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.

That article I linked to gave the lie to the claims by landlords on this thread, like the one that they are providing a much-needed public service to people who would rather rent by choice. No, the survey shows that " just 6% of private tenants say it is their preferred form of housing".

Or the lie that rental properties are well-maintained: according to the English Housing Survey, "35% of properties in the private rented sector are rated “non-decent”: nearly a fifth were judged to contain a hazard posing a serious danger to the health and safety of renters (higher proportions than in any other form of tenure)."

"Shelter’s research showed that over 60% of renters have experienced at least one of the following problems in their home over the past 12 months: damp, mould, leaking roofs or windows, electrical hazards, animal infestations and gas leaks. One in ten private renters claim that their health has been affected by problems with their property which their landlord has not dealt with."

These statistics are horrifying. The cause is the naked greed of slum landlords who would rather put their profits above other people's health.

Stop lying. Stop trying to justify this state of affairs as either natural or the best of all possible worlds. It is neither.

Fidelix We rent out our family home in the UK, whilst we rent abroad. It is well maintained, as we will be reoccupying it when Dh's next contract ends.

I would also point out that one tenant who was there for six years with no rent rise caused damage by not heating or airing the house. He wanted me to pay for the heating oil, and his dw managed to set the sitting room on fire when she dropped a log from the open fire. It cost me a shit load to put it right after they moved out.

If a place is damp because tenants will not heat it, how is that the landlord's fault?

As a tenant myself abroad, I am anxious to make sure my tenants are happy, as we are effectively in the same boat.

scaryteacher - you may fall into the small camp of landlords who do look after their properties. The fact that you know what life is like as a tenant may explain it, if this is the case. Your tenant may have been responsible for damage. (To be fair, we have only your side of the story; your ex-tenant might tell a different one.)

That does not negate the fact that the system we have allows a few to make huge profits by exploiting the basic human need for shelter of many, and that the laws as they stand do not protect tenants adequately from that exploitation. Hence the OP.

There is so much misinformation on this thread it's making me quite cross. Not all btl landlords are the same.

Our btl mortgage is at a higher rate than our home mortgage and always has been. For much of the first 10 years of ownership the rent was lower than it had been at the outset start due to the local market. Our btl mortgage is repayment, and when interest rates were higher the rent in no way covered the mortgage and other outgoings. It was certainly no get rich quick scheme - we took a risk.

I never increase the rent during a tenancy. I have never given a tenant notice. My flat is well maintained- it is decorated much more frequently than my house because the market demands it. When appliances break down they are replaced quickly. We recently refurbished all the windows. The block is being painted externally as we speak, a project which I am managing. At times it takes quite a lot of time and money and I resent being referred to as a "parasite" or "bottom feeder". If my tenants weren't happy they wouldn't stay.

Others upthread referred to whole streets of un-let houses. If that's really the case it won't be forever because the market will adjust. The greedy landlords you deride will not put up with empty properties for long and will be forced to drop rent or sell.

And surely you're not suggesting that all cases of damp are caused by tenants who voluntarily live without heating? Are all the tenants Shelter refers to also to blame for the gas leaks? the electrical hazards? or the leaking roofs and windows?!

Talk about victim blaming...

Alwaysfrank - you sound like lovely landlord. If all landlords were like you, there wouldn't be the problems that Shelter reported, where 60% of tenants in any one year (so how many tenants escape these problems if they rent for a few years...?) suffer from one or more of "damp, mould, leaking roofs or windows, electrical hazards, animal infestations and gas leaks.".

Maybe because you're a decent person and a responsible landlord, you can't imagine that there are landlords who treat tenants like that. Unfortunately, they do. Also, do try to understand that it is not a given that the rent should cover a repayment mortgage - property prices are ludicrously high, and if a tenant cannot afford to buy, there is no reason to assume they can therefore afford to pay the cost of someone else's repayment mortgage either.

Fidelix, we have lots of properties and spend lots of time and money maintaining them to a good standard. You seem so cock sure about a subject you clearly have no experience of.....bless you. Also, when we sell a property on, the tax paid is substantial, something which you landlord-hating Luddites would love to sweep under the carpet.

Fidelix, I can of course imagine other sorts of less scrupulous landlords but you must realise that it's no more reasonable for posters to call all btl landlords greedy parasitic bottom-feeders than it is to say that all tenants are lazy, work-shy benefit scroungers. In fact our current tenant earns considerably more than our family household income and he's not the first to be in that position.

Btw I wasn't complaining about the rent not covering a repayment mortgage, I wouldn't expect it to, but observing that if we had gone into it as a short term greedy money-grabbing venture we would have been sorely disappointed!

