To ask for your experience as a buy-to-let landlord?

[iPaid]

I'm thinking of buying a house or two and renting them out to hopefully fund my retirement in 15 years or so.

Would appreciate any advice or sharing of experience - good and bad!

I think its you that's missing the point. If a person becomes homeless because they have been given 2 months notice it's their own fault, no one else's. You strike me as exactly this type of person. Bitter, jealous, blaming others and the unfairness of life for your own miserable one.

No learning difficulties at my end a low tolerance for whinging morons ... Most definitely.

Ah ok. So a person who is homeless because they have been evicted by their landlord has actually made themselves homeless?

I'm sorry. I'm just really struggling to figure out by what rhetorical rubric someone without a home isn't homeless, or alternatively is homeless but it's their fault that they are homeless when their landlord has evicted them.

I can see you're struggling. Don't give yourself a headache over it. Of course the landlord is responsible for their tenants wellbeing for the rest of their life gently pats Cruikshank on the back

Housing is a cost, food is a cost and so is heating and water. Supermarkets, utilities companies receive money to provide life essentials to those on benefits. In my area it's cheaper to rent than to buy. The only way many landlords make money is to have an interest only mortgage. Home owners are not allowed a new interest only mortgage. Many landlords sell the property at the end of the mortgage term to pay off the interest only mortgage. A home owner would have to find somewhere else to live if they were forced to sell their main residence to pay off a mortgage.

The buy to let market would change dramatically if landlords were forced to have repayment mortgages.

A lot of empty properties are in areas of the UK where no one wants to live.

Supermarkets throw away loads of perfectly good food, yet we have food banks. The food been thrown away is unwanted just like the houses in County Durham.

Tenants do struggle to find work AND affordable housing. I am not sure of what the answer is. A tenant may struggle to find a new deposit. Even with an honest landlord it often takes seven days after the tenancy has ended to get a deposit out of a deposit protection scheme. Many tenants do not have huge savings. Finding one and half grand for agency fees and a deposit is hard.

A landlord giving 2 months notice is not responsible for making a person homeless. My point isn't difficult to understand but given your grasp of the English language I'm not surprised you don't get it.

Unfortunately I can't see that post being left on for long, no doubt someone will report it. It certainly won't be me, the more people that see your anger at being out debated the better

I'd suggest cutting back on the drugs and upping your prescribed medication my friend. This can't be good for your blood pressie

Yes, you're right. I've been out debated by someone who thinks that a landlord who evicts their tenant isn't responsible for making them homeless. In fact, there are no homeless people at all, and the number of them certainly hasn't risen astronomically since 2011. They're all just not trying hard enough. They aren't really homeless. They're probably doing it for a laugh.

You keep missing out the notice period I mentioned cruickie, but feel free to keep editing responses to suit yourself if it makes you feel better, I don't mind really. I'm all about helping those less fortunate than myself

What a load of.twaddle minnie driver.

Its not ways easy to find another rental within 2 months. Especialy if there are extenuating factors, e.g. tenant has kids or claims some HB and is therefore not a 'perfect' tenant. They may have been a great tenant and always aid rent on time and looked after the plqce.The landlord IS potentially causing homelessness.

2 months notice is enough time to find alternative accommodation. It's not the landlords responsibility to house people indefinitely . Anyone privately renting knows how much notice they will be given and should adjust accordingly. Not a popular view on this site but nevertheless it's reality. What if the LL situation changes and they need to sell, move back into THEIR property etc? These things happen. 2 months notice is very fair IMO.

Look m1nniedriver it is a pity cruikshank lost her temper and swore at you, but I have to agree with a lot of what she says. She seems to know a lot about the housing issue, whereas I don't think you really get it.

Just a few posts back you gave us this: -

If a person becomes homeless because they have been given 2 months notice it's their own fault, no one else's - er, what? Who else's fault could it be but the landlord's? Often on Mumsnet I have seen a post from someone, usually with children, who has been renting privately for a while, quite happily and the landlord is going to sell or something. Often the poster can find nowhere else willing to take them. Sometimes this could be because landlords prefer 'professionals' with no children, and most private tenancies will not accept anyone on housing benefit. Even though she could have been the perfect tenant. So how on earth is it that tenant's fault if she has tried and tried to find another place, but ends up homeless?

I think your position is that anyone 'choosing to rent privately' has therefore accepted they may be given 2 months notice. But what other 'choice' do they have if they can't afford to buy? Social housing is almost impossible to get.

