To hate homes under the hammer

Again, you don’t get it.

For one, I seriously doubt a bungalow has that much character and history. Should we preserve everything more than say, 20 years old bc it has “history”? There would never be any progress would there? Think of all the employment that the building of new houses generates, much needed in the economy.

The children of the old couple chose to sell to the highest bidder. See my earlier point about it being completely up to the seller who they allow to buy their property - they could choose to sell for less to a young couple starting out for less. Would you?

HMO’s: the country NEEDS more HMO’s and less large properties housing one family or a couple on their own. There are not enough houses to go round. Why can’t people grasp this?

Another person who was bidding had lived across the road from it their entire life and wanted to live in it themselves but they didn’t get it.

Living across the road from a house your entire life doesn’t give you the right to buy it! Imagine if everyone had the right to buy a house cheaply bc they grew up there. No one would ever be able to move area!

Everything sells eventually - at the right price.

Yes nearly allways terrace houses would be great if I had the same neighbours if a family could have bought the house next to us not a rental but people don't see terrace houses in my town as that stupid idea of forever home

I love the show but it’s frustrating at times.

You know there are families desperate for a forever home but the guy who already owns multiple properties will get it.

One time there was a gorgeous bungalow with loads of character and the elderly couple who had recently died had lived there all of their lives and it had been in the family for generations.

The grandchildren decided to sell it and the person who bought it went it and ripped all of the old history out and knocked down walls etc to make 2 large, lifeless buildings for HMOs, simply for profit.

Another person who was bidding had lived across the road from it their entire life and wanted to live in it themselves but they didn’t get it.
It was heartbreaking.

The poster implied that cafés are somehow "worse" at ripping people off than landlords and yet face no comeback for it. I am saying they're not. That's all.

No, I didn’t.

I was making the point that people don’t generally think coffee shops are evil for having such a high mark up on the coffee they sell (as I don’t) yet people who buy houses to rent them out are considered “bad” for wanting to make a profit. Why? Who would want to do something for a living (especially something that usually involves long hours, high risk etc) for free?

My point was why are LL’s held to a different standard than any other business?

You came back and explained my own point 🤔

I hear you, but I do think the coffee, or drinks in general, thing is relevant - it's well known that most hostelries don't make profit on food, it's all on drinks markup. I guess at the end of the day all businesses make a profit, it's literally what they are there for, but some people judge some businesses as immoral and think they shouldn't be allowed to make their profit.

I don't think I am making the point you think I am.

The poster implied that cafés are somehow "worse" at ripping people off than landlords and yet face no comeback for it. I am saying they're not. That's all.

Edit - the car example is far better!

I love it.. and hate it.

I record it all and watch it if I am poorly (which isn't uncommon for me)... mmmm a Homes Under the Hammer day means DP knows I am feeling really crap.

I have found a worse show though. I forget the name but two seemingly random people are put together to do up a property bought at auction by the presenter.

Then its flogged and they split the profit.

The last episode the lass involved... blagged a huge amount of the fittings and goods for free, by ringing companies and telling them she was on telly doing this show...

None of what she blagged for nowt was costed in, even though no one actually renovating a house would get this shit for free. I think it should have been, you can't flip houses by blagging stuff, she only got free stuff because it was on TV.

They still went over budget of course cos they always do.

Exactly, and the £60k cheap house and "£10k" reno cost is nowhere near the actual cost to get the auctioned home actually fit to live in.

It's like the car programs where they buy a vintage "insert any car brand here" for £10k and spend £5k on it and sell for £19k - £4k "profit" - except that they had 100 hours of "free" labour so it actually made a considerable loss (DH watches countless car shows).

Did I? This was merely to comment that £4 for a coffee is a silly comparison. It's not a bigger "markup" than the profits of a landlord because 10p is not the baseline cost to make it.

