I should have the right to buy from my my to let landlord after 6 years here

[chocolatekatie]

No government will ever do it as loads of them are into buy to let hence why they do all they can to prop up the bubble.

My landlord thinks he's some businessman doing me a favour by letting me live here. Actually he's the problem, he just had money so can afford to buy up property - push up the price and force people like me to rent.

Landlords provide something that people need and are willing to pay for

That's the whole problem. Housing isn't a luxury item that we can get on quite nicely without, it's an absolute necessity. Landlords are basically taking control over an important resource and are charging a premium for others to use it.

londonrach

So you got guzumpted by another buyer?

Somewhat different scenario to what I described, I did not burn any other would be buyers in the process of letting my flat out.

I have been guzumpted in the past as well, its shit, so my sympathies there.

TheChandler - can you really not see the difference between someone choosing to move home for work reasons and being evicted?

There's some pretty shitty comments about homeowners and landlords on here, I think I may abandon my house purchase and rent, as it least then I can be classed as a nice person

Pan...by a buy to letter who put it onto the rental market. Almost two years later we still renting as each flat was being snapped up by this market, pushing the flats out if reach of normal people. I still dont think op is being reasonable in her post but its a nasty market thats having a major effect on alot of people. Do you know the ea wanted £50 up front so he could inform us first re flats and properties. For us its was too much per ea (only one mentioned it) but for a buy to letter its a business expense.

Landlords are basically taking control over an important resource and are charging a premium for others to use it.

It has been pointed out by several tenants that the rent they pay is less than what a mortgage on a similar property would cost them (not even including insurance and maintenance costs) so I'm not sure how the landlords are all charging a premium.

YABU to expect a discount to buy a house, just because you have rented the property.
You have a right to buy the house if the LL decides to sell, just the same as anybody else.
Why don't you make them an offer, they can only refuse if you don't offer enough.

Because the rent is still too expensive to allow to save a deposit for a house was the reason given, Superexcited

Super the mortgage on a similar properly where I live would be much less than the rent. Approx £1200 rent, or £800 mortgage.

The tenant not being able to save a deposit doesn't necessarily mean the landlord is charging excessive rent honeydragon.

I feel your pain OP, having rented from a mean landlord. Now I own thankfully and it is better, so I would never offer up any of those trite platitudes like 'you're lucky not to own'

Have you looked in to options like buying a small plot and buying an 'off the peg' timber frame house? I know people who've done this and ended up with an albeit small house a bit out of town for 20k (inc the small plot).

this kind of thing

Cruikshank TheChandler - can you really not see the difference between someone choosing to move home for work reasons and being evicted?

That's hardly the point made in the OP. There are many reasons for eviction, and a lengthy notice period required by law first. Tenants are not the only ones who can be effectively evicted - if a private homeowner doesn't pay their mortgage, they will eventually be thrown out so the property can be repossessed.

I'm loving your word "choice" there too - "choosing to move home for work reasons" sounds so lovely, almost idyllic, as in you think, "ah yes, I think I'll just choose to move to a different part of the country for work, just for something to do", rather than "oh shit, redundancy payment will only pay my mortgage for 5 months, better move to a place I'd rather not live in, where I know no-one but have a job offer".

Maybe we could even move to Sweden! Except I've heard the waiting lists for even the smallest, grottiest flats are years long...

superexcited I know that I was just giving a synopsis of the earlier reasons from others

I'm not in the SE and I know that the housing situation is very different there but I am perplexed at the idea that BTL is the sole reason for the increases in property prices.

The street I currently live in has only owner occupiers, not a single house is occupied by tenants and yet house prices have risen by about 25% in the five years I have lived here.
The street (and area) I used to live in has around 40% of homes occupied by tenants and yet house prices have only increased by about 10% in the five years that I lived there.
The area I lived prior to that has about 80% of the houses occupied by tenants and yet those house prices have not increased at all in the last five years.

I had to search quite a lot to find a house to rent in my current area, I did find one a few streets away and the rent on it (3 bed semi) is £800pcm and the asking price for similar houses is £190,000. I'm not sure that the rental price equates to some greedy landlord who is charging excessively and ripping people off leaving them unable to save for a deposit.

