A couple on Homes Under The Hammer own 900 properties?!

[nc777]

How is this even ok?!

Just now on Homes Under The Hammer there was a couple who work in the family business with 30 other staff.

They buy 30 properties a month. Renovating 60 properties at any one time. They then rent them out and sell some on as investment "packages" I.e. several properties jumped together and sold on to an investor who then rents them out.

They're not even renovating to sell on, they're renovating to rent out.

900 properties???!!! That's 900 properties that could have otherwise been left for the local population to buy.

Am I the only one who finds this sickening?

My neighbour moved who rented but too late the baby had chest problems caused by the moldy house.
The dad had terrible skin cancer from head to toe but still that landlord did nothing, cancer not landlords fault but come on! Were is your heart
(in your bank I suppose)

It is far more involved and nowhere near as profitable than a lot of people think

I’m hearing this excuse a lot lately. Landlords get an asset paid for them by someone else, someone else who works for nothing by comparison. It is a fundamentally unequal relationship whether you make profit on a month-to-month basis or not.

The first few comments on this thread just go to show how far to the right, meaning exploitative and abusive, Britain has gone. Believe it or not, before the late 90s even, Britain had a strong state-maintained housing sector. Before the 90s there were very very few private tenants. We had a much more equitable and fairer society as a result. Housing costs rose at the same time as the explosion in demand caused by private landlords. Housing is a basic human need and should be treated as such, not as a commodity to allow the rich to screw over the poor.

And no, not everyone in Europe rents. Only in Germany and Austria are private rentals so common. Elsewhere levels range from almost non-existent to just below our levels, and everywhere they are hated.

If they are good landlords what’s the problem

Buy to let exploded under Blair and Brown, just saying.

The grossly unfair mortgage interest relief for LLs, but not for owner occupiers, granted under the BB govt., helped to fuel the explosion.

God knows I’m no fan of this govt. but it was actually the Tories who began to cut back on all the financial incentives for LLs.

Worth remembering also that Blair/Brown had 13 years to get rid of Right to Buy, , which removed so much social housing from the stock, but they didn’t. I wonder why? Could it possibly be because they thought it would lose them votes?

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER

Buy to let exploded under Blair and Brown, just saying. The grossly unfair mortgage interest relief for LLs, but not for owner occupiers, granted under the BB govt., helped to fuel the explosion.

God knows I’m no fan of this govt. but it was actually the Tories who began to cut back on all the financial incentives for LLs.

Worth remembering also that Blair/Brown had 13 years to get rid of Right to Buy, , which removed so much social housing from the stock, but they didn’t. I wonder why? Could it possibly be because they thought it would lose them votes?

It's an absolute disgrace that Labour governments didn't scrap RTB. I've noted Labour all my life but this (along with a few other sticking points) is one of the things that have made me politically homeless.

I've been (literally!) homeless, I've lived in absolutely dire private rentals, I've volunteered for homeless charities - housing is a big thing for me.

@DavidDevantsSpiritWife

Same here, Labour has not just been failing its roots for short-term gain. They are constantly in-fighting on 'issues' instead of making sure everyone has fair access to Shelter, Food, Education & Employment. Let alone, being a more forceful opposition.

The UK had good housing stock, not enough for a growing pop, & kept selling it off. I think you should have lived in a council property for 10 yrs before RTB, and any sales should be back to the council. Thatcher may or may not have intended to cut council housing to the bone, but as you say Labour had a chance to redress this.

Some people, at some time are always going to need social housing, as a rich, developed country the least we can do is provide a good standard of housing stock. Other people who wish to rent privately should also be entitled to a good standard of accommodation & registered landlords. Clearly, better regulation is required & regular checks. Much of this has been lost with heavy-handed council cuts, which is due to bad & short-sighted govts.
A sad situation.

I am 50/50 on this one. On one hand it does seem like obscencetering to own so many properties but on the other hand people need properties to rent if they cannot afford to buy. I put a lot of blame on the Margaret Thatcher Conservative Government who made it possible for tenants to buy their council house thus removing a much needed property from the rental market. I know people will jump on me for saying this. I have a relative who made over £250.000 profit when they sold their ex council house after owning it for 10 years, they are now renting again and spending the proceeds of their windfall on holidays etc. That is one less council house on the rental market.

