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?

900 is obscene and there ought to be legislation to prevent anyone outside of a local authority owning this many homes.

Once they get past a certain number of properties, landlords should have to register for accreditation to ensure they're meeting required standards. I also think every landlord should have to sit a course, with certification at the end, to show that they understand their legal obligations, their rights/responsibilities, and the tenants rights/responsibilities.

I saw a H under the H programme that featured Michael Wilshaw
(whilst he was Head of Ofsted) because he had a sideline in buying homes and renting them out. Clearly being Head of Ofsted is nowhere near as taxing as teaching.

Who do you think owns blocks of apartments in large cities.
They're not even families, they're large corporations and your companies invest your pensions in their shares.
People on here are so naive.

And when it comes to land registry titles the Church Commissioners for England are top of the leader board.

Landlords are providing a necessary service like any other. Provided the market is competitive and effectively regulated so that rental properties are safe, well maintained, and tenants have a reasonable level of rights, then I don't think there is a problem.

If these properties were all in the same small town then the business would have too much market power, but is that the case? And it is actually more likely that a proper business like this one will be following a regulations better than a landlord with one property because a) it is too risky to them not to b) they have the experience/expertise.

There are not great tax advantages to renting out property as a business any more.

What is damaging and wasteful is owning properties and letting them stand empty. This includes some holiday properties that are only used during holiday season. Second homes that are not rented out are worse than those that are. I also think even holiday properties that are rented out most of the year can be damaging to the local community if they start to take over. Longer term, non-holiday rentals, I don't see as a problem at all.

Landlords are not responsible for pushing up house prices because owning and renting a house are substitutes. If there were fewer properties bought for rental. Rental prices would start to go up and there would be more demand for houses to buy and that would keep house prices up.

I live in a university town, and anything that comes up in that area gets snapped up by landlords.
And very often they are terraced, starter type homes.

@ImUninsultable

Do you want to get rid of the rental market entirely then? Because a lot of people renting wont be able to get mortgages. That's not the fault of the landlord. Without those landlords then people would be clambering to the council begging for a house.

And there are lots of other people who don't WANT to own! What student wants to buy a flat when they could just rent a bedsit? What newly qualified doctor/accountant/teacher wants to buy a house when they know their first job is for 6 or 12 months then they want to move on to another town entirely?

This narrative from a certain section of MN that all landlord are evil, exploitative, greedy is just unhinged.

This narrative from a certain section of MN that all landlord are evil, exploitative, greedy is just unhinged.

Like many other things on MN!

And they want 2000 properties by the end of 2022 😳
Greedy and exploiting.

Shall landlords just keep up 80s carpets, wallpapers, kitchens etc all in cause it’s good quality and works?

Er… yes! Why is this even in question?

When you rent a property you accept that the decor may not be to your taste. In any case, throwing away a perfectly good suite because it is olive green is immoral.

There were threads before 2020 on rental market and many contributors were looking forward to finished Brexit because more people could afford to buy or rent as the houses were supposed to be dead cheap and lots available.
What happened that the market is struggling and hasn't improved? Genuine question because the logic seemed to be very simple. Foreigners are, Brits in.

More to the topic, yep, having that many properties is obscene.

The unfortunate reality is that without these types of people there would be large swathes of empty and dilapidated properties. No first time buyer or family is going to buy those sorts of properties to take on that amount of work so if a developer can bring them back to a decent standard that’s often the best way to improve an area. Local councils can’t afford to do it so what’s the alternative?

I do object to landlords that don’t look after the portfolio/tenants although there are lots of new regulations and laws coming in for force to try and tackle this, particularly in areas where there are issues with deprivation .

That’s alright then is it? To rent? Are renters not allowed standards too?
Shall landlords just keep up 80s carpets, wallpapers, kitchens etc all in cause it’s good quality and works?

No.
Don’t be silly. Everything should be replaced every 15 years at least, to keep it fresh, new and up to standard.
Even the council do that much.

I'd agree if it was replaced like-for-like, but it isn't — it's replaced with something much cheaper that's far more likely to stain or crack.

Carpets and wallpaper are slightly different, but ceramic sinks and loos, or kitchen cupboards that can be well cleaned, and disinfected? It's just adding to landfill because the colour is out of fashion.

It has nothing to do with standards — I've rented and lodged, and the thirty year old (pink) bathroom where I lodged was much better than any of the rental market ones!

I live in a rented house and have had a deposit for a morgage which we COULD get for over half a decade.

We rent because there are no good houses for sale and as soon as a decent one pops up (we need a fairly big house as a large family, most round here are small 2 beds terraces) a bidding war starts between 'buy to let' landlord who want to start student accomodation.