The size of deposits required (min 10% and often more) is a huge problem for FTB but we can't really blame that on BTL landlords as they are not the ones who make up lending criteria.

There are some shit landlords who don't maintain their properties adequately and I think we need tighter controls on that but going around saying that BTL landlords are all greedy feckers who are ripping people off is IMO not always accurate.

It has been pointed out by several tenants that the rent they pay is less than what a mortgage on a similar property would cost them (not even including insurance and maintenance costs) so I'm not sure how the landlords are all charging a premium.

It's very difficult to know how much you'd be paying on a mortgage until you've gone to see your mortgage adviser, told them your deposit and how much you'd need to borrow. On average across the nation, mortgages are cheaper than renting privately.

Was there ever a time when there weren't buy to let landlords?

In 1918 - only 23% owned their own homes. Streets and streets in towns, whole villages, were owned by the same landlord, managed by an agent. Even wealthy people rented in London.

It was only in the 50's that ordinary people aspired to own their own home.
In 1971, it was 50/50, between renters and owner occupiers, but a much higher percentage were in social housing.

RTB in 1980 changed that. It's now about 64% owner occupied. (Except in London - 50.6%) Rental equally split between private and social. But the state subsidises private rental through H.B. and LA's are struggling to house their homeless. Capping HB has increased their number, not, as was said, lowered rents.

We will always need a rental sector, whether private or social. People get evicted from the houses they 'own', too, when they can't pay the mortgage. Making it easier for people to buy can have disastrous consequences - e.g. the sub-prime debacle in the U.S. which triggered the global financial crisis. It also puts prices up by increasing demand.

It's far too complicated to blame it all on btl landlords, some of whom are the victims of private firms no longer contributing to pension schemes. But tenants need more security in terms of tenure and rent rises.

The real scandal has been the failure to build more homes to house an increasing population.

Thymout Was there ever a time when there weren't buy to let landlords?

Its simply a type of mortgage.

German Jews were thought of as being more likely to be landlords than other Germans in the period leading up to the Second World War, and it was given as one of the reasons for their persecution by the Nazis.

Personally, I think increasing inheritance tax would be a far bigger step towards making homes more affordable...

I live in the southeast and not in a particularly nice house or great area, but we are settled here, we both work, the children are in school/college and have friends etc. We have friends and a decent social life.

Our pretty shabby house (desperately needs a new kitchen and bathroom) would go for at least £340k. Houses already done up fetch over £350k. The new builds in the area are at least £400k.

We earn over £50k between us, but we couldn't get a mortgage to buy the house we are in now. We do have a deposit and a fairly hefty one, but no one has offered us anywhere near enough to buy in the same area. Also our rent is £1050 and a mortgage would be £1500 per month on a £290k mortgage for a £350k property. well we could just about afford to pay that mortgage, if we go without a holiday etc, but the bank wouldn't lend us that much anyway. they would offer a maximum of £200k. We can't buy a flat here for that much let alone a house. we would have to move back north, but oh wait a minute, then my £30k salary goes down to about £18k and h's almost £30k salary goes down to £0 as the jobs aren't there they are in the south east, he could go back to factory work and earn £15k ish but then we'd be in the same position as the ratios salary/mortgage would be the same as being here where we are settled.

I'm not actually too concerned about renting. I would like more security and longer rental agreements, some way of preventing a property with long term tenants in being sold and them facing eviction, perhaps being brought by a new landlord with sitting tenants? But renting actually suits us a family, we don't have the worry of what if the boiler breaks how will we pay for it, what if the roof leaks/the fence blows down in the gales etc.

I'd quite like the stigma of being a renter removed. What is wrong with renting? Why is property the be all and end all. You're only going to have to sell the house in old age to pay for care homes or your dc will get it all anyway.

New build should be covered by a covenant against BTL and new BTL buys put under a less favourable tax regime.

V good idea Andrew.

It won't happen, of course...

German Jews were thought of as being more likely to be landlords than other Germans in the period leading up to the Second World War, and it was given as one of the reasons for their persecution by the Nazis.

And there goes the bell.

I think increasing inheritance tax would be a far bigger step towards making homes more affordable

Absolutely!

