To think that Landlords have a bad name.

But it's nearly always the answer to this type of question.
A post about moving in with a new partner.... rent it out
A post about landlords... all scum.
The people responding to the first type of post don't seem to realise that would make them landlords.

They charge rent.

If the economics worked out that more LA/HA housing couldn’t be sustained in any particular case, then they sell. If that depresses sale prices, good.

They'd buy it with capital funds, and pay for the repairs and maintenance using rental income. It could be done through a management organisation or housing association. It could be really useful for providing temporary accommodation.

(I'm familiar with LA funding but not all the rules around capital purchases etc. Also government funding is pushing towards LAs using private sector accommodation for a lot of homelessness-related work, so it might be harder to do. But in theory it could work well)

Some of us are opposed to the BTL and multiple ownership blight without insulting LLs.

But if you can’t see why some others have reason to be so opposed and to express themselves in strong terms I think you are very short-sighted and unaware of the wider realities of the business you’ve decided to take part in.

Well no, not really because if people are goung to rent, then they at least deserve to rent an actual home not just pay to be a placeholder for you that could be kicked out at any time.

I'm talking about the extra houses. Would all these extra LA funded houses not any extra income to make these purchases? As in from the tax payer?

It really is pathetic.

I sleep very well, knowing I’m looking after my family.

All the LA or HA would have to do is buy the discounted house and then sell it at the higher market rate if they don’t need it.

I strongly suspect that cheap houses for social provision would be gladly accepted by LAs and HAs though. How do you think these providers already maintain their houses?

We all look after our own at the end of the day.

So true. That’s why Rachmanite landlords intimidate, bully and rip off their tenants…so they can better their own and their family’s financial prospects. Or, less contentiously, why private LLs do not renew tenancies or sell up, at their own convenience, leaving people desperate.

You’re clearly not either of those. But I’m sure you see the problem.

As for the posters getting carried away and calling all landlords scum and leeches, I can only roll my eyes and think they’re pathetic.

So say the LA buys these houses. Where does that money come from? Who pays for the upkeep and maintenance? Do the LA pay for that? Where does that money come from? Because in the scenario you describe, that would be a lot of houses to pay for and ultimately maintain.

As a former tenant too, I know that the majority of landlords I have had are poor. Even as a well heeled middle class professional, I have had to deal with people who didn’t pay for gas safety certificates, scummy individuals who wouldn’t fit hot water for taps or fix landing lights when you have small kids, landlords who have tried to implement a retrospective rent increase, landlords who have installed cords of blinds so that they are dangling into my baby’s cot, (really cheap blinds at that which have fallen apart within weeks), landlords who are constantly watching me and coming up with crazy accusations like you’re smoking in your home (er no I have asthma), landlords who have tried to charge me for another reference when I’m only moving into another one of their properties. I could go on indefinitely.

So I do feel like getting out my tiny violin and playing a sad song when I see the Daily Telegraph bemoaning the fact that profits are not what they were for the poor landlords, who are doing their best to cater for the ne-er do wells.

I understand your pov, but what about the people who will never be able to afford the deposit to buy or who don’t want to buy for whatever reason? I’m probably going to rent in a couple of years when I move areas and I’ll be really grateful to find someone who has a property I can rent.

We currently rent out 5 properties. There will always be people that say it’s immoral.

My sibling lives in one of our houses and a very good friend in another, both happy and say they don’t want to buy.

One has long term tenants of 8 years. The other two have tenants who are leaving soon and we’re going to sell those houses to help our kids get on the property ladder. We all look after our own at the end of the day.

About LLs "pushing up the prices" ...

FWIW I only have one additional property and my disabled son's in that, but from observation the LLs with portfolios certainly don't pay over the odds; in fact they very often buy the cheapest places available, and then only if competition doesn't drive the price up

Obviously it could be said that fewer available properties mean prices will be higher, but let's not also forget the endless meddling and so-called "help to buy" schemes which also contribute to keeping prices artificially high

I’m over seeing this on television too. I feel it is inappropriate and unethical and as a TV licence payer, I don’t want to view on television that people can let out X property for Y profit, now that like 40% of people are being forced to rent homes.

Too many people now are forced to rent out a home, and being forced to rent a home with an uneven power keel is a very miserable experience for a huge number of people.

Granted, in some circumstances people do need to rent - like coming out of university or starting a job in a new city.

But let’s face it. For many people nowadays, it’s an unpleasant and selfish industry. It’s forcing people into poverty and increasing people’s poverty as increasing numbers enter old age without a paid off mortgage and are forced to pay those market rents.

You’re right: I abridged the explanation so it wasn’t clear.

My proposal is that private LLs would only be able to sell to another licensed private LL or - under an expanded RTB, with discount - to the tenant. The idea is that heavily regulated rental stock remains as such unless sold to an existing tenant.

There might be capital gains, I suppose, in either scenario but they would be effectively part of a business sale rather than an ongoing incentive to sell up - and throw out a tenant - when the market suits, as now.

If a LL had to sell and no legally permitted buyer could be found, then discounted sale to a LA or HA.

Of course you are stopping people buying houses. You are pushing up demand which is pushing up prices and consequently pushing up deposits for homes.

So you are in effect stopping someone at the more vulnerable end of the economic system from buying their one and only home, because of what can arguably be described as greed.

Renters cannot live where all the empty homes are. People usually have to live where the jobs are. And people buying their first house usually are not in a position to do up an empty or disused house.

There will be shifts in the housing market as landlords sell up and more people would be able to acquire first homes.

@Arewe29 I saw upthread that you’re planning to give your rental properties to your children at some point in the future?

So they’ll become homeowners-perhaps the cycle of evil landlords can end then. :-)

Why wouldn't there be profit on capital growth? If the LL owned houses the value would increase and result in a profit, surely? (I'm thinking I've missed something in your idea rather than criticising your idea, to be clear)

They would have to sell to whom ever is willing to buy at whatever price they can get. Hopefully this means they'll have to sell cheap and some first time buyers can have a chance of controlling their own destiny rather than living at the mercy of a landlord's whims.
Therr will of course be some capital gains liability in the event of selling and capital gains is the principal activity involved in being a landlord, any profit made from the rent monies is just icing on the cake.

Yes. LLs would fund the regulation, but I doubt it would be that expensive, particularly after set-up funded centrally.

Lots of trades and professions pay for their own regulation. Wherever there’s professional licensing there’s a regulatory income stream.

Of course there would be profit available, but only on rental income, not on capital growth, and rental income profit should be carefully controlled.

The basic premise is that a private LL should be forced to operate like a social housing provider but with a profit element. If that’s unattractive to private LLs you need to ask yourself why.

I agree landlords need to be regulated much more heavily.
However, many of those in power who make the rules are landlords and they don't want regulations impacting their profits!

Systemically this isn't working, as discussed on the thread. It distorts the market and it makes tenants vulnerable to owners changing their mind and deciding to sell. There are individual landlords who are doing a good job, but the system doesn't provide good outcomes for society as a whole. In the same way, I wouldn't judge someone for using Right To Buy because it's the system we live in, but I think RTB as it stands is a terrible policy.

You also see a lot of threads on here where 'accidental' landlords aren't following all the rules.

What I think would be interesting is to have the ability to invest money in a savings scheme which tracks the housing market (and the way to do this would probably be a massive regulated company which owns properties and lets them out). So if you sold your house to move in with a partner, you could invest it in the scheme. You wouldn't lose out because your investment would still be growing in line with house prices, but you also wouldn't be clogging up the housing market with BTL landlords. It's not a fully thought through scheme and I'm sure there are issues with it, but as an idea I like it.