Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Original poster

renters should support their landlords against the government

178 replies

carmellas3 · 05/08/2015 15:16

The government are starting to tax landlords more (removal of interest tax relief and ware and tear rules). If nothing is done renters will just end up paying more for rent and landlords fees increase.

There are some bad landlords, but the vast majority just want a stable income and provide a good service for people to rent.

I think the time for landlord bashing has ended.

OP posts:

MistressMia · 06/08/2015 19:42

There needs to be distinction between those who have to rent because they are priced out of buying and those who rent because it suits their particular circumstances at the time. The former are well within their rights to not see rental provision as any kind of service being provided, but for the latter it absolutely is.

Some of my tenants have had their own properties and were renting due to temporary work re-location etc. For others its been a stop gap after a relationship breakdown. None of them were renting because they wanted to buy but couldn't.

lastuseraccount123 · 06/08/2015 19:47

hmm. It would be interesting to see the breakdown on this thread between:

renters who want to buy but are priced out

and renters who want to rent and not buy.

Because arguably if the first group got what they wanted, the second would lose out as there would be less rental properties available.

MistressMia · 06/08/2015 19:58

Neither group would need to lose out if there were more properties available, full stop.

Build more and & convert more especially all the empty shops & offices.

But as a LL I welcome measures that makes BTL harder and less attractive.

suzanneyeswecan · 06/08/2015 19:59

Because arguably if the first group got what they wanted, the second would lose out as there would be less rental properties available

if house prices dropped such that those who wanted to could switch from renting to owning then the ratio between owner occupies and renters would change.
There would be fewer rental properties but also fewer renters.

Or are we positing a scenario where a majority of LL's decide that they no longer want to let their properties preferring instead to just keep them empty as investments?

lastuseraccount123 · 06/08/2015 20:20

not necessarily.

would a lot of the current people in the private rental market be happy to rent an affordable rental that was owned by the state, that they could stay in forevers? would that solve this issue?

suzanneyeswecan · 06/08/2015 20:29

it is almost axiomatic that more social housing would help

sleeponeday · 06/08/2015 21:35

Because arguably if the first group got what they wanted, the second would lose out as there would be less rental properties available.

I don't think that's true. More owner occupiers wouldn't mean less housing stock in total, it would just mean the remaining landlords would be the ones with a lot of equity, who could afford to take the decreased rents lower housing costs could command.

And agreed more social housing would solve all sorts of social problems. Not least because the nation's rental stocks would be assets in the hands of the nation - not speculators.

It's important that rental housing is available, but it always has been and always would be. What is also important is that it is affordable.

If any other life essential had suffered hyperinflation to this extent, there would be horror. And it doesn't even help most property owners, because most of us want more space as the family grows up, and if prices rocket, so does the size of the gap between starter and large family homes.

Designsalmon · 06/08/2015 22:47

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104880

For those interested, this is the official government petition on behalf of landlords against the latest adverse tax changes, which requires at least 10k signatures

suzanneyeswecan · 06/08/2015 23:04

8852 signatures, not doing especially well
legalise cannabis has 192,584

the OP in this thread is asking turkeys to vote for christmas
good luck with that

suzanneyeswecan · 06/08/2015 23:10

vote for cannabis...so that the hardworking downtrodden landlords can open head shops instead

Designsalmon · 06/08/2015 23:11

Considering the petition started on 28th July, not doing too badly

potap123 · 06/08/2015 23:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

suzanneyeswecan · 06/08/2015 23:21

legalise cannabis appears to have only been up since July 21st, stoners are getting way way more love than the landlords

hell even bee's, grouse and beagles are getting more love than landlords

poor landlords, they try so hard for society and look how it treats them

suzanneyeswecan · 06/08/2015 23:26

However, the tax changes mean we have no choice but to pass the increase to the tenants as we would make a loss on the property if we didn't by the time we've paid mortgage, insurance etc

very true!
what we really need is rent controls, then landlords would only be able to charge a fair rent.

In the same way that if you need to employ people but cant afford to pay them at least minimum wage so LL's who cant stay solvent with a fair rent would have to conclude that the business is not viable.

sleeponeday · 06/08/2015 23:28

It will actually force some landlords to sell, because they have no margins, and the reduction in tax credits and the freeze in housing benefit will mean some people can't afford to pay their rents. You can't put rents up in the assumption tenants will all be able to pay. Many just won't.

It will be less profitable to rent out property, so fewer will try to buy a BTL. Making less competition for housing, and slowing price growth (and actually therefore over time rents).

It's painful for small time landlords, no question. Also very hard on recent housebuyers. And short term, there won't be any benefit to tenants.

Longerterm, almost everyone will benefit except speculators.

suzanneyeswecan · 06/08/2015 23:43

You can't put rents up in the assumption tenants will all be able to pay. Many just won't

and the love for landlords will shrink even further, the govt will need to legislate to appease the electorate, a large percentage of whom are renters

TelephoneIgnoringMachine · 06/08/2015 23:58

LazyLouLou - I really think you've deliberately missed my point there. I couldn't give a rat's ass about hanging pictures. I would, OTOH, like to have some shelving somewhere in the house (excluding the kitchen - and there is precious little in there) that is a decent height. Unfortunately, if we do that, we run the risk of DD being crushed under the shelves if she decides to try and climb them, as we're not allowed to fix them to the walls in any way. American Ikea has recently issued a safety alert about this precise problem.

Fuckup · 07/08/2015 10:15

LazyLouLou · 07/08/2015 14:55

I really think you've deliberately missed my point there. I couldn't give a rat's ass about hanging pictures. No! I was just answering your question about pictures, offering a LL friendly alternative to nails. I said nothing about shelving as I had nothing to offer regarding it.

That your daughter tries to climb shelves is none of my business. But it does make me wonder how I survived free standing shelving all those year ago... apart from not being allowed to climb on any furniture, G Plan or other, obviously.

mollie123 · 07/08/2015 15:51

potap123
you are trying to justify the unjustifiable
you have kept hold of your old property and it worked for you to keep it in case you could go back
it is now uneconomic to keep it
you have a choice -

sell it or make a loss on the property
you cannot really expect your 'lovely tenants' to pay more so you can keep your investment
the government is removing some of your perks - you are making your tenants position worse not the government.

suzanneyeswecan · 07/08/2015 16:12

you cannot really expect your 'lovely tenants' to pay more so you can keep your investment

but they will, because they can, the tenants have very little leverage
BTL LL makes what turns out to be a bad business decision and the tenant has to take the hit.
Not exactly a free market is it

Shakey1500 · 07/08/2015 16:20

Sigh. Lots of sweeping generalisations against landlords again on this thread.

BreakingDad77 · 07/08/2015 16:51

Maybe shakey but so many people have bad experiences and its often first hand, its not friend of a friend, random relative etc.

LazyLouLou · 07/08/2015 17:05

See, you used the word some, Breaking. That makes all the difference between your observation and some of those upthread!

SnowBells · 07/08/2015 17:19

This is THE WEIRDEST AIBU ever, IMHO. And that's saying something.

I don't understand how people can compare being a LL to running a business?!? It is called property "investing". It is a freakin' INVESTMENT. You are an investor. You don't run a business.

I am so, so happy I no longer rent. In my years of renting in the UK (we're talking over 10 years), the landlords / agents that were "OK" was really equal to ONE.

I rejoiced when I heard the news that sales and profits at Foxtons have fallen. They were the worst agents ever.

I think someone needs to set up a review site for estate agents. How come there isn't one yet?!?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8