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?

As long term renter I’m perfectly happy with a 30 or 40 year old olive green bathroom suite as long as it’s well maintained and serviceable. The 2 houses I had the most problems with things breaking and faulting were both new builds, bought as buy to lets, cheaply finished. Owners didn’t care, just do the work fast as you can to get the rent coming in. The older properties that were formerly family homes have been far more sound in terms of things working as the should.

What about people who need to rent? We had to whilst divorce was sorted, income was way to high to ask the council and we needed a decent place to live. Landlord owned 29 properties and cannot fault him at all. Very fair and full deposit returned

Indeed, Rachel. Not sure why anything would think you’d be annoyed by ‘Joe Bloggs’ pricing people out but thinking it was tickety boo for an aristocrat to do so.

Although I think it’s a little disingenuous to describe private landlords with huge portfolios as joe bloggs down the road.

There is a division betweeen those who own and those who rent, as well as a North South division.
If people viewed their property as their home rather than a short step up a ladder to property wealth the housing market wouldn't be so silly.

Having said that there is a dire need for rentals as I have learned recently trying to help DS find a flat.
My DS is just starting his career and wouldn't want to buy at this point knowing that he may need to move again in six months or a year.
It's almost impossible to have a full time job and view rental properties in some areas as anything that appears on the market is snapped up before he can even view it. The fact that places are snapped up so quickly by renters feeds the frenzy and rents increase.

@DismantledKing

Landlords who own this much property are parasites

Why parasites? When they have the staff available to deal with repairs, emergencies and that kind of thing. Responsible landlords who make sure the property is up-to-date, well insulated, good state of repair and abides by current legislation etc.

@wallowmall

should be much more social housing too

This has a really good impact on rental prices locally when there is a good amount of social housing.

There has been a huge building project on the part of a housing association locally over the last couple of years. The fact so many people have been able to move into affordable housing has had two big effects on the rental market - people have more choice because there are more rentals available and less people needing them, and that in turn has meant that some of the really shit landlords who let out shitholes for obscene amounts have failed to find tenants.

It's been coupled with a scheme that sadly isn't being continued. I registered with the local council as a landlord. The checked my property was actually decent, fairly priced, that I had all the right checks and insurances etc. I then went on a list where they'd sort of 'match' people that they knew needed housing, but they couldn't house. I also paid to be part of their emergency repairs scheme which meant the tenant could just call them and it meant they knew they had 24 hour access to emergency cover and it wasn't dependent on the landlord's mate being available.
So for example for 9 months I had a tenant who needed certain disabled adaptions, that there are in my flat (it's likely where my DD will live as she needs them, which I know to many won't be a good enough reason to keep the place), until they could house them adequately. After they moved out someone else moved in in need of the same adaptions. They were there five months.
It's a great scheme, but sadly they've decided not to keep it up as there was a dedicated member of staff who checked properties and matched people (and helped with any disagreements) and the cuts mean it's just not seen as affordable.

@wallowmall

Do you want to get rid of the rental market entirely then?

Objecting to someone owning 900 properties when we have a housing problem & a lack of affordable housing doesn't mean you think there should be no rental properties.

But this argument doesn't make sense - if you accept theres a need for a large number of rental properties, why would it be better for society to have say 450 small landlords with 2 properties each than 1 business with 900, particularly if they are spread out over the country (not concentrated in one area, changing local economy).

If you accept the need for private rental properties as well as social housing and privately owned properties, then does it matter if a small number of landlords own a lot of those rental properties? The important thing is what minimum standards do they have to keep to.

@JustLyra that’s the kind of landlording I’d be in support of.

@JustLyra Serious amount of common sense in that scheme. Shame it's not continuing.

@MargosKaftan erm... ever heard of Competition and Monopolising?

The former is good, the latter is bad.

The other plus side of the council scheme was that tenants could ask landlords "Are you part of that scheme?" and because the majority of decent ones locally could say "Yes, here's my number" it raised an instant red flag to people if the landlord said no.

