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?

We have three properties 2 are rented out, we pay tax on them and probably make a net profit of about 1k a year so hardly anything one of the houses will be DDs and the other hopefully our next DC so they will be sorted property wise. We choose to buy property we have modest outgoings we don't have 21 plate massive 4x4 expensive cars or the latest fashionable expensive stuff but we want to safeguard our children's future and ease their worry of getting on the property ladder.

@Namechangedox

We have three properties 2 are rented out, we pay tax on them and probably make a net profit of about 1k a year so hardly anything one of the houses will be DDs and the other hopefully our next DC so they will be sorted property wise. We choose to buy property we have modest outgoings we don't have 21 plate massive 4x4 expensive cars or the latest fashionable expensive stuff but we want to safeguard our children's future and ease their worry of getting on the property ladder.

I'd be interested to know how long your tenants have been in, do you have a high turnover or have you had tenants there for a long time. I ask because I rent so when I moved here I wanted it to be my home for 10 years, alas its ending up as only 2 years due to landlord wanting his house back!

I don’t see it as a issue, many people are homeless due to lack of affordable rental properties, many people will never be able to afford to buy, there also a huge shortage of student rentals. These people may appear greedy buying up property but they are just running a business, one that will always do well as there’s always going to be people to rent these properties.

There’s no longer such thing as “affordable new builds”, where I am a “affordable new build” is priced around £250,000, not affordable to first time buyers? Most of the younger generation/s will not be able to afford to buy so renting will be their only option.

Stopping people like this from buying property won’t change anything, it’s not going to change the fact houses are no longer affordable to most young people.

It's awful homes should never have been allowed to become a profit making business.

@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.

Not the fault of the landlords who charge double (sometimes triple) the amount a mortgage would cost someone, leaving them completely unable to save for a deposit and mortgage? Not their fault at all...?

I’m in two minds depending on how good they are as landlords - although with that many they can’t exactly be hands on. BUT I do think the private rental business should be much more tightly regulated. My DD’s rented flat flooded recently and, while her landlords were actually on it pretty quickly, I was shocked to see how few rights she had if they’d take weeks or even months to act.

@ImUninsultable

So, tax viable businesses into the ground. People who want to buy those properties still cant get a mortgage even if landlords collapse.

Social housing has nothing to do with private landlords owning homes.

House prices would fall so more people would be able to get mortgages. Economics 101.

It's a long term thing for us, we don't put the rent up as we want the tenant the stay as long as possible , a tenants finder fee is about £800 so we want to minimise that we only raise when the tenant vacates and we look for a new one. We allow pets and decorating as long as its put back to neutral when moving out the last tenant stayed for 3 years before moving to Spain the previous one was 3 years before they bought their own house.

No one needs that many properties though so they? It’s pure greed and prevents first time buyers getting on the property ladder.

Didn't Labour try to introduce a law that would make it illegal to provide uninhabitable rented accommodation ? That all rented properties should meet certain standards. Unfortunately so many tory mps own rentals it didn't get through parliament.

We have one our way with 3000 properties. He used to rent them our room by room, cramming people into every room (average 7-8 people per house). I visited a friend in one years ago and it was absolute shite. Mouldy bathroom, sinking kitchen floor, threadbare carpets. He has now started converting them (mostly Victorian semis) into 4 tiny flats per house. He started years ago and still isnt even half way through due to the sheer number of properties he owns. Sickening especially as he is still buying and converting family homes so there is an overabundance of studios and 1 bed flats but no 3-4 bedroom houses for families who then stay overcrowded in smaller properties for longee have more

It’s been going on for centuries though! Look at Prince Charles for one! And all the other Lords and Ladies! Just cos the ‘ordinary’ person is getting a piece of the pie it’s suddenly an issue!!!

Round here there has always been a prominent family who have for 100s of years owned a number of properties and still do!

@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?

Nothing, it's the charging 1k+ for a tiny 3 bed (one of which is down fucking stairs!!!) rendering people unable to actually save for a mortgage, or in some cases even pay bills, because they need rooms for their kids to sleep in.

There is a huge demand because thats some peoples only bloody choice, because rents are so extortionate! God forbid you want to move into a 4 bed place too. The rent jumps disproportionately to having that ONE extra bedroom (which again is actually just a downstairs office space).

