To think that Landlords have a bad name.

And rentals would remain, including in the private sector, but in much more stringently regulated circumstances.

Then why are you a landlord?

You seem quite concerned with telling people you're making no money from your endeavour.

Have you registered as a housing charity?

I couldn’t find the post where the comparison of owning one property was made with owning one telly. But it’s useful to illustrate why real property is different.

We can’t make more land and we can’t turn out housing on a production line. The critical need for every person to have housing is subject to totally different pressures.

Before anyone says ‘but food is critical and we don’t ration that’, within living memory food was rationed in this country. We have sufficient now to avoid rationing, but control of food could come back (obviously we all hope not). Petrol has been de facto rationed on the forecourt in recent years too.

As an aside, I know so many people that have kept a previous home when trading up, as an 'investment'.

Most of them would consider themselves 'right-minded'and cant to the left on most matters. I have tried to discourage them when it's come up in conversation, but people are unsurprisingly unprincipled and rather politically blind when it comes to feathering their own nest.

In fairness, if you’re on the deeds you’re the owner. Owners are mortgagors not mortgagees. Lenders have to call in the debt, which entails taking ownership; they can’t exercise powers of ownership otherwise.

Discounted compulsory sales to tenants of BTL properties would sort out a decent chunk of the deposit problem. I really can’t see why RTB shouldn’t be expanded to the private rental sector. It might kill it very quickly of course, which is why a graduated approach would be needed. But we need to get BTL properties into the ownership of non-LL, single property owners.

@Arewe29 no, you can afford the interest only mortgage repayments on those properties. You don't own them. You can't afford to buy 3 houses outright so why do you feel it's right to profit from something you don't own?

Extremism, behave yourself!

People are angry, and rightly so.

And I, and other posters have spoken about policy and its effects. The end-point being that there have been successive governments that have done nothing to address the housing situation in this country other than create a climate whereby bottom-feeders such as yourself will exploit circumstance and bad-policy.

It's hardly extrmism to point that out.

And I imagine tenants aren't buying right now due to punitive interest rates and the fact they've had to pay inflated private rents thereby preventing them from saving the necessary deposit.

But they still own only one property. And there’s no reason not to regulate such rentals much more highly than at present.

In any case, the sorts of changes I would like to see could easily take account of the few, genuine exceptions to the norm of investment landlordism. There are special tenancy situations - like estate workers - that fall outside the bulk of the BTL industry that’s doing so much harm.

The extremism on this thread is laughable.

Dont hate the players, hate the game. As long as policy exists that allows LL to keep buying and renting then they will. Better that those LL aren’t complete bastards. What if the properties that the OP bought were instead snapped up by an absolute bastard of a LL??

The government has already started to make it unattractive for LL with the changes in tax law. More are selling and there are fewer LL than before - why are these houses not being bought by existing tenants? Are you seriously saying that it’s a LL fault that some tenants can’t afford to buy? Is LL fault if a tenant has a bad credit rating? Are ALL tenants absolute down trodden saints? I don’t think so

How is that an accident?

It seems like a choice.

You're embarrassing yourself with that comparison. No one needs three properties. It shouldn't be legal.

Or fix the supply problem. The problem is: private funding is needed to build more homes but the vitriol towards that is apparent from this thread.

Then they are doing it wrong. So do it differently.

Scotland already has rent controls. Rent inflation is higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

The practicalities of building more homes is another issue though, nothing to do with landlords. Changing who owns the houses doesn’t fix the supply problem.

I agree with this - renting is useful for some people but the current system is exploitative. We need a housing policy which aims to ensure people are well-housed. At the moment policy is made by (and in the interests of) wealth rather than people.

Most people who own houses don't directly profit from increases in value. When they sell their house, generally they are spending any profit they make on a new house, also at an inflated price. The increase in value is a benefit only when they leave home ownership.

Ideally I'd prefer to see house prices fall so that they are reasonable in relation to income; however, that would leave a lot of people (including me) in huge negative equity, which is a real problem.

Exactly

If you take London rents as an example, in the last 10 years they have raised 38% but inflation only went up 26% so they increased 12% higher than inflation

So it's all very well boasting about below market rent, but when the market is self inflated unless you are well below its still above inflation

I wouldn't have an issue with private landlords as opposed to social ones (as long as their property was in good condition) of their rent was controlled and they couldnt do 12% above inflation increases!