The shit landlord downstairs from my flat sold up. He didn't find it worthwhile anymore when his pool of tenants massively, massively dropped and therefore he couldn't charge ££££ for a shithole anymore (When we looked at it we reckoned it needed at least 15-20k worth of work to make it even basically decent. There was actual mould growing out of the bathroom carpet and until recently he'd been charging £800 a month for it!).

Good landlords are needed. The best way to get rid of shit landlords is to make their properties unneeded. If Landlords need to attract tenants, rather than the other way round, standards raise massively.

It is more difficult being a landlord with only 3 properties, It would be easier with enough to make it a full time job.
Trying to do your own repairs and DIY because there are no tradespeople around when you want them is what makes it hard. (I know). Be big and have your own plumbers and qualified electricians, much more professional and a better deal for tenants.

Lloyds Bank has bought a ton of ordinary houses I think 3,000 so far and aiming for more.

[quote OVienna]@JustLyra Serious amount of common sense in that scheme. Shame it's not continuing.[/quote]
It is a great scheme. It's such a shame.

Especially the co-ordination side. Technically both of those tenants I mentioned left within their lease, which could have seen a LL insist they pay the rest, whereas because there was co-ordination going on they knew they could move and not worry, I knew there wasn't going to be a big gap and the next people moving in knew the place was in good nick.

It had been hoped it would lead to the council being able to buy some properties. The person who owns the ground floor flat was in quite advanced talks with the council to buy their one as it's completely adapted, but then cuts meant they aren't buying any houses now.

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?
To be fair if they were in good condition then it would be pretty wasteful just to change it based on the colour alone!

I completely agree OP - 900 properties is obscene.

And I hate the comment that Mumsnet hates landlords - it is just used to shut down debate

Everything should be replaced every 15 years at least, to keep it fresh, new and up to standard.

Loads of homeowners don’t do that.

OP,
If you’ve got any sort of pension, you almost certainly have part of it invested in companies like Legal and General who own thousands of flats and houses to rent out

In fact, they are responsible for buying up huge amounts of land and building thousands and thousands of new homes which will only ever be rented out

There are loads of companies that do this, and many of them use their profits to provide pension income for most ordinary people

If you are really morally opposed to this as a concept, you ought to take a look at your pension, insurance providers and any investments you have, because you might be directly or indirectly benefiting from it

MN March 2020: buying x2 packs of toilet paper is the height of selfishness, hoarding? you are the devil.

MN Nov 2021: LL owns 900 houses? So what, it’s a free market.

I have no skin in this game but I’ve described this before:

Dear friends mum (DFM) does RTB on council maisonette.

Gets ill, gives up work benefits pays IO mortgage of about £30k

Huge price increase. DFM sells to DF for £250k buys 3 bed semi cash in suburbs.

DF immediately rents it, tenants on housing benefit.

RTB probably Worth £400k
Semi worth £500k

Taxer paid most of mortgages.
Huge transfer of public cash to private hands.

Here you go:
Some stats on ‘build to rent’
57k homes built which will never ever be owner occupied, and 36k more under construction
www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/229130/312837-0

Many funded by pension and investment funds, funnelling the money back to paying out pensions

Good for them! They’ve worked hard to build a business which not only provides housing but employment and no doubt contributes a significant amount of tax.

@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.

When did OP say that? I've rented all my life and some of the landlords have had more than one rental properties, but never 900!

@Shade17

Good for them! They’ve worked hard to build a business which not only provides housing but employment and no doubt contributes a significant amount of tax.

If the tax level worked properly, it wouldn't be feasible to own that many properties. Any second home should be very highly taxed and subsequent homes extremely highly taxed. The tax should reflect the social cost of taking homes away from local people.

It's not a home though is it, so it would never be taxed this way. The business owns the property, not individuals. The business will pay corporation tax.

Look, I'm not massively happy about it, but the problem is not this business, it's government after government creating policy that allows the housing market to inflate and makes owning property the best investment, along with allowing a housing shortage to persist instead of building loads of council and other affordable property. I think they are now too scared to change anything as housing is the bottom Jenga block of the economy and they fear everything will collapse if they pull it out.

Hatred for landlords on Mumsnet is hilarious.

How does them buying them stop anyone else buying them? Surely they are buying properties that were offered for sale on the open market- so anyone could have bought them?