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?

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?

Er, a HUGE amount actually. I would have killed to have my own house as a student where I didn't have to put up with other peoples shit, noise, mess, loudness etc. I then felt the same when I was "newly qualified" and had a job for 12 months after that. That's 4 years of living in my own space, at half the price, not having to move every 6 months because the LL pushes students out so quickly to raise the rent for the freshers coming in.

HTH.

@KevinTheKoala

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.

Exactly this!!!

This thread reminds me of the Foil Arms and Hog sketch on youtube - 'Why you'll never buy a house in Ireland'

@Clocktopus

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 think once they have one property they should have to meet required standards!

It does seem wrong, and yes there should be extra taxes on properties other than your own home. You say that these people 'renovate' houses to sell on ... we are looking to move house at present and I can always spot the places that have been 'renovated' by someone like that - they paint, put in cheap new kitchen, cheap carpet, electric heaters, etc, but the EPC is always extremely low, and god knows what you'd find if you looked under the surface. It's a scummy way to do business.

Social housing has nothing to do with private landlords owning homes

Of course not

Gosh silly us for thinking the two things could possibly be connected in any way.

This is why I can’t bare to watch HUTH any more. I enjoy seeing renovations but find it unbelievably depressing that 99.9% of it is buy to let/flip to let. Personally I would like a fixer upper if I had the chance to buy a house but they all go straight to auction.

I think once they have one property they should have to meet required standards!

Well yes, they should which is why I think all landlord should have to be certified via completion of a training course (I also think there should be swifter action and harsher penalties for landlords not meeting their obligations from fines right the way up to seizure of property and being banned from renting out properties). However landlords with significant portfolios, such as 900 properties, should have to go over and about certification and should have to be regulated in the same way social housing is regulated.

@SomethingToldTheWildGeese

Yup - the video sums it up pretty good

@Zenithbear

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.

You are incredibly rare as landlords then. I have had two decent LL's out of the 13 or so I have rented from (the fact i've rented from so many should tell you enough about why renting is damn soul destroying. Only three were decisions by myself to move out, all others were raising the rent to ridiculous prices I couldn't afford or selling up!!!). So 12 Landlords who couldn't be bothered to do repairs or actually maintain the property to anything above a LOW standard.

In addition to that, that's 13 times in 15 years I have been renting I have had to move because I rent. 13 years I could have spent in ONE house, my own house, paying half of the rental prices I had to fork out for. So with that in mind it's not even just about rent. It's the 2k upfront you have to pay to even sign the contract. 2k, 13 times I could have saved and/or used to maintain my own property.

Again, it's disgisting.

There was an article on the BBC, which stated that 50% of new builds in London, are being sold to foreign investors, normally bought before they are even built. All to be rented out.

@ginghamstarfish

It does seem wrong, and yes there should be extra taxes on properties other than your own home. You say that these people 'renovate' houses to sell on ... we are looking to move house at present and I can always spot the places that have been 'renovated' by someone like that - they paint, put in cheap new kitchen, cheap carpet, electric heaters, etc, but the EPC is always extremely low, and god knows what you'd find if you looked under the surface. It's a scummy way to do business.

Exactly this. They push the price up but their ‘renovations’ are so garbage that it would all need doing again to make a cosy family home. Just white box rooms and plastic everything.

@Loopyloulou007

There was an article on the BBC, which stated that 50% of new builds in London, are being sold to foreign investors, normally bought before they are even built. All to be rented out.

There is a newish thing in my city where they put up new blocks of overpriced apartments that get sold to management companies and rented out like air bnbs so no one actually living full time in the building.

@Capferret

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.

Indeed. People complain when they perceive that ordinary people are owning properties and therefore getting above their station. But how do you think the majority of the landed gentry in this country earn their money? It isn't by doing any actual work..

You can't pass a law to say Joe Bloggs down the road can't own more than one property but a faceless suit with a Swiss bank account or the Duke of whoever can own half of London.

I completely agree with this . Unfortunately lots of, mainly Tory, MPs have large property portfolios and regularly vote against things like landlords making homes for to live in.

The supply and demand problem will not be corrected by the proportion owner occupied vs proportion rented. It will be corrected by supply of new housing.

@wallowmall

There should be much higher taxes on multiple home ownership

There are.

at people saying “not everyone wants to buy”. As if there wouldn’t be 900 families willing and able to buy those properties if they were put up for sale.

I think there should be a cap on how many properties a landlord can own. 900 is obscene and a reason why people struggle to buy. Not ok.

@Staryflight445

As long as the 900 houses are up to a nice living standard I couldn’t care less tbh. It’s got to be better than the people that buy properties and barely make them look like they’ve been kept to a good standard and then rent them on. There was a mum and son on there last week and they bought a flat and left the bathroom suite in just because it still worked. It was like olive green?

Just because people cannot afford to buy a property it shouldn’t allow these landlords to keep their properties in such dire straights.

What’s wrong with leaving a perfectly good bathroom suite alone? That does not mean that the property is in dire straights! It might not be to your (or my) taste, but as long as it works (and the landlord sorts out any issues promptly and properly), that’s the main thing.

Renters don’t always look after their home (I know there is also a lot that do) the way an owner does, so it would be stupid to make them high spec and then have them damaged and needing renovated again after the tennant leaves.

@BobLemon

The supply and demand problem will not be corrected by the proportion owner occupied vs proportion rented. It will be corrected by supply of new housing.

Of course it does. You flip it from a sellers market to a buyers market.

This is a poor long term analogy but works for a short term one.
Loo roll and the Covid panic buying.
If one person bought what they could use in a month. There’s enough. If 10 people buy 3 months supply. There’s not enough

Same with houses. If everyone bought what they needed. There’s enough. If more people buy more than they need. There’s not enough. The difference is loo roll can be manufactured, land cant.

You can't pass a law to say Joe Bloggs down the road can't own more than one property but a faceless suit with a Swiss bank account or the Duke of whoever can own half of London.

I don’t think anyone here has said that’s the law they want. Of course I can only speak for myself but I don’t think anyone, private individuals or investment company, should be allowed to collect properties as if they are Pokemon cards.

A business of a scale could well be a much safer pair of hands as a landlord than a punter with a 'modest' property portfolio/an accidental landlord. As ever, it depends how it's run.

Have they invested in an in-house lawyer/law firm on retainer to insure they are up to date on their obligations and a landlord? Can they access quicker and less expensive repairs on the basis of volume? Would they have more muscle with the local council than a one man band if there was a local issue?

I would much rather deal with a professionally run outfit than someone very inexperienced, like an 'accidental' landlord, or a disinterested estate agent acting on behalf of one.

Question I guess is the quality of the people they're selling the sites on to as well as are they driving up costs in a local area.

@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.

Actually I think there would be a lot of support. So if you're into renting, I'd be careful what you wish for.

In other countries landlords are much more closely regulated. We could learn a lot from them.

Yes, it's wrong.