To think that Landlords have a bad name.

I don't have a problem with that at all, you own a single property that you're not using, and so are letting it out, thereby providing some dynamism in the market for tenants that need it.

You're also honest about your motivation and not pretending to offer a social service.

And as I previously mentioned, wherever it is your living seems to have a better handle on the idea of rental property. This is the kind of policy that needs to be seen in the UK to bring some sense back into the housing market. It won't happen though, much of the UK's 'wealth' is based on housing stock, it's basically a ponzi-sceme now and correction would be too painful.

The OP is hilarious. They just cannot see that buying homes as a long term investment is considered morally unacceptable to some people. They can keep trying to defend their own personal position as much as they like but they are showing their true colours when they admit that rent is impacted by “supply and demand” (yes that’s the whole point!) and that they’ve bought the houses as investments for their kids.

We need more social housing and homes available on Buying Schemes. Landlords tying up homes as long term investments is impacting that. The demand is extreme for shared ownership properties which shows there are not enough. A friend sold their 50% shared ownership in a pretty crappy 2 bed house within 12 hours and the estate agent only let people on their shared ownership waiting list view it! Landlords are tying up houses that could be used for these kinds of Buying Schemes. That is just not ethical in my opinion.

I’m currently paying my friends £1,150 a month rent so that she can afford to move out of her crappy rental as soon as a shared ownership comes up that she has a big enough deposit saved for. A mortgage will be a significantly lower bill each month for her than rent. How is that right?!

Landlords cannot deny that homes are scarce and that this scarcity increases prices. If the prices were not as high, more people would be able to afford to buy than rent. I bet that the vast vast majority of renters would prefer to buy a home than rent but they can’t afford to because the market has been impacted by the significant BTL market.

I could easily have as many “investment properties” as the OP but I certainly won’t be blocking any homes as a long term investment. Incredibly selfish thing to do in my opinion.

I'm a landlord, and for completely selfish reasons. I moved abroad for work and want the option to move back into my old apartment if/when I move back to the UK. I do my best to be a good landlord but it'd be disingenuous to pretend I'm letting out my apartment out of the goodness of my heart.

I'm renting overseas and tenant rights here are much stronger. Landlords can only charge a fair rent, and anything they charge over that, tenants can challenge, even after they have moved out in case they're worried about being evicted in retaliation. Owners who are in my position (renting out their apartment while working/living elsewhere) are generally allowed to do that for 2-3 years, then they need to decide to either move back into the apartment they own or sell up. Not a bad rule imho.

Let's imagine a thing called 'social housing', decent stock, provided by government, at a reasonable price, where it's needed, with, I dunno, a life-time tenancy.

And then let's imagine that was available to those who needed or wanted it.

Communism indeed!

Or maybe just progressive policy that allowed the denizens of a country to achieve a reasonable standard of living, whilst allowing capitalism to continue unhindered. It may even benefit capitalism because the inhabitants of those properties may have more money to spend on leisure and lovely things. Imagine that!

That's a bloody expensive insurance!

Do you know how much rental properties actually cost?
The difference between rent and a mortgage is not worth it for most people just to have some sort of landlord service that may or may not be utterly shite, for something that might happen.
There actual insurance for that. Much more cost effective and much more likely to actually pay out. And that's saying something.
Christ, my landlord's been saying he'll fix our bathroom fan for four years. He mentions it awkwardly every time I bump into him in the street but we gave up long ago and sorted it ourselves. (He's still increased the rent each year though, of course) I'm certainly not happily paying hundreds of pounds a month for that "service" through some sort of informed choice.

That’s not my argument. See my previous posts.

The problem is concentration of ownership and - sometimes related to that, sometimes not - regrettable abuse and housing insecurity.

There will always be people who need to rent. There will always be private landlords. It just needs to be done very differently.

I am all in favour of ownership. But one each, unless you’re a heavily regulated private LL.

Yeah, I missed a trick there.

I never mentioned profit, i said profiteer. The fact that you're unable to distinguish between the two speaks volumes.

I've no real issue with making profit in a genuine capitalist market but that's not what the housing sector is by any stretch of the imagination.

If profits are only achievable because the market has been artificially restricted to create scarcity, then it's a far cry from genuine capitalism. If we could magically snap our fingers and create enough housing to meet the actual needs of the population the current rental sector would collapse.

Tis a grand phrase I seldom get cause to use, it seemed appropriate here!

Let’s assume new government policy bans one adult owning more than one property. So what? It doesn’t change the number of properties that are available for people to live in. Remember that each of those adults is now responsible for paying buildings insurance, fixing the roof, mending the draughty windows, fixing the fence that collapsed in the storm, etc etc. Some people don’t want this. They just want to pay their rent and leave the landlord to worry about those things, like an Insurance. It sounds like communism is the policy of choice for most on here. “I’ve not had a holiday this year therefore you shouldn’t have one either” Where does it end. The real problem is lack of supply of housing and putting barriers in the way of property investors just disincentivises investment in that.

It needs a "doth" though.

"Your assertions doth butter no Parsnips"

👌

I agree, beautiful 😍

So your assertions butter no parsnips!

A wonderful aphorism seen all too rarely!

Well, I live in a family house with my family, we're utilising it as intended.

And I didn't move here with an eye on profit. Just as a home. So your assertions butter no parsnips!

I said that the default position should be only one house and that those who own more than one should be LLs subject to stringent regulation.

I’ve never said there shouldn’t be a private rental sector. I made clear that rental profit should be allowed, but carefully controlled, but not capital profit.

What is wrong is landlordism as casual personal investment. (By ‘casual’ I mean BTL rental altogether, not indolent landlords: again, my objection is one of policy not personality.)

@Arewe29

I think I already said, possibly even more than once, that I am able to buy food and own it, and I have never had tesco ask for it back on a whim one day so it's not quite the same thing.

And I will not allow you to use another one of your bizaare false comparisons to try and goad me again.

Whattaboutism is not the path you seek.

You started a thread about landlords. Expect answers about landlords.

You want to speak about profiteering by supermarkets?

Start a thread about that.

Easy.

My language is emotive for a reason. It is emotional for many. For landlords it might be an "investment" or an "asset" but for others it's their home. And many on this thread have used the term "heart breaking". It's the heart of our lives and its where we raise our children. It's horrible to have the opportunity to really feel like it's yours taken away by people only inretested in "investment'. My LL loves two doors away, a fact he went to some lengths to conceal from me prior to me moving in because he knew it would make us uncomfortable. Every day we watch him walk past and crane his neck to see into the garden, even into our windows to check up on us. We feel in edge constantly and it sucks. Renting sucks and it's daily life for many hardworking families, even those earning good money like we are.

I'm not jealous because I can genuinely say landlording is not something I would ever choose to do had I been lucky enough to have the opportunity. But yeah, I'm angry, as are many.

As for these posts about "LL all selling up and there still being a housing shortage and prices are still increasing" I see no evidence of this whatsoever. They can't all be selling up as, according to the statistics I posted earlier it was I think 36% of UK homes being rentals? I'd be interested to see some actual stats on your theory and the actual significance in real terms.

I do have spare bedrooms. I occasionally offer them up to friends and acquaintances when needed.

My comment was obviously facetious, so no, I have not thought of becoming a registered charity.

But I'm not claiming to offer a not-for-profit social benefit, as you seem to be.

I wonder if @Arewe29 and @FuckOffTom are also supportive of energy, water, food and medical companies taking advantage of 'the market' to profiteer? After all 'don't hate the player, hate the game'.

If only 1% of landlords were bad, I could understand the OPs concern. However it seems a lot more than that.