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!

[ReallyTired]

Ha! Ha!

I am pleased that there is alternative to Tory austerity, even if JC wants to tax me to obvillion. Sometimes politicians that you disagree with can shape govement policy to be better for everyone.

[cruikshank]

Wtf does Germany not being overcrowded have to do with whether or not tenants should have security of tenure? I really don't get how that correlates.

As for hating you, specialsubject, I think you give yourself more importance than you actually have. I just think that landlords as a group are not beneficial to society, given that they cost us billions every year and don't keep their properties up to scratch. What has happened since the late 80s onwards is effectively an attempt to privatise the provision of rented housing and it has been, in both social and economic terms, a disaster. Private individuals are not equipped to provide housing on a large scale: you see it time and time again on threads like these and indeed this thread - the whole 'Oh it's so hard for me as a landlord. If my tenant doesn't pay I can't pay my mortgage or put food on the table for my children. I have to fork out for new boilers and decorations and it's killing me'. They can't cope. And if they can't cope, then they can't provide decent affordable housing. It just doesn't work.

^
I don't get the "security of tenure" argument either.^

Oh really? You don't think it's an issue that tenants who pay their rent on time, keep the property in good condition, don't breach their contract etc can be evicted for no reason? Or that 29% of homelessness applications are caused by termination of ASTs, with not only the fear and misery it causes to the tenants involved but also the associated costs to the state.

[absolutelynotfabulous]

cruikshank I don't understand what you mean by "evicted without reason". Could you clarify?

With regards to "security of tenure" I simply meant that, for many renters, security of tenure is not an issue. Many renters want flexibilty. For those who want something longer term, then many, if not the majority, of landlords, including myself, would be happy to accommodate a longer tenancy with a reliable tenant as it would be in both parties' interests to do so.

[cruikshank]

I mean that a landlord can evict despite there being no breach of contract on the part of the tenant. This doesn't happen on the continent.

I simply meant that, for many renters, security of tenure is not an issue.

And you know that how, exactly? I would posit that it is an issue for the people who are deemed homeless as a result of being evicted despite not having breached the terms of their tenure.


For those who want something longer term, then many, if not the majority, of landlords, including myself, would be happy to accommodate a longer tenancy with a reliable tenant as it would be in both parties' interests to do so.

That sounds very encouraging. Would you, in common with specialsubject, be happy to accommodate a longer tenancy that didn't require tenants to pay the rent for the entire term should they wish to vacate the property during it?

[absolutelynotfabulous]

Well, in my experience of the rental sector (in a smallish city), rentals are mainly taken up with young people who do not wish to take up longer term tenancies for a variety of reasons. Some need to move around for work. Others are filling a gap whilst waiting to buy. Others may be students for whom being in a,particular location is a temporary state of affairs. These type of renters seem fairly typical around here atm.

In the case of, say, families with children who need to be close to a school/ in a catchment area for a long period of time then security of tenure over the longer term may be more of an issue. Many landlords will not take people on HB and others who will not take children or pets, for example.

I must admit I can't think of any circumstances in which a tenant would vacate a property and then return to it within the period of the tenancy whist not having paid the rent. I've heard of landlords letting to the same student over the course of more than one academic year (with a break between them) but these would be under separate tenancy agreements. These properties would otherwise remain empty over the summer, so this arrangement works well for both landlord and tenant.

Would I allow a rent-free period in a tenancy? Truthfully, no. I think it's too much of an ask for most landlords, particularly small ones who depend on the income. Unless, of course, the missing rental period was somehow covered in another way (such as a higher rent for the rest of the period maybe?). Maybe such an arrangement would be workable in areas where there is a glut of property. I dunno. It's basically about what the market will stand. Supply and demand again!

You've raised an interesting point though. I think, as a nation, we have perhaps become overinvested in property ownership over the past fifty or sixty years. Ownership has peaked and has fallen back. What everyone seems to agree on, though, is that we desperately need more affordable housing.

