To think hording something essential for life is despicable

[sandrabedminster]

www.telegraph.co.uk/money/special-reports/i-have-three-properties-at-age-33-and-3000-a-month-to-save-do-i/

Its not jealousy before someone says it, I own my own home but I doubt my children will ever be able to. But shelter is something essential and all this speculation is causing lots of damage as prices are pushed ever higher. I know a friend that spends 70% of net income just on renting something that is too small for her.

Also, teachers and doctors are doing difficult, necessary and important jobs. They are highly skilled and deserve their earnings.

Landlords, by comparison, are not doing anything, let alone anything useful or important. The extent of their effort is to have bought an investment property at some point in the past. Probably when property prices were cheaper. They are now gouging tenants for every penny. They have no skills. They add nothing of any value to the property. If every landlord went up in a puff of smoke tomorrow, it wouldn't make the properties one whit less livable in.

It's a joke that landlords can compare their social value to doctors and teachers. The latter help the public with their valuable skills. The former are parasites.

its a joke that landlords can compare their social value to doctors and teachers.

Great post. Its very surprising the depth landlords here are going to claim altruistic motives.

They are basically bottom feeders gambling on borrowed money.

Earned money in many cases,from work. So what do you do for a living?

Sandrabedminster I don't think landlords are claiming to be altruistic. I think you are fabricating a defence for your argument which just isn't on the thread. Landlords are just doing a job. I think the point being made time and time again is that there is a demand for rented accommodation, whether you like it or not, and therefore landlords need to exist. What would be your solution? Ban all landlords and take the rental market under state control? Only allow landlords which ace undergone some sort of state approved character test? What's your answer?

I would also like to know what the solution is for those that think landlords are exploitative scum.

Outlaw private landlords. Then what happens?

Personally I would address second homes/holiday home buyers first. Outpricing locals and then leaving them empty for most of the year.

The solution is to offer tenants longer tenancy agreements - 3, 5, 10 yrs. Landlords should have to sign onto a landlord register - pass rigorous tests on finance, maintenance etc.

Building more council houses might also help.

The solution is to offer tenants longer tenancy agreements - 3, 5, 10 yrs. Landlords should have to sign onto a landlord register - pass rigorous tests on finance, maintenance etc.

How does that help get rid of the "bottom feeders gambling on borrowed money", and stop them "gouging tenants for every penny"?

You still have private landlords, just more regulated.

Many people who rent do so because the option of being able to give a months notice is a positive. Most landlords, once they find a good tenant, will hang on to them for as long as possible, as it's better for them to stick with the guaranteed rent than have many short term lets where they don't know the tenant and might have dead space between lets.

Those against landlords probably have a pension which in part invests in property.
I remember the old days when there was no property to let in the UK due to rent controls and tenure for life. People had to sleep on parents' floors or never leave home. It was not pretty.

This young man has made very wise choices. The number of people my age who instead invested in pensions which went down in value or they lost is huge (Equitable Life etc etc etc etc)

The biggest way he can protect himself financially however is not to marry his girl friend ever I suspect. Just live together.

Heavy regulation would cut out the chancers, the short termers, the speculators. Nothing wrong with having landlords per se, as long as they are professional and the law adequately protects tenants.

Specialsubject That is not the way it works here. The 'deposit' is about three months rent and is a bond with the bank. Some landlords will be entirely reasonable. Our rental in Belgium won''t have been redecorated for about 6 years by the time we leave, so I hope we won't get done for the dinks in the paintwork that were already there when we moved in. However, some use inventory firms that will screw a tenant over for everything from having removed a lightshade to there being a small piece of something in the dishwasher filter.

I remember the old days when there was no property to let in the UK due to rent controls and tenure for life. People had to sleep on parents' floors or never leave home. It was not pretty.

Wow, imagine having security of tenure and rent controls! People are still living with parents because they can't afford to move out!

I remember the old days when there was no property to let in the UK due to rent controls and tenure for life. people had to sleep on parents' floors or never leave home. It was not pretty.

Thank god nothing like that happens any more.

They should be regulated more so btl people are not more desirable to lend to than oo. Then get back to the days where only a minority can speculate on housing. Not allowing every shoe shine boy borrow a shit load of money to gamble on property.

They should be regulated more so btl people are not more desirable to lend to than oo. Then get back to the days where only a minority can speculate on housing. Not allowing every shoe shine boy borrow a shit load of money to gamble on property

Are btl more desirable to lend to? Why?

I looked into a btl mortgage when relocating- It was a far easier process to buy as a homeowner that it was for btl. As far as I got it seemed the process was exactly the same, if not more rigourous. The bank look at your income and ability to repay the mortgage- it's pretty much the same as a business loan/mortgage, you have to have the income to service the loan.

It's not a matter of walking into an estate agent/bank and saying I want to btl and them giving you the money to buy a property, no questions asked.

btl isn't that profitable ime. You might make a little on the rental, but any profit is often eaten up by dead spaces, repairs and maintenance. It's a long term investment same as any other.

Ridiculous thread, OP.

I have enough money to buy more houses than I need to live in...but I don't because I am not a dick.

Houses should not be looked at as an investment. Houses are a necessity and in any civilised country shelter should be considered a right.

BTL mortgages generally require a higher deposit (25 - 40%) but have a correspondingly lower rate of interest. The big difference is that the rental income anticipated from the property is taken into account, so when rents are high it is effectively quite easy to obtain a BTL mortgage as long as you have the deposit.