Did you miss the bit where @Proparty said the property wouldn't sell as it was in poor condition in a less than desirable area? Would you prefer that the property was just left empty to rot, rather than rented at reasonable rates to someone who needed a home?

Just because somebody boasts about a 14% yield, that doesn't mean they will achieve that - average yield is about 5%, so pretty much a high paying savings account, but with more risk. And you know yield is not profit, right? Any yield will be taxable too.

Same. I watched too much homes under the hammer before I bought. I was shocked when I came to getting quotes for the kitchen and bathroom.

Bingo, you just negated your own argument. The person buying the property at auction has to

have the money to buy it
pay the auction fees
pay land reg fees
pay stamp duty
pay council tax and utilities from the day of purchase
pay for materials for refurb
pay the delivery charge for materials for the refurb
have the knowledge/skills to do the refurb
have the ability to spend the time either doing the refurb or employing someone else who can (or having someone able to donate their time for "free")
pay their accountant
pay their business insurance
pay tax/NI/pension if they have employees
pay tax on their profits

I understand what you mean. The programme "The Worst House In The Street" is so much more watchable and morally sound.

Housing benefit it capped. Nobody is gleefully making their fortune by renting to people on benefits.

Some of the work is so basic and shoddy too, I love the way the cameraman will sometimes focus on tatty paintwork or tiling. Some others are lovely though and I love the before and after

Well, they wouldn't magically have the money if landlords just stopped buying the houses either, would they? So we'd have more rotting houses, fewer places for people to live, but everyone would be happy because "landlords"?

Surely that's exactly how we address the shortage of housing without building all over the greenbelt? If larger run down houses with big gardens are replaced with two or three homes, then two or three families get a home...

Also going back to the great house give away, one thing that drives me insane is when they say 'This house needs little doing to it so its worth a punt but has a guide of £60k and done up its worth £110k so we can't afford to go much higher than the guide'. Then it sells for like £97k and they say 'taking into account fees and loans to flip it theres just no profit in it. I wonder if these people have even done their research?'.

Or and here is a novel idea for you Mr. TV presenter... they are a local who liked the house and bought it to actually live in not to make a 'profit'. Wild I know but stranger things in this world have happened.

But that money can't be spent on building council houses as it's needed to house people NOW. You can't just tell someone on the waiting list, "oh, just live on the street for a year while we use your HB to build a bit of a house for you" 🙄

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER If it wasn’t my aunt taking the financial hit for her former tenants, it would have been the council. She was providing a service that the council wasn’t, and if not for her, it would have been the taxpayer paying for these expensive repairs and evictions, as well as paying for the housing benefit!

A lot of the properties on there have issues which are deeper than just cosmetic, and many lenders won't offer mortgages on them. It's also difficult to get a mortgage secured for an auction property.

@Proparty, sorry, but there’s no such thing as an ‘accidental’ landlord. Nobody wakes up one morning to find that their property is suddenly tenanted!

It’s a conscious decision, almost invariably made because it makes financial sense.

@theworldie

Couldn't agree more.

People love to hate landlords but then don’t offer any tangible solutions. A lot of landlords are providing social housing that the council simply doesn’t have, or doesn’t want to take responsibility for.

My aunt became an accidental landlord to her parents home in one of the most deprived areas of the north. She spent thousands modernising it after her parents died, and then rented it exclusively to people on housing benefit, as she didn’t feel it right to privately let it. She couldn’t sell it as it wasn’t in a desirable area, and the house also held sentimental value to her. She decided to rent it to families so they could enjoy the house as she had growing up.

The first tenants she had let their dog shit everywhere and stamped it into the new carpets. Then, she had a family who the neighbours reported for running a brothel in the property and allowing their children to climb all over the roof. The final tenants acted like squatters and refused to leave, she then had to spend thousands in court costs getting them evicted, all the while they were destroying and damaging the house.

Being a landlord isn’t just sitting back and creaming the profits from rental income. It’s often costly, hard work and utterly thankless as everyone despises you!