To think that Landlords have a bad name.

If you’re not very well funded why do you think you should be able to take on the considerable responsibility of providing housing to someone?

Why do you care what they think OP?

We own multiple properties that we rent out, I don’t care if others think that makes me unethical.

I’m interested in why you seem to be invested in changing peoples minds.

They do understand it, they choose to ignore it for the sake of rhetoric.

Here’s a timely piece on the damage done by multiple property ownership and rental, albeit AirBnB (the worst of all):

(DM, to help balance out the Guardian links…)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13322875/Ramsgate-AirBnB-invasion-900-homes-holiday-lets.html

With respect, that’s sophistry. You have a mortgaged second property. The rent and your other income is in practical terms indivisible. You charge rent at a rate that reflects your need to pay the mortgage as part of your outgoings. The tax treatment of the streams of revenue is neither here nor there.

I entirely accept you and others on this thread do this perfectly lawfully and I’m sure you’re an excellent LL. But as a matter of social policy I would outlaw these arrangements.

Yea exactly. I had to pass a credit check to rent my house!! in fact another couple beat me to it and the only reason I got my house is because they failed the credit checks so I got a chance because I was next in line So it's not true to say renters can't buy because they have bad credit. It's the prices of houses that's the issue and the massive deposits. I was told 20k just for a little two bed terrace with a courtyard garden

Just to add that many landlords are in my situation.

I understand you to be saying that the rent covers a mortgage. Is that right? I wouldn’t allow that
No it doesn't. I pay the mortgage via the income I receive through my FT job. The income from the rental, after the 40% that goes towards taxes, pays for management, maintenance, repairs, all the required checks, insurance, and the fund I put aside in case of non payment and damages as twice this has happened in the past.

If it wasn't for the fact that I can pay towards the mortgage and that I intend to use the income later towards my retirement, I would have long sold the property, like so many landlords have and continue to do.

Nothing to show for it but the home you live in. Do you think you should have it for free?

Landlords are frowned upon by some people OP, as another poster said, you are not likely to change their opinion so just get on with doing what you do.

We own 4 properties, 2 that we live between due to our family circumstances and 2 that we rent out. We will sell them when our kids want to move out to help them buy a house. I couldn’t care less if people think it’s wrong, we want our kids to have a good life and they’re our priority.

I do what’s best for us as a family, if others wouldn’t, more fool them. I don’t believe many people wouldn’t do it given the chance if they could make it work.

That’s exactly why radical change is needed.

I understand you to be saying that the rent covers a mortgage. Is that right? I wouldn’t allow that.

LLs should have to be freeholders without charge on the property. Then the assessment of rent and profit margin could be done.

LLs should be specialist, regulated housing providers, not individuals whose job, income and family circumstances change.

The Guardian article fails to mention the massive increase is smaller households in recent decades, therefore there is a shortage of housing. That’s a fact that many on here refuse to acknowledge. More convenient to make landlords the scapegoat.

It’s not opinion, it’s fact. Mumsnets rules.

Well, i guess you are unusual, as most posters on Mumsnet seem to have a sharp eye on what capital gains they expect to aee on their family home, and even more so that of their parents, to which they feel entitled.

But you’re ignoring the fact that I accept there needs to be a profit motive for private provision. It’s a matter of how and how much
Indeed, how do you regulate this? At the moment, 40% of the rental I receive goes to the government in taxes due to my current FT position. It's a good deal for the government. I however don't take any profits.

The intention though is to have it paid off by the time I retire. I will then be paying less in taxes and make more of a profit.

So should I be penalise for the level of profit after retirement? Despite the current situation? It can't be regulated.

If have been happy for it to stand, I think it shows you for what you are. I’m just proving the point thsg when you say you can do it, you can’t. If you do it often enough, you’ll be banned,

I’m not sure of the relevance of that article. What I’m arguing for is regulation precisely to stop housing rental abuse.

I can’t comment on Scotland - which a different poster raised - but I’d be inclined to think that its housing situation is probably particular to it. And as a pp said, the answer there is likely to be better regulatory policy, not none.

Your comment was deleted.

I do what’s best for us as a family, if others wouldn’t, more fool them. I don’t believe many people wouldn’t do it given the chance if they could make it work.

My parents were like lots of people on this thread, until the chance came to buy their council house. Their principles soon went out the window and they bought the house for a very low price. They sold it a few years ago making a tidy profit.