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?

i actually want a pink bathroom 😬

@Blossomtoes

Do you think anyone would want them if they were safely removed?

Yes. One of my friends loves anything mid century. She bought a turquoise bathroom suite from a reclamation yard. Old freestanding baths and butlers’ sinks are in great demand apparently.

Butler sinks and the like are actually quite nice looking, durable and don't stain. They are fit for purpouse if in good condition and installed correctly

That shitty avocado coloured plastic toilet and bath that's 30+ years old and stains at the hint of a coloured shower gel isn't.

@JustLyra

Er, that happens in England as well.

Not everywhere though. Something like 55 councils according to one report - that's not very many.

Here there was a voluntary scheme and it's ending because of council cut backs.

So the govt have made the legislation available, but some councils are choosing not to use it then?

@PuzzledObserver

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.

My house was last rem=novated in 1976 (spoke to owner that lived there then) . We changed the loo because it cracked but otherwise same loo, same kitchen but we added some units. All functions fine, I don't care what it looks like, in that time folk will have made their kitchens Shaker, painted them navy , gone glossy, etc etc and be back to oak when mine needs to be back in fashion.

If you don’t care what your home looks like, that’s your prerogative @Ariela.

It shouldn’t even be about what is in fashion, it’s nice to have pride in your home and enjoy the environment you live in.

Many people do care what their homes look like and I believe it’s unacceptable for home owners to keep such low standards for their rentals whilst making so much profit off of them.

No renter should be living with a 50 year old bathroom/ kitchen. Regardless of whether you like it or not op, that’s your choice. Renters have zero choice and it is unacceptable.

Good landlords are very scarce and how can you buy that many and look after them properly

Legal and General have been moving into the residential rental market. So a large financial services company will own 1,000 of flats and houses to rent. Is this good or bad? They are mainly new builds, they claim that a lot will be low cost (believe that when I see it). They will be professionally managed. They are obviously doing this as they see it as a profitable option. If it is ok for a large plc to do this, why not a smaller business person building up a business?

So the govt have made the legislation available, but some councils are choosing not to use it then?

More like the govt have pretended to give a shit, but declined to make it remotely affordable for councils as they're really not bothered.

No renter should be living with a 50 year old bathroom/ kitchen.

The condition of the bathroom is the main thing.

The flat I rent out has an old bathroom suite. I'd say probably 60's. However, it's been removed twice in the last 15 years so that the bathroom could be painted and re-tiled.

The bath, sink and toilet are immaculate. They are much better quality than any of the new modern stuff. The last time it was removed we actually planned to put in a new suite (and I was planning keeping that stuff for a new bathroom going in our house) and the tenant asked to keep it as they felt modern stuff is much more flimsy.

If they were in crap condition or the bathroom hadn't been touched since the 60's that would be wrong, but them being fitted isn't at all.

While I think 900 properties is very excessive - perhaps they are professional landlords for their career and as long as they are putting good products to market as a realistic rent then I don't see a problem. I myself own several properties - all were expensive to buy with stamp duty tax attached - I declare my rental income on them every year and pay tax on that - and in recent years all tax breaks have been taken away from Landlords on the higher rate of tax- thus reducing our net take home income. My properties are kept to a very high standard and I treat my tenants well (one tenant I have not increased the rent on since she moved in - in 2017 - because she is a lovely tenant who is respectful of my property) - when things break they are fixed and as a result I have never had a vacancy period. I do not have a final salary pension and investing in property is how I prepare for my retirement - otherwise I'm reliant on crap pensions. Restricting people to 2 properties is not an answer - where would that stop? What about 1 old person living in a huge house versus a large family living in a smaller house - where would it end? Why are people so vicious towards landlords and not the Shareholders of companies who have engaged in all sorts of ruthless practices in order to make ever higher profits to return to their always hungry and demanding Shareholders. Companies who have broken the law time after time, lied time after time, Banks who lent to a sub prime market and packaged up assets and sold them on which led to a worldwide banking crash, car manufacturers who lied about fuel emissions and poisoned our air, companies who cut down the last remaining forests of the world to grow palm oil and kill local wildlife, food companies who lie about ingredients or animal welfare practices, companies who do not even pay their staff minimum wage or sick pay or maternity pay or who impose zero hour contracts and treat workers like crap - all these acts are done because they have to make more and more profits to pay dividends to shareholders and yet no one hates them as much as landlords. Frankly I'd rather a landlord anyday of the week to them and I know there are terrible landlords out there and I am excluding those obviously.

It's a business and they provide a service without them there would be few rentals and higher demand and would push rents up higher .

LL with 1 or 2 properties are getting fewer and fewer people won't take the risk they have very little protection on there investment .
People can just pay nothing it takes months to get them out and it cost you £1000's and inevitably £1000's in damage you will never get back .