LollieB - which bit do you think I have no experience of? I have no experience of being a landlord nor of knowing you, but this thread isn't about you, it's about the fact that the housing situation in this country is execrable. The fact that there may be the occasional landlord like AlwaysFrank doesn't mean it is a fair system. For it to be a fair system, you would need for all landlords to be like AlwaysFrank. Which isn't going to happen without legislation.

*Talk AIBU?
First Prev

12
Next Last12
To think hording something essential for life is despicable285Show OP
Yesterday 19:03 fidelix

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.

Yesterday 19:10 fidelix

That article I linked to gave the lie to the claims by landlords on this thread, like the one that they are providing a much-needed public service to people who would rather rent by choice. No, the survey shows that " just 6% of private tenants say it is their preferred form of housing".

Or the lie that rental properties are well-maintained: according to the English Housing Survey, "35% of properties in the private rented sector are rated “non-decent”: nearly a fifth were judged to contain a hazard posing a serious danger to the health and safety of renters (higher proportions than in any other form of tenure)."

"Shelter’s research showed that over 60% of renters have experienced at least one of the following problems in their home over the past 12 months: damp, mould, leaking roofs or windows, electrical hazards, animal infestations and gas leaks. One in ten private renters claim that their health has been affected by problems with their property which their landlord has not dealt with."

These statistics are horrifying. The cause is the naked greed of slum landlords who would rather put their profits above other people's health.

Stop lying. Stop trying to justify this state of affairs as either natural or the best of all possible worlds. It is neither.*

Excellent post, thanks for getting the figure. 6% sounds about right.

That should shut up all the people pretending that many want to rent.

Even if your a good landlord that doesn't stop the fact your part of the rich getting richer from feeding off the poor. Still trying to get some mug to pay off your mortgage.

Owning one house and renting it out whilie your abroad short term is not hording property. Its the people that buy more than they need to house themselves or just decide to rent it out and withold it from the market to restrict supply and push up prices.

I think there are actually two quite distinct rental markets really. One where people choose to rent who are definitely not poor (corporate lets, expats, mobile young professionals etc). No one forces them into anything and sub standard accommodation just won't rent, and poor landlords wouldn't be tolerated. Then there is the market at the cheaper end where tenants have far fewer choices and the market rents are distorted by housing benefit. That is the market where rents have skyrocketed and the "greedy slum landlords" get away with operating. If housing benefit were still paid direct to landlords then they could be required to register with the LA and adhere to standards of repair/maintenance/security of tenure etc in order to be able to register, so the most vulnerable tenants are protected.

There are two markets, AlwaysFrank, it's true, but as the stats I posted above show, the top end of the market you refer to, which many on this thread like to pretend is the whole market, actually only accounts for 6% of the market. So its impact is negligible.

Most tenants are not on corporate lets and have to pay the whole rent out of their wages, or benefits, or a combination of the two. And most tenants - 60% in any one year, so basically all tenants who rent for more than a couple of years, experience properties that are badly managed, even to the point of being permanently dangerous to their health.

This is not a small thing - where you live has a huge impact on your day-to-day life, your health, your career, etc. That is why the right to secure housing is a human right (article 25 of the Declaration of).

I think there is also a middle market of renting - good landlords, tenants on a reasonable income, generally well-maintained property. But those tenants would still much rather own their own home and have some security for their future than to be spending so much money on rent that they can't afford to save for a deposit. And when they do finally save enough to buy somewhere, they are competing not only with other first time buyers but with potential BTL landlords who have identified that there is great demand for two bedroom flats in a populous area..

The mismatch between those of us who know there is a huge rental market out there where rents are fairly high and landlords go to huge efforts to keep their principal asset well maintained and those who think all landlords are awful is explainable - there are two markets. There is the market my daughter was in letter in London to a couple of doctors whose jobs move all round the country ( she let her flat out because she couldn't afford to live in it for the first 18 months and knowing she'd be moving back she was more than happy to spend £2k on a new boiler, deal with a leak frmo upstairs immediately etc etc).

Then you get slum landlords letting to housing benefit claimants which many other private landlords are prohibited by their mortgage conditions from letting to who probably do provide awful conditions. Anyone who watches the Channel 5 series - can't pay, we'll take it away and sees the evictions on there will see both examples - many a landlord who is put in default of their mortgatge by a tenant who does not pay whilst having endless pairs of designer shoes and plenty of dreadful rented places with mess and damp where the landlord is clearly in the wrong.

And of course most people by their mid life stage and when having babies want to own and I hope we can try to make sure that is easier for people even within the M25 where prices are so high. The recent stamp duty changes may help.

It really isn't about slum landlords who let to those on benefits versus naice landlords who let to naice people who pay their own rent.