"I feel your pain OP, having rented from a mean landlord. Now I own thankfully and it is better, so I would never offer up any of those trite platitudes like 'you're lucky not to own'"

I have experienced being a tenant with nasty landlords and now I rent out two properties. I had a weird landlord who used let himself into my flat and then give me strange religious literature. I had to threaten him with small claims court to get a £700 deposit back. He was awful, nasty and slimy man.

I feel that ideas of improving renting for tenants should be tried out in a small part of the country on an experimental basis before being rolled out nationally. Housing issues vary across the country and what is a problem in London is often not a problem in the rest of the UK. I am not sure that longer tenancies are best for the tenant. It might reduce the supply of rentable properities and mean that bad landlords can still get a tenant even if they don't fix the boiler.

The bedroom tax is a fine example of a measure which has different consequences in different parts of the country. (Ie. housing association 3 bed houses being left empty and people pushed into private two bed rental which costs more in the north of England, however in London there is a lot to be said for freeing up three bed social housing for those who need it.) Some ideas like longer tenancies might have unpredicted negative consequences.

thechandler you disagree because you have tenants that only stay for six months?

Which clearly falls outside of the idea of "if I'm in the same place for 5 or 10 years" and clearly want to buy the place and so stay there likely for a further number years?
given I said also buy at market rate it's not like I'm talking about compulsory purchase of a landlords asset at a below market rate so that I could immediately sell it for profit.

Additionally, you don't need to move to be "economically active" plenty of people still stay in the same jobs for many years, (I've been in my current job for 7 years, and have no desire to move.)
Plenty of people have kids in schools and friends, and family and want to stay in an area where they are quite economically active...

I guess the crux of what I'm saying is:
Do you believe that people can build a family home in a house that is rented?

The logical implications being that if you say "no" then you must agree that single pensioners whose kids have flown the nest should be forced to re-locate from council houses to free them up for what you term as "economically active" people. because they can't be tied to a house that they don't own.

In short, I never suggested that private renters should be shielded from economic pressures, I quite specifically said that those renters should be forced to pay the "average valuation" (which would be market value) or whatever the landlord wants, whichever is lower. - this would be to stop landlords asking for 500k for a home valued at 250k just so that they could hold on to it. but would allow a landlord to decide that they wanted to sell for less than market value.

So basically you object because it's an idea that might mean you as a landlord might have to look for a house every now and again? like you'd actually need to get off of your behind and do some work instead of just waiting for a rent cheque each month??

also, my experience as a renter is:
it is hassle to move house.
it costs a lot in estate agent fees (hundreds in fees for credit checking, and contracts), renting a van to move, and getting friends to help or paying for professional movers, in some cases paying for professional cleaning which may be stipulated in the contract, not to mention the time needed off of work to view properties before moving, paying for service contracts for utilities (e.g. phone/internet) that can only be purchased as a 12 month contracts and may not be portable, the time needed to update any post that you have, cost of mail forwarding services, the fact that if you stay in a place for six months and then go to another place for six months you'll pay 12 months of council tax payments (as you won't get the 2 month holiday), extra funds needed in deposits... most people stay for a bit longer than six months.

And if your tenants don't it possibly says something about the landlord, the house, the area, the estate agents or a combination of all those!

I'd quite like the stigma of being a renter removed. What is wrong with renting? Why is property the be all and end all. You're only going to have to sell the house in old age to pay for care homes or your dc will get it all anyway. nothing is wrong with renting.
but you have more security as a home owner.
Where I live rents are slightly higher than mortgage payments, but even if we pretend that they are the same, then at the end of 25 years the owner will have a house to sell to provide for themselves in retirement, the renter will not.
even if rents are 10% less than a mortgage the home owner still wins out.

being able to own a house is an effective way of saving, renting a house is an effective way of giving anything you could save to someone else for their old age/care/kids

I don't think TheChandler understands what is meant by the phrase 'economically active', tbf (hint, TheChandler: it doesn't mean 'someone who is moving house'). Still, she also appears to think that this thread = Kristallnacht so I'm not surprised there is a degree of confusion with other matters also.

PS Godwin.