To not agree with how some people make their money, specifically landlords and letting agents?

And would this utopian option allow me the flexibility to choose the quality and location of the housing I desired? What about if I wanted as a single person to rent a 4 bed house, would that be allowed and what about location, could i simply choose what location I desire?

There’s a difference between recognising the injustice of people being priced out of home ownership and what you’re implying. People aren’t ’frothing with envy’ rather rightly annoyed at paying off someone else’s mortgage on a house they have no security in.

Right. But we're discussing different ways of doing things, and alternatives to the current status quo.

From what I here protections make renting more stable on the continent than in the UK (and its more affordable).

But there isn’t. And there won’t be for the foreseeable future.

You wouldn't have needed a private landlord if there had been a state-run and not-for-profit social housing option available to all that allowed you to pay less and receive an equal or higher quality of home than on the private market.

When I left home at 18, I had neither the means nor the desire to buy a home. I was a student.

Thank goodness for private landlords or I wouldn't have been able to leave home, take a degree or move to take my first job. Nothing bad about it. They provided a service I needed.

I don't see an issue.

If there were a state-run, not-for-profit, social housing option whereby your tenant could rent a quality home for cost price (bearing in mind that the cost price would include not-for-profit, state-run repairs and maintenance, management etc), would they still want to pay what you charge them? I guess this is the crux. Safe, quality affordable housing could be achieved - and is achieved elsewhere in the world - at cost price to tenants. Unless there's something additional being offered by a private landlord (premium location, luxury standard accommodation) then any extra charge is just a layer of unnecessary profit extraction.

On the continent the rental properties are much more likely to be large housing blocks owned by investment companies. These companies have consistent pricing policies, they employ handymen to fix issues as and when they arise and the residents know they won’t be kicked out unless they prove to be a nuisance. They prefer long term tenants as they make life easier - no need to constantly be looking for references etc.

In this country we scream aghast at the idea of investment companies running housing so the companies take the hint and invest in build-to-rent in other countries instead, leaving us with an ever deepening housing crisis. A government too skint to build and investment companies being put off doing so too. Great work guys.

Wanting radical change is not a question of envy at all. I may well be in a similar boat to you at some stage. I have two disabled children and am a full time carer, so extremely limited (read: non existent) options for employment. At some stage I have to consider how my children will achieve financial stability, or how I will achieve it for them. The obvious answer is for my DH and I to acquire rental property to pass on which can provide a passive income for them.

What I would much rather, was that I could rely on the state to provide safe and comfortable housing and care for my children, to pay for all their support (not bare minimum crap quality care, but life-enriching real support), to know that they would be taken care of in every way necessary. In the absence of that, we ideally need lots of cash to pay for all of this privately. And again, most of that money will just be lining wealthy private pockets rather than helping my kids. It's greed, pure and simple.

There are plenty of us who hate the system and want radical change but do not vilify private individuals who benefit somewhat currently.

I think English prefer stability which owning a home may give to some. Continentals may prefer the flexibility that comes with renting

Not sure why you're leaving laughing emojis for PP. This is supposed to be an adult conversation.

Us mere mortals are forced to exist within the system that we currently have until we can organise ourselves to bring about change. Making choices that make sense within that system, doesn't mean you can't also think the system is deeply flawed and needs to change. Someone may sell to a landlord because they need to achieve a particular sale price in order to buy their onward property, and that's the person who's making an offer. That doesn't mean they can't also want a radical change whereby there wouldn't be any private landlords buying normal family homes. It's not some kind of "gotcha".

I am a landlord. I keep the rent to what I believe is fair market rates. Sort out problems quickly, deal with all the maintenance and servicing, make sure the garden is kept neat, have recently spent £3k sorting out issues with the central heating system. Paid £500 to sort out a pest issue that may or may not have been the tenants fault. Write up the contracts when rooms change over to new tenants, do deposit paperwork, chase up cleaning company when cleaner doesn’t turn up, insure the house, pay the mortgage incl the interest…you think I should do all this for free? I’m confused, doesn’t everyone giving a service charge for it?

