Landlords are selling up in droves

[MNisMyGuiltyPleasure]

I am a landlord. Not full time but I have a couple of flats I let out. I have been for many years and bar twice, have always had good tenants. I am still friendly with a few of them who moved out to buy their own place, in fact. I go above and beyond what's expected of me because I want my tenants to enjoy living in my flats. However I am getting more and more concerned about the hike in costs related to letting properties. This has already started driving many, many LLs to sell up, with the result that the number of private rentals is dropping, driving rents up. And I'm serious thinking of selling up and finding somewhere else to invest my pension.

This morning another landlord shared this article www.property118.com/property118-founder-selling-his-best-property/ and this started a conversation about the risks of letting, which are only making more people get out of the lettings market.

So to all those people calling landlords greedy, and saying they shouldn't put rents up: if they are, it's likely they are because their costs related to letting are going up, and they need to cover themselves to meet additional costs should tenants not pay (cost of living or whatever other reason). My accountant last year told me to assume I will only make money from my flats when I come to sell them, and to budget to break even at best until then.

I get that shelter is something everyone should have, but please don't blame landlords for the hike in cost of private rents. Because if they all left the market (which may well happen at some point), the situation would be worse, not better, for tenants.

I am sure I will get a few people to flame me for the above, of course. If they do, I'd love to hear if they are renting, letting, or if they own their homes.

Exactly - and who do you think will have to pay? The tenant??? The tenant who lost those keys?

I can't work out which answer you're expecting to this (rhetorical?) question! But yes, the tenant would pay.

I'm a landlord and keep spares in case a tenant loses their keys. Believe me, they ring me when that happens, not a locksmith!

Luckily, I live within a couple of miles and I drop the new keys to them. There is no extra charge as it doesn't really happen that often. But there are always issues of one sort or another. I think the people who think it's very straightforward have never been a landlord.

I'm dithering about selling a house now tenants going. I could get another £300 a month, that would cover the estate agents expenses.

So many BTL owners with mortgages are panicking now interest rates are up. Personally I don't think it's wise to borrow like this even for your own home

I quite agree.
Lost or forgotten keys.
Lightbulbs.
Failing to use the correct wheelie bin rubbish everywhere so add recycling to the list.
Wondering why council tax is so high That would be because it is paid over 10 months u less you request to pay over 12.
Report oven broken , no you have set the timer to come on in 5 hours.
Washing machine broken, no you have washed a bath mat and the filter is full of fluff and needs emptying.
BBQ against the fence , set the fence on fire.
Sink blocked, cherry stones.
Immersion/ heating timer needs adjusting , try reading the manual.

To say landlords don't invest time and money is a joke , their deposit is tied up and their time has no value to the tenants. Not to mention the admin of registering deposits , arranging gas checks, legionella checks, EPCs, electrical checks, smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms. Emptying boiler filters, ridding drains, etc etc

And if the tenant decides to break a window because he has lost his keys or left them inside ? guess who has to pay ? The landlord ...because the tenant will just say he has been burgled , make a police report which in turn increases insurance premiums. Best to keep spare keys and let them in even if you are eating your supper at the time.

OP, just ignore the many vindictive and delusional posters on this thread

Somebody has made them believe that landlords should work for free because tenants are entitled to a 'home'

Letting out houses is a business, and of course whoever decides to take this risk, investing their time and resources on a business venture deserves to be compensated. Why shouldn't they?

Social housing is not free either. We are all paying for the stock and shortfalls with our taxes

What I cannot get my head around is why our Conservative government is so against landlords, it's what you would expect from the Left, but not from them

Don’t listen to the haterz hun x

Don’t listen to the haterz hun x

Their just jelous xxx

@thehorsehasnowbolted - you are not paying a penny towards social housing from social associations (unless you rent through one). They make a surplus through their rents and shared ownership. I assume councils are the same minus the shared ownership. Social Housing rents are lower because no one is making a profit from them. I hate this myth that the taxpayer subsidises social housing.

Two can play at that game

Somebody has made them believe that tenants should pay for substandard homes because landlords are entitled to an 'investment'

Letting out houses is a business, and of course whoever decides to take on this responsibility, providing an essential service should deliver decent service and comply with the rules. Why shouldn't they?

'Substandard' is a subjective concept. Also see upthread landlords having to pay up when the tenant has caused damage (e.g. overloading the electrical circuit)

Sure, landlords should comply with reasonable, balanced legislation BUT should be able to evict tenants instantly with more than two months' arrears (I'm being generous), don't you think?