The vast majority of private tenants suffer from poor landlords, as the statistics above show, and it makes no difference at all whether the tenants pay their own rent or get some contribution from benefits. In fact, I would have thought those on benefits are the least likely to suffer problems in the private rented sector, as they are far more likely to have secure council tenancies.

The problem is that rentals (and all housing) are ludicrously over-priced, and rented properties poorly maintained (in general; yes I know that MN landlords never, ever fail to maintain their properties).

What is needed is some proper regulation - landlords should be vetted and registered, so that landlords who place tenants at risk can be banned from renting out further properties, long-term tenancies available for those who want them, and, of course, rent caps so that renting is affordable.

Above all, we need a large programme of council house building, so that those who need it can be guaranteed a roof over their head. Things as important as housing should never be left to the vagaries of the market to provide. Or you end up like the US, where sleeping in your car with your family is your only option if you lose your job. :(

Though if this is correct, it might go some way towards relieving the problem:

www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/24/british-property-market-has-peaked-estate-agency-boss-says

yes, fidelix we need more council houses as we have too many people for the housing stock. So taxes need to go up considerably, and decades of policy from both types of government reversed. Get voting/campaigning, I'm with you on both points.

the Shelter stats are extrapolated and not trustworthy. The 'vast majority of tenants' do not suffer from poor landlords, any more than the 'vast majority' of tenants are entitled filthy skanks who never pay rent. Of course even one of either type is one too many.

we have landlord regulation. It also needs to apply to HAs who are the source of most (not all) of the shockers that come up on here.

specialsubject - what is the source for your conjecture that "the Shelter stats are extrapolated and not trustworthy"? On the contrary, they are backed up by every survey on the subject I have read.

Are you simply falling into the MN trap of assuming that because you are a naice landlord, all other landlords must be too?

No . you've fallen into the mn trap of reading what you want to see and not what I bloody write!!!

The huge shelter numbers are obviously extrapolations from samples, they don't do a full census!

Statistics . I've got mould in my house and had a leak. It happens, it is called real life. The important question is - does the landlord fix it in a reasonable time if it is a building problem in a rental.

100% of houses get problems.

My parents struggled for years to buy their house to leave something for us kids, 3 of us, unfortunately my dad died and my mom went into a care home till she died 3 years later by which time there was nothing left. Just think if it's viable to buy or not?

House prices are indeed dropping in London due to the Government's recent changes which are particularly designed to ensure that.
Very few landlords want their main asset (most have one or two properties only) to fall to rack and ruin as rents hardly cover mortgage costs (and indeed since 6 April for any 40% tax payer landlord the costs of letting will now exceed rents in most cases where they have a mortgage - deliberate Government policy to tax them on income they don't have to cool the market) so they rely on capital appreciation over 10 years +. You don't preserve your capital asset by letting it fall down.

However as with all owner occupiers things go wrong all the time. Most of us have a constant battle with things like drain collapsing, leaks, damp. That is part of living in a property.

Landlords must be registered in Wales now by the way. I am not a fan of more and more regulation in any sector but just thought I should point it out.

Private landlords are filling an essential gap left behind from the legacy of Maggie and the sell off of council homes.

In some European countries, where renting is more common, individuals invest in stocks/shares of conglomerates owning large stocks of apartments. So, often people can be landlords and house owners or house owners and still live in rental properties.

The government has changed the rules for offsetting of the mortgage interest and increased stamp duty by 3%. The latter only applies to owners of less than 15 properties meaning that larger companies owned by perhaps one or two individuals can continue to buy properties with less penalties.

The only affect the changes to income tax and stamp duty is unfortunately an increase in private rents and is making those stuck in private rental even less likely to afford their own home any time soon. Tenants are worse off because of this policy change and the vulnerable on low incomes have been made more vulnerable.

Had labour been voted into government, the plan was to cap rental rises to small percentages. As a result, landlords would have automatically raised rents annually on an index linked bases as they do in some European countries. Many landlords keep long term good tenants on rents below market rates out of respect for them and as an incentive to stay. If labour is voted in, this will change.

Simply the announcement of labour capping rental rises as a policy will have triggered price rises in the rental sector to offset potential future losses. So both labour and the Tories are partly responsible for an recent surge in rental prices.

Yes, private landlords can be parasites. However, they are doing a job, which the government is incapable of doing. It is the rogue, unscrupulous landlords, who keep their tenants in squalor that are the dregs of society.

So what do you suggest sandrabedminster as in recent years, both labour and the Tories have triggered rent rises for private renters?

landlords would have automatically raised rents annually on an index linked bases as they do in some European countries. Mine do this, yet if I have a good tenant, (or even when I didn't), I didn't raise the rent.

landlords keep long term good tenants on rents below market rates out of respect for them and as an incentive to stay. If labour is voted in, this will change.

Poppycock!