Shall we just leave it alone now? I'm rather enjoying the thread, but not this tedious derail.

OP - have you considered water companies also? Humans need water to survive more than three days.

I rent out my old house and I don't feel one bit guilty, I am severely disabled and don't have the privilege of other forms of work that the current narrative is all about portraying as more worthy.

The tenants, who've been there 10 years, get a lovely house at well below market rent, and I get to live with a bit more security and dignity than I would have on just state benefits.

That house you're frothing at the mouth with envy over might just be a disabled person's only income.

That would require the government to give a shit about housing. Which they don't. And never will. Next solution?

I’m not sure why you’re being so up yourself about this. OP was the one who asked a question, so OP was the one I gave comment to. Yes there was conversation that followed the original question but that doesn’t mean anyone who then joins the thread has to ignore the original question and slot into the conversation when it’s moved on. People are allowed to answer the original question

So you’ve never had a BTL investor view any of your properties. What’s your point? You’re one person out of millions of sellers. Both the properties I’ve sold in my life had BTL viewers; two out of three I’ve bought were from landlords.

Of course, my experience is no more universal than yours - but that’s rather the point, isn’t it? And loads of people sell, and want to sell, to investors. No chain; unlikely to be affordability issues with the mortgage; likely to be used to dealing with the legalities and motivated to move quickly… why wouldn’t you want to sell to them?

What nobody can apperently explain logically is the exponential rise in the costs of living, including securing accomodation whether bought and rented, versus the lack of growth in average incomes, which is pricing average people out of the possible illusion of security or progress.

There's a vague reference to markets and geo politics etc, but it doesn't realky adress to how we are where we are in overall economic terms.

Some LLs are accidental, or in a position of having two or three properties - if they are fair and above board they are not the problem per se, but when newbuilds are snapoed up for rental by huge conglomerates, often overseas, whose only motive is more and more money, and who don't even care whether their properties are occupied as they become tax deductable assets that accrue value purely by their existence, then it appears things get out of hand.

Economics apopear to operate on an almost occult level, and the uninitiated should just put up and shut up apparently, as our lowly household budget brains can't possibly grasp such lofty concepts.

It's the big discrepancy between what average people earn now, versus the costs of everything that is the problem, and housing is the most glaringly obvious example of this.

😆😆😆

This is such a weird flex. Most people only sell a few properties in their lifetime, and selling to a landlord wouldn’t even be a decision to make. It’s a pointless promise to make. I have never had a landlord view or offer on the houses I’ve sold, for example

Because in many countries, rental property operates under the exact not for profit model I’ve described. It’s professional, arms length and profit isn’t built in at every stage. The tenants aren’t paying Mr smiths mortgage, they are renting a long term home that they have the right to make their own, much like our own social housing

People can only complain about this if they would never sell to a landlord. I hear a lot about how they’re ruining things for first time buyers - but a first time buyer typically goes on to be a second time buyer. And they’re normally a lot less upset about BTL investors when they become their potential buyers rather than potential rivals.

I was once mistakenly shown flats in a development that did not allow investment buyers - you had to prove it was your own home. Because it was through Purple Bricks, the sellers were able to see my feedback and reply directly. Two different ones told me they were mounting a legal challenge to the covenant and offered to drop the price if I’d offer based on that challenge being successful. They were happy to get a cheap home because of it, but not so happy when they wanted to move on and found the pool of potential buyers reduced.

I believe my long term tenants are happy, This seems like a sensible approach for single women to take too

Well yes, there are of course a privileged few people who benefit financially from a for-profit rental system. That's why it exists. Your tenants are happy within the system in which they exist. I wonder if they'd still choose to rent your property if there were high quality, not-for-profit social housing options available to all, though? Or perhaps there's something very unique and/or luxurious about your property which would make it desirable for tenants to pay for even if the not-for-profit model existing alongside.