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

This is the case and a very welcome shift. There are downsides to those who just wanted to make some money on the long term asset price- and who can blame them- but it’s better for the nations housing needs overall

I have no words...

I mean exactly what I ask. If you think the only difference between 1970 and now is mobile phones and avocados that is an interesting point of view.

It requires a Change of law to outlaw private renting. That’s what the thread is about. What can be done, not what is currently happening.

I hate the game, but I cut the players some slack. Because often they're just ordinary people themselves who've dropped on with an inheritance, moved in with a partner, or decided to invest their relatively modest wealth in bricks and mortar. As long as the rent isn't ridiculous, they do the repairs and don't threaten eviction every 5 minutes, I save my judgement for the system that facilitates them; and the far bigger problem of big companies buying up all the cheaper housing stock.

Isn't the lack of alternatives and power imbalance caused by lack of supply, though? You really need a lot more landlords - not fewer - in that case, so it becomes a 'renter's market' and sub-standard or overpriced options simply won't get let.

Well it might please the OP to know that the investors in the private rental market are bailing. The tax, rising costs and tenant issues mean it is not worth it. Given that this will decrease supply and increase pressure on rents, I am not sure how much this will help the situation. Councils are not stepping in the provide homes and waiting lists will just get longer.

Also to note that their a many reasons why someone needs to rent out their property and not everyone is a ruthless landlord.

What do you mean? Younger people can't afford housing as easily as older generations because of mobile phones and avocados?

It's not being implemented because late stage capitalism relies on rampant asset inflation and property is an asset.

Well that sounds like a straight forward solution to the whole housing crisis. I wonder why it's not being implemented...

Renting is a business, much like retailing. No one has to be kind. It’s a business. 🤷‍♀️

I think unless we are going to embrace communism then there will always be a profit to be made providing essential goods and services. You could be deeply uncomfortable with a pharmacist charging for essential medicines. Tesco charging for food, council tax, energy companies.

I would say I think we need large scale social housing to be built. I own but if I were to rent I’d much rather a council property/ corporate landlord than a private let, if might be fine it might be a nightmare but you don’t really know till you are in.

Housing associations already buy second hand properties and add them to their housing stock to manage as social housing, although this isn’t the preference as second hand stock is a bit shit, asset wise.

however not only can they purchase second hand property (have a look at the surplus and cash reserves of a large housing association, in their accounts and analyse their debt and ability to borrow money and you’ll see plenty of capacity)

the law allows for compulsory purchase. It’s not something you probably see first hand but it’s frequently used in industrial real estate. And that’s by councils , who unlike housing associations have little money and little ability to borrow

eta- social rent has excellent payback. No need to charge market rent. They don’t need to on a brand new estate so why would they need to on anything else?

Are those the only 2 relevant factors since 1970. or are there some other factors that should be included? Asking for a friend...

One of my points was that the property needs to be purchased or built in the first place. If further properties are going to be purchased to house the millions who want social housing, surely that purchase cost needs to be included in the calculation of what rent needs to be charged going forward?
I know how the principle of housing associations work, thanks, so no need for your patronising comments

They don’t charge market rents. They charge social rents, which cover the cost of repairs, maintenance and overheads. This is how housing associations have worked for a hundred years. What’s so hard to understand?

think outside the box a bit, it’ll do you good.

So because it's currently poorly managed and inadequate, there is no possibility of improving things? That's very negative and blinkered thinking. Clearly there would need to be radical change to the entire system but it's far from impossible. If private landlords can provide housing and find tenants who can pay those rates, including repairs and maintenance etc from private providers, then of course a well-organised state-run social housing department could do the same with cheaper in-house repairs and maintenance. Yes there would be administrative costs but there would also be the benefit of job creation. And the fact that we wouldn't be paying for a private individuals retirement nest egg. Obviously this is back-of-a-fag-packet stuff when in reality it's a complex situation. But if we can put a man on the moon, I'm confident that the brain power exists to solve this problem in a way that benefits society at large rather than a privileged few.

If you feel your position is strong and you believe in your worldview, you should really be able to make your point with resorting to made up scenarios and misrepresentations. It just looks like you can't engage with the valid arguments that people are making.

How do you feel about arms dealing/manufacturing?

I thought I'd addressed that in my post? Council and housing associations don't seem to be making a good job of maintaining many of their existing properties - is this due to indifference, incompetence, or not having the money to do repairs and maintenance?
For them to buy additional properties they will need to charge market rates to cover the cost of the mortgage and other costs, as well as pay wages to people to organise it all and be compliant etc. I can't see that being financially viable unless they increase their hugely rents.

Er… social housing landlords? Housing associations, other registered providers?

And who is going to buy that potential social housing property, and pay for it? And maintain it? And pay for someone to organise the repairs?
Maggie Thatcher deliberately got rid of many council houses as she possibly could, so central and local government were no longer responsible for any aspect of it. No successive governments have wanted to take on those responsibilities as it's simply too expensive and unwieldy. It's simplynot possible to offer social housing to everyone.
Local councils and housing associations don't seem to be able to maintain in good condition many of their own current properties, let alone take on more properties.
Governments have made it much harder for landlords in recent years, with mortgage relief, tax and legislation all being issues that make it more difficult for Landlords. The government hasn't sorted out the long wait for court dates should a landlord need to resort to legal action. Quite honestly, landlords are waking up to the fact that investing in a varied stocks and shares portfolio ISA's can be a better option.

As a landlord who’s tenant decided not to pay rent last month I’m not sure what ‘maximum power’ you think I have. I’d have to wait at least another month of her not paying, then apply to the courts to evict her, then wait several months to actually get her out. Who has the power there? There’s no reason for her to stop paying rent - there are actually very few reasons legally and it would take a major breach on the landlords part. I attend to any repairs within 48 hours and she’s never been without water, heat etc.
You could say the same about food as shelter, and running water and power.
The lease contains the amount rent can increase and I only do it on renewal, usually in line with inflation. After all, my expenses in relation to the property go up every year too. I know a few other landlords and they do the same. They want their tenant to be happy, and treat the property with respect. Re

Don't be silly , apparently houses should be given away to anyone that wants one and no landlord should be able to make a living out of their ( very expensive) investments 🤔

I agree with the OP because homes should be, first and foremost, homes for people to live in and not investment opportunities. So often, I have seen relatively wealthy people move house but not sell their old home, turning it instead into an extra 'pension pot' or an additional income stream. Every time this happens, and it is happening far too often, some professional couple are forced to continue to rent (paying thousands to people who are already wealthy) because fewer properties come up for sale and the market bubble makes home ownership unaffordable.

I think it is really sad that for young people today, owning a home is only a dream, and they are forced to live with parents well into their adult lives. Whilst I am sure it is different in the provinces, this is very much the case here in London.