So can we stop with this utterly stupid 'everyone rents because they cant get a morgage' crap.

Yes some rent because they dont have a deposit yet ect... we did when we first moved out on our own but we are still trapped in renting now well over a decade on even though we have the means to move out just not a bloody availible house to move to.

Buying up properties in popular destinations and leaving them empty for half the year, that's more of an issue surely.

I'm not that sure really. On the face of it, it seems "unfair" that they own 900 properties and some people don't own one. But it's a legitimate business that employs lots of people. Presumably most of the 900 properties are occupied?

You wouldn't be angry with a car leasing place that had 900 cars would you?

Well, another way of looking at it is they are improving housing stock and making it available to rent.

@2bazookas

What's wrong with providing lots of homes for people to rent? There's a huge demand for renting by people who don't want to buy.

Are you equally uptight about companies that provide thousands of hired cars, or chemist shops or supermarkets? Would you prefer to fly with an airline that only owns two planes?

You can't rent a house round where I live for love or money.

And because they can't get mortgages (for all sorts of reasons) lots of people want/need to rent.

I don't have a problem with landlords having as many properties as they like as long as they're well maintained and they're decent landlords.

@Djifunrsn

I'm not that sure really. On the face of it, it seems "unfair" that they own 900 properties and some people don't own one. But it's a legitimate business that employs lots of people. Presumably most of the 900 properties are occupied?

You wouldn't be angry with a car leasing place that had 900 cars would you?

Omg again with the car leasing analogy??!!

A company owning many cars DOES NOT affect the price I pay for my car.

Supply and demand. It really is basic economics.

The problem we have here is we are in the midst of a housing shortage. Landlords and companies hoovering up properties DOES impact the price I pay for a home, because, supply and demand.

Christ

clocktapus
Once they get past a certain number of properties, landlords should have to register for accreditation to ensure they're meeting required standards.\

In Scotland, for years past , EVERY landlord has had to be approved and registered by the local council (even if they only let ONE property). The standards are stringent and penalties for unregistered LL's are financially crippling. So we /they comply.

England COULD do the same, but it won't unless/until voters in England exert enough political pressure on English MP's.

THIS is exactly why Scotland, Wales and NI demanded devolved government.

@ImUninsultable

Do you want to get rid of the rental market entirely then? Because a lot of people renting wont be able to get mortgages. That's not the fault of the landlord. Without those landlords then people would be clambering to the council begging for a house.

But the landlords are inflating the prices massively, keeping them out of reach of ordinary buyers. people would be clambering to the council begging for a house. - classist snob much?

No one should be allowed to own that many residential properties

I wonder how many the Queen and her immediate family own, and rent out - in the portfolios of properties they own.

"And there are lots of other people who don't WANT to own! What student wants to buy a flat when they could just rent a bedsit? What newly qualified doctor/accountant/teacher wants to buy a house when they know their first job is for 6 or 12 months then they want to move on to another town entirely?

This narrative from a certain section of MN that all landlord are evil, exploitative, greedy is just unhinged."

---

I paid rent for 18(!) years, from age 18 to 36. Not because I wanted to, but because I could not get a foot on the housing ladder. I lived in places without central heating and non-functioning heating, and with mice plagues (several times). I have spent more than 100k in paying rent with nothing to show for it. My rent often outstripped mortgage payments for a similar property, and meanwhile house prices around me exploded. The vast majority of people I know who are renting, wished they could buy. Pretty much anyone above 25, I gather.

@ImUninsultable

Do you want to get rid of the rental market entirely then? Because a lot of people renting wont be able to get mortgages. That's not the fault of the landlord. Without those landlords then people would be clambering to the council begging for a house.

And there would be properties to give them if they hadn't sold off all the council housing, much of which is in the hands of landlords like this, being rented out for inflated rents.

I thought I’d misheard at first. It is definitely ridiculous.

@RachelHasThoseInBurgundy

It’s disgusting! No one should be allowed to own that many residential properties. It’s nothing but greed. Personally I think outside of housing authorities/council housing etc, there should be a two property limit for everyone. I’ve no problem with people having their own house plus a holiday home that they rent out or air B&B but buy to let and having the government pay your mortgage on 3/4/5 or 900 properties is wrong.

Do you mean two property or two residential property?

How many residential properties should a company be allowed to own?

Anyone with a holiday home or an air b and b has deprived a local person of a home to rent or buy. Anyone with a BTL has only deprived a local person of a home to buy - there is still a home to rent. Air b and b and holiday / second homes are much worse than BTL.