[JanetBlyton]

Some interesting stats here www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

23% home owners in 1918 to 64% now
77% private rental 1918, now only 36%

[MrsJorahMormont]

I just think that landlords as a group are not beneficial to society

Cruikshank you really do talk some shit. Landlords benefitted me greatly when I was a student and young professional. I benefit anyone who wants to temporarily live in a nice house in a nice area with great schools and amenities. They can move after six months or stay there for ten years, whatever suits - just as long as they pay their bloody rent.

I can see this thread going round and round in a circle forever - 'landlords goooood', 'landlords baaaaaad'. Seriously, change the tune someone.

[cruikshank]

Would I allow a rent-free period in a tenancy? Truthfully, no. I think it's too much of an ask for most landlords, particularly small ones who depend on the income. Unless, of course, the missing rental period was somehow covered in another way (such as a higher rent for the rest of the period maybe?). Maybe such an arrangement would be workable in areas where there is a glut of property. I dunno. It's basically about what the market will stand. Supply and demand again!

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I was talking about situations like on the continent where tenants are granted long-term lets but don't have to commit to the entire tenure of the rent - ie they can move out on a month's notice if they need to. But the landlord can't evict them. In the UK, for the most part (except for specialsubject) if a tenant signs a long let then they are liable for the full rent for the entire term of that rent, even if it's five years (there have been recent court cases confirming this).

I think that is one of the fundamental things that needs to change, along with rent controls (which most other countries not just on the Continent but also for eg the US have). Security for tenants, no arbitrary evictions, and a limit on how much landlords can charge. That would not only make life easier for tenants but would cost us tax-payers billions less not only in terms of housing benefit payments but also in terms of emergency accommodation and other homelessness provision etc.

[cruikshank]

Cruikshank you really do talk some shit

Nice. I have outlined how landlords cost the country billions of pounds a year in housing benefit. I have outlined how the legislative structure around landlords and tenants results in 29% of homeless applications accepted by LAs being due to tenancy laws in this country, which landlords benefit from. Your response to this is to say 'well I'm a nice landlord so therefore there can't be a problem'. See also: the world is a great big fucking onion, fairies clean my house and la-la-la where's my fucking valium. Yet I'm the one who's talking shit? Ffs. Grow the fuck up.

[stripytees]

It would not be in any landlord's interest to get rid of a good tenant. Void periods cost money and the next set of tenants will likely want a professional cleaning etc. which all costs money.

As my lettings agent just said last week, most tenants initially say they are looking for a longer term home but circumstances change and a lot won't renew after the first year.

[cruikshank]

If all landlords wouldn't evict tenants, then what would be the problem with moving to a more continental system?

[ReallyTired]

If a tenant is struggling to pay then he/she needs to discusses the situation with the landlord. knowing that a tenant is going to be late with their rent because their employer has f@cked the payroll is different from someone refusing to pay. Of course if a tenant constantly takes the piss then they will be evicted after the AST has run its course.

[m1nniedriver]

What if a landlords situation changes within that rental period? They may not be in a position to maintain the property, oay mirtgage etc but they can not end the lease? Bi can't see how that is workable?

[MrsJorahMormont]

Yes Cruikshanks you have 'outlined' banged on about this 29 gazillion pounds LLs all cost the world every year and how LLs are responsible for creating homelessness and probably ebola and global warming too. Like, where people don't pay their rent for example? Like my tenant who prefers hitting Top Shop to paying her bills? Maybe when I evict her she'll sing a good sob story to some LA that she's being made homeless by a wicked LL being allowed to evict her instead of staying and robbing me indefinitely.

NOT ALL RENTERS ARE ON BENEFITS! I'm writing that in capitals because you keep making these thicko sweeping statements about LLs as if they are a generic mob stealing from the faceless poor. Some LLs serve the needs of low-income tenants. Others serve the needs of professionals or students - people who are not accepting housing benefit or indeed related benefits; people who prefer the flexibility to move rather than buy. Landlords as a group are VERY beneficial to these kinds of tenants so PLEASE for the love of jehovah stop portraying LLs and tenants as one size fits all. Because, really, I'm not the one who needs to grow up here. 'FFS'

[absolutelynotfabulous]

I'm sorry cruikshank but I'm struggling to get my head around what you're proposing vis ?? vis long lets. I think the system as it is, for the most part, works ok, but I don't think more regulation is the answer. As for capping rents-no. Not in the short term, anyway. Maybe there's a case for this in certain parts of the country but not in general Imo. The rental market is self-regulating and rents settle at a level the market will tolerate. This is unlikely to change unless there is a major investment in housing to create an increase in supply.

