unruly will result in an eviction.

This means landlords have become more stringent in tenant selection, with increased vetting. The effect is very harsh in areas with rental property shortages. Inevitably, things are most difficult for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

Good luck trying to rent a decent place if you have an imperfect past.

In some cases, houses have been removed from the rental pool altogether. The issue of "ghost houses" is often overplayed. That doesn't mean it isn't a concern on the margins.  

This isn't limited to anti-social tenants. 

Many people wish to let out houses for shorter durations for legitimate reasons. An example is a holiday home owner who lets their property from autumn to spring. That can't be done now. Those letting a house to somebody for more than 3 months take on responsibilities to their tenant that resemble the employer-employee relationship. 

Reinstating termination on notice should not mark the end of the discussion. As people have been priced out of home ownership, we need to be ever more concerned with the welfare of renters. The ultimate answer always comes down to better supply that gives tenants more choice. 

What Labour has done in the meantime, however, is destroy landlord confidence in the system. People with good credit ratings, a clean record and the other incidents of privilege have obviously benefited. But it has also contributed to the continuing social disaster facing those already difficult to house. 

We need a system that works fairly for both landlords and tenants. Labour has removed the only effective tool that landlords had to protect their investment while not giving them a useful substitute. That was not a wise decision, and a reset really does seem like the best way to go.