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

Interesting thread. I am a landlady. When I met my partner, I moved into his house and had to decide what to do with my little one bedroom mortgaged house. I rented it out with a lovely letting agency, who maintain it better than I could.

Every year Lloyds Bank sent me a letter saying 'you're letting out our mortgaged property. When will you be moving back? We need this info to grant you letting permission."

Eventually I spoke to a human and said "how can I know the answer to this question? If you know when my boyfriend will kick me out and I need to return to my backup property that I sensibly maintain, please let me know." I have now paid off my mortage. 😀

I believe my long term tenants are happy, This seems like a sensible approach for single women to take too. Maybe someone can also comment on why continentals are much happier renting than the English?

I asked because you didn’t explain any of that originally. You just said it was incredibly hard to be a landlord after your mum passed and you hated it. I simply asked why you did it then. You hadn’t mentioned sitting tenants or legal issues holding up the sale.

When someone asked you why you didn't leave the property empty, you said because there was care debt to be paid

Ah. I see. As I said in that post, I didn't quite understand what was being asked. My response was to try and figure it out.

I couldn't 'Leave it empty' because it wasn't empty in the first place. And I couldn't leave it empty when the tenants departed because it needed to be sold to finance the care debt.

Evicting the tenants immediately and leaving the property empty for 18 months while the lawyers were doing their thing, would have been pretty immoral, imo.

When someone asked you why you didn't leave the property empty, you said because there was care debt to be paid. Hence my subsequent comment.

Regardless, none of this demonstrates anything other than the fact that privatised housing rentals, without ample social housing at cost for all who want it, is a poor system. You are also a victim of it, despite how niche your circumstances and choices (or your mum's choices) are.

This is what faro is saying- this capitalist system of housing is making victims of many people. You included. If it was never possible for your mum to rent her house out this situation wouldn’t have happened

Ultimately you kept the tenants in situ because you calculated it that it was financially beneficial to do so, whether or not you used that to service debt.

@Fargo79 it seems you haven't read my posts properly. The rent didn't service the debt in any way. Most of it went to the work I had to have done on the property when the tenants left.

Outstanding debt from an estate could have been paid for by the sale of the house, surely. Ultimately you kept the tenants in situ because you calculated it that it was financially beneficial to do so, whether or not you used that to service debt.

The debt will be (partially) paid when the sale of the property goes through, hopefully soon.
But see above. I could not sell the property until the legal team managing the estate and the creditors claim, gave me permission to. I'd love to have put it up for sale on day one, but I couldn't.

Throwing the tenants out and leaving their home empty for 18 months would have been pretty shitty behaviour on my part, when there's so little rental property about.

And then you charge tenants an inflated sum for the roof over their head,

They were paying half the going rate. My mum hadn't put up the rent in 15 years.

Outstanding debt from an estate could have been paid for by the sale of the house, surely. Ultimately you kept the tenants in situ because you calculated it that it was financially beneficial to do so, whether or not you used that to service debt.

Really your mum's/your situation is further evidence of the fact the current system where everything is privatised for the profit of the elite just doesn't work for normal people. Your mum didn't rack up hundreds of thousands of debt because that's what it cost to provide her care. The vast majority of that was just profit for a private business owner. And then you charge tenants an inflated sum for the roof over their head, so you can pass some (Most? All?) of that profit onto the wealthy care home owner.

I kept it tenanted because I had no choice. I couldn't sell it until I got the legal go-ahead. My mum's estate and debts were very complex.

I don't understand your question. There were long term tenants in it when my mum died. And my mum had hundreds of thousands of pounds of care debt that had to be paid. I have no idea what you're suggesting I should have done.

My husband was a newly qualified plumber who bought a few tools with a small inheritance from his grandfather, and was in business as a sole trader for less than 6 months before applying for a mortgage at 21. This was before the 2008 crisis. He told the mortgage company he made £30k (which he didn't, it probably wasn't half of that) and they didn't even check 😱 Just said "yeah that sounds about right" and lent him what he asked for.

Looks like it's a recurring theme with you, the inability to actually engage with the substance of a conversation.

Me too! They GAVE A MORTGAGE TO A STUDENT WITH A CALL CENTRE JOB!!! What a time to be alive 😭😭😭😭

It wasn’t even a golden age for me.
I was a student in the early 2000s with no savings and lots of debt.

Absolute dives not only exist they seemingly make up the majority or properties available. Rental stock is shocking in the UK

About as irritating and pointless as how your comments are?

Really, absolute dives don't exist? Tell that to all the families living in 'beds in sheds'. I work with children with life limiting conditions, visiting children in their own homes, and I have seen some truly horrific places, often occupied by people with an uncertain immigration status, who won't make a fuss for fear of drawing attention to themselves with the authorities, or have no recourse to public funds, or because the 'dive' is all they can afford as the new rules and regulations have driven up rents even further with the fewer decent landlords left. Making something harder to do legally just pushes it underground and actually makes it worse.

Some of these places - the council has placed people in them but they are truly awful, much worse than anywhere I ever lived, and they are trying to raise really unwell children in them. Priority for social housing should be given to those with disabilities, lifelong tenancies should be reserved for those who have a specific housing need which isn't going to change, and for others it should be a short term leg up when struggling, there will never be enough for all who want it, so it has to be focused on those who need it.

In my Utopia this is what the rental market would be. Entirely not for profit but I don’t think that’s likely / possible.

Shocking isn't it? Absolutely mental that so many people will defend a system that works for so few. Turkeys voting for Christmas.

there are millions of not for profit housing units rented at social rents already in the uk, owned by housing associations and other investors. The model exists and is successful. This simply extends it.

The thread has moved on somewhat from the OP. Your question has been answered already many times. To actually add anything to the thread, you'd need to read it and then respond to those answers. That's what conversation is. Just plopping a superficial line that doesn't engage with the conversation is irritating and pointless.

My parents kept their first house house they bought in 1977 for £18k, in SE London.

it was tenanted, on and off until 2017. When they sold it for £560k.

can anyone really argue that that was a level of work that necessitates a £540k profit? There were many years they barely did 50 hours work a year for it. Some years they did nothing. They had all major repairs paid for (by tenants or insurance) and hadn’t even paid out for a new kitchen in all that time.

they didn’t clear much profit monthly or annually- maybe £5k a year- but it wasn’t much work to earn £500k on top of the day job was it?

Surely a not for profit means someone still has to invest something (which is what I said) and as it’s not for profit that invested gets no profit (which is what I said)

Like your reply here?
A question was asked and I answered

Well, it’s a nothing contribution.