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.

But there wouldn't be any private rentals without landlords.

A landlord who helped finance a build to rent development, i.e. without whose investment the overall housing stock would have been that bit smaller, has performed a socially useful function.

A landlord who out-competed would-be owner occupiers to buy a 10/50/100 etc yr old property - not so much.

To those saying that For those who have a buy to let mortgage even if they don’t make so much money now on rent they still end up with a considerable asset paid for by rent over the years. you do realise that most LLs with mortgages have interest-only mortgages, meaning that at the end of the mortgage they will need to sell the property to pay the capital, and hence they will not be left with an asset but the equity, right? So yes they will see profit but no, they won't have an asset paid for by tenants as many of you seem to erroneously think.

It's a minefield nowadays for landlords...no easy answers. I would sell up rather than let out my home it is too stressful a process and all changes are more and more in favour of the tenant...

@LumpyandBumps thank you for that response
I have a lot to think about

If it is true that a HUGE number of landlords suddenly pop their properties on the market them the prices will fall and some people will be able to enter the market to buy their own home rather than pay a huge rental..... good.

Unfortunately, it's not really the case, some are selling up and other LL's buy the properties.... the house prices need to fall for some balance. It's been all to the advantage of those lucky enough to own multiple homes for far too long.

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'm not a tenant and have little skin in the game but this actually seems very reasonable to me.

The asset pays for it's upkeep during the time you own it and well you sell it at the end, that's when the profit is made - because the value will have increased.

This genuinely sounds like a good scenario.

I find it bizarre how so many posters seem to think that a person who can buy has more of a right to live in a house that a person who rents. Talk about putting ownership on a pedestal.

I'm a landlord and I would sell up in a flash if I didn't have to turf my Tennant out. The days of making money from btl are long, long gone. But I have had my house for over a decade. So we have a big comfort zone dispite only being interest only. We rent our current home and the market has changed so much since we first moved. Not having multiple btl seems much safer. I have great tennants. But the biggest fear I have is that I couldn't easily liquidate my cash if my home rental was wanted back by my landlord. Waiting for 6 months plus with four young kids to get my house back is more worrying in a volatile market. Imagine me going to shelter aifs we was evicted but had a btl? That will be my driver when I sell up. Its still paying for itself comfortably.

Part of what defines ownership is the ability to do what you want with the thing that you own

Part of what defines ownership is the ability to do what you want with the thing that you own

And if you treat housing like a commodity and ignore the massive and various reasons that's a bad idea... you're right.

Landlord here, have had lovely tenants. Raised rent once in 7 years £25 a month. We should be asking another £300 pcm now. One tenant great. Another we did an inspection post covid. It's trashed. Dogs, the contents of another house in the garden and shed. Smashed smoke detectors, wrecked kitchen. It's very upsetting.

We have one rental property, no plans to sell, but there’s no mortgage on it and during the ten years it’s been rented out, except for a major outlay 2 years ago, we’ve generally been fairly lucky with expenses and have always had very good tenants.

Whether that’s because we’ve kept the rent fairly low, so tenants know they’d never find anything as nice for the same money locally, I don’t know.

Re ‘accidental) landlords, sorry, but there’s no such thing. Our flat wasn’t originally bought for rental purposes, but it was a conscious decision that made financial sense. Anyone would think ‘accidental’ landlords woke up one morning to find people living in their property. ‘Goodness, how on earth did that happen?’ they wondered, utterly bemused.

The argument about the increasing costs doesn't work. Costs are increasing for everyone, you have no more right to preserve your peofit margins than anyone else. Why should tenants absorb all the cost increases? They generally have the lowest pay. Just admit letting property requires almost no skill and offers virtually nothing to society other than being a cancerous like way of hoarding wealth. Basically the tumor of society, that needs cutring out.

@Forfrigz No less right either..........

Nothing will be right in the UK until something is done to make renting secure. In Germany you can’t just evict a tenant from their home whenever you want to, if you sell, the flat comes with the tenant. Things need to go that way.

Landlords are now getting tenants offering 6 or 12 months rent upfront in popular areas.

Jeez that’s strong!

How about providing accommodation for younger people not yet in a position (financial or otherwise) to buy their own home, perhaps not wanting to tie themselves down, perhaps not in a stable relationship which would lead to cohabitation, perhaps wanting to stay geographically mobile while they develop a career, or just decide to take a grown up Gap year. Or whatever.

Good!

If there needs to be a market for rentals then let that market be held as social housing stock with strict regulation. Same concept. Apply for a house, be compared against suitability criteria and placed in an appropriate house.

Inspections can include yearly/5 yearly/10 yearly reviews so Margaret can't hold on to her massive 4 bed house in a nice area for 60 years while Sally and her husband and 2-3 kids are crammed into a shit one bedroom, one living room flat with the kitchen in the same area as the living space until they are 18! Equally a family similar to Sally's aren't sitting in a one bed bungalow that would be perfect for Margaret who is now so old she can only live on one level and never uses her 4 bedrooms because she can't use the stairs.

No greedy landlords hoarding houses, and everyone gets a house to live in that's matches their needs at that time in their life. No need for someone to privately hoard a house and charge ££££ for it while doing fuck all in maintenance.

I understand if a landlord has a mortgage on the property. However I rent privately from a landlord who inherited multiple properties. He has never put up the rent but also refuses to fix any issues unless he really has to. I have previously owned a property, but couldn’t afford to rent a different property nearby as it would be between £200-£500 more a month.
With the added risk that I could end up
moving each time a landlord decides to sell up. Not ideal with children with additional needs who need structure etc but that’s another issue.
The system is wrong there needs to be more protection for both sides.

Well tbh we had no choice..we had to get out of where we were renting as it was damp and not healthy for DS. It was like moving into a palace, albeit a tiny one!

So it's greed to earn a living? Bizarre.

My cousin was left a property by her mum. Cousin can no longer work due to illness and was on her arse financially. Now let's the house at market level and no longer at risk of losing her own home. What a greedy cow.

Surely if you've purposely put your money into property to rent, because you weren't getting interest in your savings, there is nothing accidental about you being a landlord?

@Zorrita let that market be held as social housing stock with strict regulation

The housing market in the UK is broken, but, regulated social housing stock is not part of that market.

Hands up I didn't RTFT