I think it’s obscene & should be banned. Someone’s home should never be someone else’s pension

Surely though, they’re not affecting the overall number of homes on the market - they’re just making the homes that are available nicer.

If there are too many/few rentals vs properties available to buy (and at a reasonable price) then that’s the governments job to sort out. If they can’t or won’t do it, vote them out. There are 10 times more people on normal/low incomes than there are high incomes. (Hint: vote them out).

Hum. Having been a middle class tenant for twelve years I can tell you we have had two decent landlords out of 9! Every year we would have to injure the house going on the market for the spring. Being sold and evicted. No one was selling of course until I made a home with my inherited antiques and silk curtains. It looked fab and the barstards then wanted to sell. It effected my mental health and my children's childhoods. In the end I refused to allow photos etc when we were in situ. Viewings until the last month. Our final landlord put our rent up whilst under notice (illegal) then stalked us. He is off to the chokey if he comes near us again. I am sorry if you are not charging a peppercorn rent and waiting for your capital growth I don't want to know you. Walk in my shoes before you think it is OK to give your tenants the bare minimum.

Really Sorry but I can’t see the problem here. If they were purchased fairly and other people had the same opportunity to buy the house if they had wanted to then what is the issue?

Slightly OT but I live in a small row of houses, we were the only rental. One by one they all went up for sale and now house all renters. We've got single mums, young professionals and older people who can't get a mortgage. I do worry about not having a nest egg and what will happen when I can no longer work to pay the rent, unlike a mortgage there is no end point.

You're 100% right but you're always going to get some people condoning it. The ones who think Jeff Bezos is just a savvy business man as opposed to a global parasite.

@Cantfindafreeusername
I guess the broader issue is spiralling inequality between the haves and have nots in the UK. The bottom 20% have an average income of £15k compared to 70k for the top 20%. It’s a huge gap by the standards of the vast majority of developed countries. Is it decent or reasonable that 20% of the population (circa 13 million people) should have such a tough existence in one of the world’s richest countries? Obviously most Tories don’t see the problem with it, but I think it’s problematic, and is also indirectly the source of a lot of the crime, antisocial behaviour, and negativity prevalent in many areas. When people don’t think society is giving them a fair deal, they are far more likely to “drop out” of society.

And how many do the good socialists, Ex Prime Minister and Mrs Tony Blair own? Property developers own houses. Socialists should own the maximum of 1.

Homes under the hammer regularly features auction lots that cannot be mortgaged so who do you think has been deprived from buying those homes? If you can afford 120k out right to buy a run down tiny terrace in disrepair in a working class little town,lets be honest you're unlikely to be the kind of person who is going to live in it.

There is a higher tax for multiple home ownership it's called Capital Fains Tax. 28% of the increase in value goes to HMRC when you sell the asset. If you think of how property prices have increased this a sizeable amount. The landlord will have paid tax on rental income and VAT on repairs and renovations. When transferring ownership after death then 40% of the estate value will also go to HMRC.
Its naive to think that the Government and HMRC allow landlords to run property businesses without paying to the exchequer.

@nc777

YANBU and it sickens me. NO-ONE should be allowed more than one home. All the private landlords properties should be bought (from the price they paid for them) by the local authority and various housing associations, and go into the social housing stock.

Most private landlords don't give a flying fuck about the state of the properties they own/rent out. Nor do they give a shit about their tenants.

And no I am not fucking JEALOUS. (What a stupid predicable thing to say.) No-one has anything I want. I am jealous of no-one. So anyone about to say that can shove it.

Maslow is the theory to look at here. Without shelter we have no foundation. Over 50% of ex council houses are now BTL. Children without community do not do well. Tenancies should be a minimum of 5 years excluding HMO.
I have a very well paid job but I donate to shelter regularly. They helped me. I give back. I have lost friends for my views. One family one house simple.

The interesting angle to this is the fact that the assumption is that these landlords are taking away properties that locals could buy but they could also be providing rental
Properties for those locals who can not afford to buy.

There are as many awful tenants as there are awful landlords but I agree renting a property gives no security.

@Beautybunny

Maslow is the theory to look at here. Without shelter we have no foundation. Over 50% of ex council houses are now BTL. Children without community do not do well. Tenancies should be a minimum of 5 years excluding HMO. I have a very well paid job but I donate to shelter regularly. They helped me. I give back. I have lost friends for my views. One family one house simple.

I agree. One family, one house. That is how it should be.

As a pp said further back in the thread, basically these cheeky feckers who own multiple properties, are basically getting other people (and in some cases the taxpayer) to pay their mortgages.

I know a number of people who rent privately, and also a number of people who own 2 or more properties that they rent out.

In every single case, the property is a shit tip. The landlord only does the basic stuff that they need to do by LAW, and they do very little else. Many private let tenants end up doing some repairs themselves. And let's not even BEGIN to talk about the extortionate rents they charge!