There is nothing wrong with most BTL landlords individually. Many are good - I had a mixture of middling to excellent landlords over the years. The point, however, is that people who are landlords for financial gain are in an incredibly privileged position and collectively are making it harder for people to buy homes of their own. As a poster upthread said, being a landlord requires no special skill. Once you have purchased a property to rent out, it is increasing in value (while you do nothing) more than many people earn in a year. I think it is disingenuous not to acknowledge that privilege at least.

Even with my good experience of renting, here are a few of the reasons why your own home is so much better:

• you don't need to rehome the much-loved family pet because the new flat is "strictly no pets"
• you do not need to panic when a child scratches the paintwork
• you don't have to wait over a month in winter for a new boiler because the landlord is away over Christmas and needs to get quotes sorted
• you can enter into a fixed rate mortgage for a few years instead of being terrified every year that this is the year when the rent finally goes up beyond your affordability
• you can decorate to your taste
• you care about looking after your home because spending money on it benefits you, not somebody else
• you don't have to live with that one ugly feature or out of date appliance that isn't quite bad enough to complain about
• you can put a dishwasher in because you don't have a landlord who thinks it is unnecessary to rearrange the kitchen to fit one in
• you can plan on staying for a few years and put down roots

I can't think of many advantages to renting. It's great if you need somewhere short term (eg as a student or having temporarily relocated) or if you have enough money to rent at the top end of the market where everything is well looked after and done for you. But for most people it is simply not a choice they have made for positive reasons.

Landlords just need to accept the moral responsibility they have to look after their tenants with these sorts of points in mind!

This is a capitalist country though.

What about food- that's a necessity. Should we regulate food prices and stop tesco and sainsburys making a profit? Stop Sainsburys investing in new stores and buying up food to resell...

What about builders? How are they supposed to profit if they can't sell to the highest bidder?

We do consider housing a right, that is why we have council housing for those who can't afford rent/purchase. Yes we should have more, but everything else is driven by supply and demand. There will always be someone willing to pay more for a better location or a better house, which will set rental income.

This is a capitalist country though.

Yes and because people accumulate wealth/possessions/resources we have poverty and inequality at the other end.

What about food- that's a necessity. Should we regulate food prices and stop tesco and sainsburys making a profit? Stop Sainsburys investing in new stores and buying up food to resell...

Some people cannot afford food. That is why we have a record number of people reliant on food banks. Thankfully most can afford food because we generally have competition (farmers might take a different view of course). For every Waitrose there is an Aldi.

What about builders? How are they supposed to profit if they can't sell to the highest bidder?

Builders aren't the problem per se. Housing policy 1980's-present day is the problem

We do consider housing a right, that is why we have council housing for those who can't afford rent/purchase. Yes we should have more, but everything else is driven by supply and demand. There will always be someone willing to pay more for a better location or a better house, which will set rental income.

Council houses have largely been sold off. Many people are reliant on insecure private rentals. House prices mean many cannot afford to buy what should they do?

**Once you have purchased a property to rent out, it is increasing in value (while you do nothing) more than many people earn in a year.

Apart from continually maintaining it and dealing with tenants who quite often seem to think that they deserve a hotel concierge service for their rent. Get real!

£10 a year rent,inherited by family (private sector) and security of tenure forever equalled just about nothing available for those who wanted to rent somewhere or could never in a month of sundays buy or slum landlords prepared to break the law. It didn't work. Let us see if the new rules which mean 40% tax payers with loans pay tax on rent they don't receive and pay an extra £10k+ stamp duty mean more or fewer properties available to tenants. We have had a month or so of the new regime so far.

"or slum landlords prepared to break the law. "

Like that doesn't happen now, and like most landlords are all mumsnet nice sweet "of course I'll give you a decent service for all this rent money you're giving me".

The thing about the neoliberalist free market that has ruled for 40 years is that we now have all the same problems of the old elitist public sector and a whole raft of new/150 yr old ones caused by elitist exploitative modern landowning oligarchies. It doesn't work. There is never a perfect system, but this one is much much worse. Social housing was much better for people.

I really struggle to understand why adherents of 'landlords are fine: it's supply and demand innit' absolutely refuse to admit that extensive private rental sector really does push up housing prices. It is that supply and demand. Instead of having, say 20 million households competing for the housing supply, you have 20 million + those who want to be multiple homeowners competing. When you have so many wanting to leverage their existing wealth in housing that is a substantial push to the demand. Hence we see so many more now who can never in a month of sundays afford to buy.

We don't need more properties available to rent for tenants. We're seeing whole bloody streets, nearly whole bloody villages of them. We need lower demand from the already well-off, lower greed, and supply will then become more adequate and prices can fall. Hopefully slowly.

Even with my good experience of renting, here are a few of the reasons why your own home is so much better:

To be fair, if private rentals were properly regulated then those reasons should also be applicable to renting. The problem is that at the moment the regulation is too minimal.

LollieB - bless. You really appear to imagine that landlords actually spend time and money "continually maintaining" their rented properties.

This is so very opposite to the picture painted by the stats, see: www.if.org.uk/archives/5919/new-report-by-shelter-calls-for-reform-of-private-renting that I have to either pity you for your innocence or admire you for your cheek.

Possibly you are that rare diamond, a landlord who actually bothers to maintain properties to a standard that is not merely legal and not-dangerous, but is actually to the standard of something you would like to live in yourself. If so, you need to understand that you are an almost extinct breed. The average landlord does not bother to look after the properties they rent out, any more than the average tenant expects a "hotel concierge service for their rent"! Unless by "hotel concierge service" you mean a boiler that works and isn't leaking noxious gases, damp that covers only half the walls and a landlord who knocks before invading your privacy. How very dare they, indeed.