[cruikshank]

MrsJorahmormont, your tenant would probably be classed as intentionally homeless - that's why I made the distinction that 29% of accepted homelessness cases were due to termination of ASTs. She wouldn't count in that figure.

I am well aware that not all tenants are on benefits - as I have said several times, 27% of them claim HB so I know that it's not all of them. A fair few of the others, though, will be on Tax Credits (don't know what the figures for those are though but again it's public money that is going into private hands).

Look, you're obviously earning a fair old wodge if you can afford to buy a house and then have another for spare, shits, rent and giggles. Given that, you've probably had at least a smattering of education at some point. As such, I am finding it increasingly frustrating having a conversation with you where you fail to recognise that not everyone goes from 'renting with friends and oh it's such a laugh and we can be flexible and where's my lacrosse stick' to 'buying because after all you can't rent forever and anyway I can afford it'. There are plenty of households who are stuck renting, who aren't med students having a blast and just jollying along like they're poor folk, who are actually poor folk, who have no choice but to rent, but have no security in their homes beyond two months' notice at any time even if they pay up and keep the place nice, one in three of whom can't afford their rent without HB and even more who couldn't afford it without tax credits. Landlords as a group benefit from this situation and cost the country money, and it isn't doing us any favours economically or socially. So I don't much give a shit about your tenant and her handbags, or about how the extra home that you don't fucking need is going to cost you a bit more money than you'd like, when there are tens of thousands of families living in emergency accommodation, when there are families being made homeless by private landlords, and all that people like you can do is say 'Oh well yah but it's so flexible'.

[m1nniedriver]

If you rent privately you know it's a possibility that you could get 2 months notice. 2 months is plenty of time to find somewhere else. people always want to blame others, take responsibility for your own life rather than blaming others when it goes wrong!!

[JanetBlyton]

Indeed and the entitled lot neve win out in the end anyway in life so it doesn't benefit them to have that attitude.

In London we always found the tenants wanted to mvoe sooner than the landlord. My daughter's last tenants were young doctors, no children, who are moved around the country at that age and do not want to be tied down.

However even landlords don't know when their situation will change eg they might lose their job or need to move into the property themselves or sell because the Government changes the law on tax reliefs or property prices are about the plummet or whatever.

So for the left wing the only way lettings are likely to work in the way they want is ensure only the state lets property to anyone or non profit social housing companies. I doubt that change is likely to benefit tenants.

[cruikshank]

Well, except for the fact that they would have security of tenure and not be prey to the whims of the so-called 'free market', that is. Apart from that, you are completely right.

[cruikshank]

take responsibility for your own life rather than blaming others when it goes wrong!!

Is it really so irresponsible to blame a landlord for evicting you when, in fact, a landlord has evicted you? Who else is responsible?

[m1nniedriver]

being 'evicted' with 2 months notice does not make someone homeless. Not finding somewhere else to live makes you homeless.

[cruikshank]

Right. So not having a home, and being evicted from your home, doesn't make a person homeless. Are there any other words in the dictionary that you want to redefine?

[m1nniedriver]

I'm not arguing about what being homeless is I'm suggesting that if a landlord gives 2 months notice, it's not the landlords fault if the person doesn't find alternative accommodation. Surely if your renting a property you go into it fully aware that this could happen. Very easy to blame others. I spent years renting and for the majority of properties we only had 1 months notice. I was never homeless? Not redefining anything, just trying as many others have to show you the lack of logic in your thinking.

[cruikshank]

All of this talk about 'landlord's fault' is missing the point. If a person doesn't have a home, they are homeless. If they don't have a home because they have been evicted from their home by a landlord they are, similarly, homeless.

Do you have learning difficulties?

[Sansoora]

I have outlined how landlords cost the country billions of pounds a year in housing benefit.

Thats not what you outlined.

You in actual fact outlined that people claim benefits and some of the benefit goes towards their rent.