Oh we also paid 2k to fix the roof recently, I don't understand landlords who don't look after their properties it will eventually be my DD's home. Why wouldn't you want to take care of it?

Of course stopping people buying more and more will bring the price down.
1 family won’t be competing with 4 landlords and 2 other families to buy a home locally

Hire cars are an interesting analogy but not the same. They are not a finite resource.
The hire companies bulk buy cars at MASSIVE discounts. They use them for 6 months and then sell them for either the same as what they bought them for, sometimes slightly more. These then go back into the dealer network for people to buy as used cars. So the “profit” is mostly from the rental for 6 months, with no maintenance costs needed for that ownership period.
So no. It’s not the same. Enterprise buying a car doesn’t push up the price of a golf if I went to buy one. Cars depreciate, houses appreciate.

It’s sad that so many don’t understand how landlordism drives up house prices and deprives new buyers saving up and landing on the property ladder. 900 rentals- totally obscene

@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.

Or the market would change? If there's a tonne of empty houses perhaps lenders would think ah, maybe someone who has managed to pay over inflated rent consistently with no late payments would be reliable rather than judging it based on if they can whip £30k together for a deposit.

I don't think landlords are bad or anything, rental properties have their place for sure; but 900 properties, greedy and disgusting.

@Switch82

It’s been going on for centuries though! Look at Prince Charles for one! And all the other Lords and Ladies! Just cos the ‘ordinary’ person is getting a piece of the pie it’s suddenly an issue!!!

Round here there has always been a prominent family who have for 100s of years owned a number of properties and still do!

One of two large landlords isn’t a problem and can benefit a town in some cases.

But lots of “ordinary people” jumping on the bandwagon does cause a problem of pushing prices up. Especially when areas feature as “rental hotspots” so out of town landlords read about it and jump on.

I just watched that episode. It’s a family business and they all (Dad and his kids, at least) work for the business, employing a further 30 people in addition. They always work to a high standard, in this case, spending more on doing up the property than the estate agent interviewed thought it warranted, and making a lovely home for one lucky renter.
If interest rates were higher, I suppose they might have chosen to invest elsewhere, but at the moment, property is one of the few ways people can make money (and the auction was open to all - nothing to stop someone else buying the property if they wanted it more...)

@GoodnightGrandma

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.

Wannabe landlords pay the market price . Just like any wannabe property owner.

@irregularegular

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.

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.

They aren't, that's part of the problem. And despite their being "plenty" of rental properties the prices are still absurd. You should be able to pay rent and bills AND feed your family. Not have to choose to pay for the roof over your head above all else. A mortgage for a lot of people would actually HALF the cost of having that roof over their head. It's disgusting.

I don't see the problem. They are running a business, providing homes, employing people, paying tax and investing their money in property because it gives an income and potential for a great return.
We are landlords and have three rental properties in good condition. We're looking for long term tenants with pets, are happy to let them decorate and charge a reasonable rent.
The income will make up part of our pensions. We've worked and invested, never claimed benefits and now are happy to retire early for our efforts.

I'm struggling to believe this is actually real tbh.
Buying 30 properties a month?

The reason most people can't get a mortgage is because we have to pay extortionate rent that is double the amount a mortgage would cost us and therefore cannot save for the ridiculous deposits that mortgage companies want and the landlords who put the rent up every single year without fail,refuse to allow the tenant to make any changes to the property whatsoever because of course if you are renting you don't deserve to feel like you have a home you must always be reminded that you are generously being allowed to stay in someone else's house for four times what you would be paying in rent to social housing - that used to be the norm until a certain government decided to sell of all of those houses and now we have a huge housing crisis. So while years ago it was very simple to get an affordable roof over your head, now you simply have to struggle and be grateful for the landlords who buy up all the properties.

Completely agree, op. This is nothing like flogging smartphones or cars or anything else that is not in limited supply. The more property you own, the easier it is to acquire it and the more you acquire the less you leave for others. Yes, there are people who would never be able to service a mortgage and who need LLs (though like a lot of people, I think I in an ideal world you should be able to rent from the state if this is you), but there are a great many who would have a fighting chance of owning a home if the property market wasn’t so distorted. Imagine how shit it would be to be working and saving for a deposit only to be priced out because of one of these people - and then have to rent from them. There are areas where a small number of LLs snap up everything, so it happens.