And (a lot) earlier on in the thread, you said:

Can someone explain to me why a shortage of houses has anything to do with landlords?

There is a limited supply of housing in the country. As other posters have outlined, many landlords are able to get buy-to-let mortgages very easily, and have unfair advantages in buying. This increases demand and pushes prices up for everyone. Isn't that obvious?

Surely if those renting wanted to/could afford to they would buy a house?

A lot of them do want to, I can tell you! Yes, renting is more suitable for some (those just starting out in life, moving to a new area, students, those on a very low income). And so the UK does need some private landlords to fulfil the needs of those in the above situations, but now there are far too many landlords, it has just got out of control. And while I am sure there are many lovely landlords who wouldn't dream of doing down their tenants, (I had one once, and the present one is not too bad, at least he leaves us alone and doesn't put up the rent!) there are also many crap ones who couldn't care less. Like my daughter's landlady. That's why more regulation is needed.

There are a lot of people renting now who would prefer to buy, especially in London/South East, but are completely outpriced. And a lot of that is due to private landlords unfortunately.

m1nniedriver if anyone has been out-debated on this thread, it is very plainly you. You appear to live in an alternate universe, in which property prices are detached from supply and demand increases caused by BTL, where everyone could buy if they chose, and where there are never circumstances in which good tenants can't find property they can afford. Pleasant for you, I'm sure, but (as someone who volunteers for an agency trying to support/assist homeless people) delusional nonetheless. No matter how many passive aggressive smilies and snippy little swipes you choose to post.

So you're saying if a landlord takes in tenants he becomes responsible for housing them forever that's ridiculous!

Out debated by someone who starts calling others a cunt only on MN.

Out debated by someone who starts calling others a cunt grin only on MN.

A thick as mince fat cunt!

I love mince.

As my statistics showed above there has been a massive increase in people buying their own homes since 1914 when the private rented sector was by far the biggest provider. We are no way back to 1914 levels of renting from private landlords.

Thos talking about mortgage by the way my son was lokoing at buying a buy to let as his sister did 2 years ago. She could get a buy to let loan for a first purchase whilst living at home and with friends for 2 years which worked out well for her. He cannot because they have changed the rules in the last 2 years. We found no remaining lender not even Virgin who will give a buy to let to anyone who does not already own a place. I suspect most potential landlords already own their own home so I doubt that change will have a major impact but it does show how the rules are changing quite quickly.

The bottom line is that people who take rseponsibiltiy for themselves do well and those who think someone else owes them a living and goes all oh woe is me, wicked landlords in life tends to shoot themselves in the foot. There are some bad landlords. Most are not and over two thirds go nowhere near anyone on housing benefit as we saw from the above statistics. Most landlords make fairly slim profits unless and until property prices rise. I am still sitting on the large losses we made when selling two flats at 50% less than we paid for them in the 90s property crash so we must have made minus a very large number % on those properties! It is not a one way street of always making big capital profits subject to 28% capital gains tax. I have the capital losses scars to show for it.

I also love mince, it's so versatile

Well you are not secure in a house with a mortgage either! Welcome to being an adult! Should I not be able to pay I would be evicted too. That might not be my fault either. I might become ill, have an accident interest rates might go through the roof, employer might go under...all sorts of things.

Indeed. Life is hard. All we can do is work hard and do the best we can.

The bottom line is that people who take rseponsibiltiy for themselves do well and those who think someone else owes them a living and goes all oh woe is me, wicked landlords in life tends to shoot themselves in the foot.

Says the woman who can afford and is willing to house her adult children so they can get on the property ladder via BTL.

There's an American saying, "Born on third base; thinks they scored a home run." There is something especially unpleasant about privileged people insisting everyone could be as fortunate, if they chose. Try meeting some of our clients for just one session. Life is a great deal less shinily Bodenesque for the majority.

And yes, M1nnie, you were out-debated. Cunt is just a word. Its use does not alter facts, and in my view is rather less tiresome than your own snide deployment of smilies/simpering approach to insult.

I think being able to rent a property for short term use very beneficial. It's helped me early in my life when I needed to work many miles from home and I am grateful to the landlords who allowed very short term lets of three months when I needed to move at short notice round the country.

My point is no one has security of tenure really, unless you own a house outright. The landlords themselves will not be secure either, but then life isn't for the majority of people.

In fact renting can be more secure than buying in some circumstances. You will know what your rent will be each month, with a mortgage unless you pay lots of money to fix you are subject to sudden interest rate rises which makes your housing costs suddenly increase.

snide deployment of smilies? Love it!