I'm not too keen on some dodgy accounting that ignores the opportunity cost of capital!

Social housing has to be purchased or built by Coucils and housing associations in the first place. So yes, there is an initial outlay involved. Also I'm not sure that there is no subsidising of running costs involved if you compare it to the private sector. It would be intersting to see some real numbers

@thehorsehasnowbolted "What I cannot get my head around is why our Conservative government is so against landlords, it's what you would expect from the Left, but not from them"

That's an easy one. According to the Government's own survey on the private rented sector in England, published in May last year, 48% of tenanted properties are owned by landlords who have 5 or more properties out to rent.

Adding those 39% of landlords who own between two and four properties, this means that landlords as a whole have far fewer votes to give to parties than do tenants as a whole.

Good to see there are people on this forum who have had experience of the LL's side of the fence and agree that tenants can be unreasonable, and very quick to spend the LL's money when, had it been their own home/money, they'd think twice. I'm not saying all of them. Just like I'm not saying all LLs are great. But those PPs who say that all LLs are scum and forget about the many, many bad tenants, are trying to engage in a discussion, in the same way a child would. Extreme, unsubstantiated views, based on limited experience.

Also see upthread landlords having to pay up when the tenant has caused damage (e.g. overloading the electrical circuit)

The law is quite clearly on the side of the landlord here. If you're picking up the tenants' bills then you're doing it wrong.

Sure, landlords should comply with reasonable, balanced legislation BUT should be able to evict tenants instantly with more than two months' arrears (I'm being generous), don't you think?

No, don't be ridiculous, and thankfully neither does just about anyone else except for Jacob Rees-Mogg, who would like to bring back the workhouse and the birch.

Our council are in a huge financial hole. They're talking about rates rise of 12.45% in April plus between 5-10% cut across all services bar education and social care. There's no way they can build or purchase property.

@thehorsehasnowbolted - you can see some real numbers in their publicly available accounts.

The majority of HA are using commercial loans to build and paying millions in interest to do so. Government grants make up a tiny portion of the money they have for building houses.

@LauraNicolaides - I am not sure what “dodgy accounting” you are taking about.

The law is quite clearly on the side of the landlord here. If you're picking up the tenants' bills then you're doing it wrong

It's very often difficult and expensive to prove. Who do you think has to end up footing the bill?

Sorry, not very well explained, but claiming that letting someone use publicly-owned assets for less than their open-market value is not a subsidy needs you to ignore the opportunity cost.

If I'm managing your house and I could rent it out for £1000 a month, but I let someone vulnerable live there for £800 I'm losing you £200 each month (regardless of whether you fully paid for the house many years ago.)

I had a tenant (properly vetted, from a large estate agent) who was dealing drugs out of the flat. He moved, then the police raided the flat and arrested the new tenants. The police broke the door down and did about £2k worth of damage but as it was a lawful warrant I had to pay.

My poor new tenants though!

I've also had drunk tenants not able to remember the building code to get into the building calling at 12am (seriously, wait for someone else in the building to come home!), destroyed washing machines due to pouring copious quantities of bleach in, blocked toilets due to throwing strange things down them, brand new stoves broken, new carpet destroyed (it was the removal agency's fault not the tenants - I did make that tenant pay for the damage and had abusive texts and emails for about 3 months afterwards, as did the letting agency and the local council for some reason).

I do now pay for someone to manage the properties!

I would argue that social rents are the real rental costs and the market value of private rents are overinflated. There is no lost opportunity cost unless you believe all housing/land should be in private ownership and have every last drop of profit squeezed from it. You could argue any land that any charity/public owned building was sat on was a lost opportunity in rental income.

No, don't be ridiculous, and thankfully neither does just about anyone except for Jacob Rees-Mogg, who would like to bring back the workhouse and the birch

Why is it ridiculous? Why should you be making use of someone's assets without payment? Why?

I would argue that social rents are the real rental costs and the market value of private rents are overinflated

This is incorrect, as landlords are telling you on this thread that they can barely make any income even with market rents (most are making a loss). Hence social rents are most likely subsidised

Well you might!

My landlord might "argue that" his own heating bill is a deductible expense for tax because he needs some warmth while he sits at his desk plotting how best to rip me off next.

But both are dodgy accounting (and yours is a strange interpretation of the market )