Obscene

What I see on Homes under the Hammer is people taking derelict properties (from a fire damaged shell, to damp ridden to vandalised) and making them habitable - and to a good standard. I bet their neighbours were grateful.

Our DCs have good experiences with landlords in their rental properties. DD got a new flat recently, and the landlord did a basic sprucing up of the paint. She didn't expect any more, coming from our house with 10 year old carpets and a 20 year old bathroom. Why should she?

Her LL is lovely. He has 'several' properties and is very attentive to maintenance needs. He is actually quite avuncular, counselling my 22yo DD and her 22yo flatmate in safety, etc.

What you see on the telly is not necessarily going to be reflective of real life. And your dc has been very very fortunate.

I am also not very concerned about interior decorating. I am interested in the fact that no one not from wealth can afford to build their own assets due to multiple-owners pushing up prices by pushing up demand with their insatiable greed. I am also concerned with faulty electrics that can become death traps at any time, gas equipment that gets signed off by a new engineer each year on the understanding that it will be fixed next year once money changes hands. Cooking equipment that never gets replaced in 20 years of faulty reports. The damp: I have had so many belongings destroyed through damp. And the fundamentally unequal relationships of economics and power that are created throughout society through this broken provision of a fundamental need. Your dc may have been fortunate enough to not come across landlords offering housing for sex to the desperate, but others have not.

@Fluffmum

If they are good landlords what’s the problem

The problem is, there is limited housing stock in this country. Not enough homes are being built to keep up with demand.

So if you get people/a company hoovering up all the properties to rent out, what do you think is going to happen?

I mean you do know that the council charges for the licences and the registration? Do it least covers their costs and they probably make a profit.
I agree with licensing as it goes, but you clearly have no clue how it works and just see fit to bland the govt. how boring.

The problem is, there is limited housing stock in this country. Not enough homes are being built to keep up with demand.

So if you get people/a company hoovering up all the properties to rent out, what do you think is going to happen? hmm

I must be missing something here. A private landlord absolutely wants their properties to be fully occupied.

Why does it matter who owns the property?

People who renovate burnt out properties are being helpful, surely?

Why is property different to any other business? If they owned 900 convenient corner shops would that be ok or not?
They employ 30 people pay their taxes and they buy at auction. Anybody can buy if they have the money.
I don't see the problem.

@ImUninsultable you are spot on. So many resentful people.

@ImUninsultable

I know mumsnet hates landlords and anyone with a few properties is the devil but you're being ridiculous.

If you dont like it, you can always go start campaigning for change and see if there is any real support for the cause.

Indeed, homes under the hammer is about auction properties so they are not at all accessible to ordinary buyers. Good luck to them.

It’s called a business , it enables you to have a nice life.

If these houses are on the market, for sale, is anyone preventing non landlords from putting in an offer to buy for themselves?

Well this was repeated today, I knew it rang a bell 😕 smug little madam 😡 it is absolutely sickening, they also seem to buy up all the cheapest type of houses which people on a low income would be able to afford.

@Fluffmum If they are good landlords what’s the problem

When homes were owned by the local council they were treated as assets, could used to raise loans for local improvements, and any housing benefit was moved from one council department to another.
Now any HB paid out goes to a private landlord instead. Its a crazy system.

This is nonsense. Why are 'lowest income' people not buying them if they can afford them? Oh right, because actually they can't afford them. And even if they could afford them they wouldn't buy them because for the most part they are derelict shit heaps. And no one wants to take those on unless they are a professional landlord or builder

@nc777 'A company owning many cars DOES NOT affect the price I pay for my car '

So why is it that the price of secondhand cars is through the roof? Oh yes, because new cars are in short supply due to chip shortages, so the hire/leasing companies are buying them and keeping hold of them for longer, and because there are less recent cars on the open market, the price of secondhand cars has gone up significantly, as has the price of new.

SO yes it does.