So basically landlords are the main cause of homelessness. They are responsible for housing their tenants beyond the terms of a lease no matter what their own circumstances are? if I coukd I would deploy a crying with laughter smilie.

Also presuming that all LL are privileged and all tenents are poverty stricken single mothers is the basis for this thread. Very tiresome!

I really don't get it.
Why would any sane landlord, unless they are forced to sell up by some unexpected and difficult circumstances like illness or such, choose to evict their tenants who pay on time and keep property in good order??

Is anyone suggesting that LL would evict perfectly good tenants out of spite??
This is plain ridiculous to suggest.
And while theoretically possible, of course, is far removed from reality.
LL are business oriented people, not lunatics. Only financially illiterate would contemplate kicking out good tenants.

And no, I would not evict good, on-time paying tenants so that I can get x pounds extra in rent from new ones. Neither would majority of LL.
Not because we are 'naice' people but because figures don't stack up. Costs associated with a new tenancy e.g. professional cleaning, inventory preparation, some repairs (yes we often have to deal with hallways and staircases damaged during removal - moving in process), possible gaps/voids during which period there are water rates, standing charges for electricity and gas, and often council tax to pay (many councils in greater London don't offer any discounts for unoccupied properties any longer).

Why, oh why, would LL do that? Could someone explain please.

I am not saying the statistics by Cruikshank are wrong. The big question is why. I just can't believe all those included in the statistics, or even that the majority of those included in the statistics, are reliable and responsible tenants being evicted by evil LLs for fun / out of spite.

I also know that, in order to get a priority on the LA housing waiting list, some tenants may 'orchestrate' a situation when they get evicted from their private rental.
I don't extrapolate. But it certainly happens, at least sometimes, and I can't help but think that such orchestrated evictions may form part of the statistics mentioned by Cruikshank.

It's not all black and white, and there are bitter and happy stories on both sides of the fence.

Ultimately though, I believe that people are responsible for their own well being and destinies. We are extremely lucky to have an unprecedented welfare system in this country. Those at the left end of the political spectrum would be better off channeling their energy into supporting ambition and achievement, instead of having a go at those who managed to succeed.

It's not only those born rich and privileged that succeed. Yes, there are social mobility issues in the UK and noone denies that. However, compared to the rest of the world, we are in a good place. Education, good work ethics, choosing profession carefully, financial discipline all contribute to an individuals' success.

"I really don't get it.
Why would any sane landlord, unless they are forced to sell up by some unexpected and difficult circumstances like illness or such, choose to evict their tenants who pay on time and keep property in good order?? "

Sometimes landlords have to sell the property to pay off a mortgage or they want to release equity for other reasons. To a landlord owning a house is a bit like shares. They might buy the property when the price is low and then sell in five to ten years at a profit.

Is anyone suggesting that LL would evict perfectly good tenants out of spite??
This is plain ridiculous to suggest.

Google "retaliatory evictions". It's such a huge problem the CAB collated data on it as part of its policy wing in order to present Parliament with suggested areas of legislation. Landlords will refuse to repair properties in line with their legal obligations, and if tenants kick up any sort of a fuss, they are promptly evicted. So they have a choice: live without a functional boiler, or with burst pipes, or a ceiling which has started to fall in, or risk being evicted. If someone relies on housing benefit to live, then finding a new tenancy may be impossible.

A chap who worked for my husband a few years ago actually agreed to leave his rented house, because the landlord was facing serious financial problems and wanted to sell while he could get a fair price instead of a repossessed one. Except the chap's partner was on maternity leave, and they discovered that rents had risen and no agency would accept their current income levels, so they couldn't get a new property. The council said they'd made themselves intentionally homeless, so wouldn't help. Fortunately Shelter have an advice line, which we recommended they called, and the council were informing them incorrectly as they had a young baby. But the shocking reality was that they needed to refuse to accommodate their (very good, pleasant) landlord and wait to be formally evicted, so they could claim they were involuntarily homeless. By accepting a notice period, they were deemed intentionally so.

Some tenants are awful, no question - friends have experienced that more than once. And some landlords are great, and some people prefer to rent. But ignoring the basic economic reality of the damage BTL as an industry does in terms of the price of such a fundamental commodity as housing is... disingenuous, at very best.

And harking back to the past, when more recently we had rent controls, and further back we had even more desperate income equality/slum landlords were the norm, is not an intellectually respectable argument.