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.

SaucyJack
"It's the sheer amount of money that landlords either leech from their tenants or scrounge from the taxpayer that particularly disgusts me special- and for so little back to the tenant"

As a council tenant paying below market value I would love to know how and why you believe that landlords leech money from the tenant and .... The tax payer?!?

I'm 29 years old, married with 3 kids, i started work at 17 bought my first house at 18 and I now own three properties. I live in one and rent 2 out .... Does that make me scum? The fact that I worked hard and saved every penny to purchase the properties instead of signing on and sitting on my arse! My tenants are happy in their homes ... Btw i fully renovated with my very own money when I Bought them so how is that not putting my tenant first.

I don't force anyone to rent I simply work hard and instead of my money sitting in the bank I invest it in bricks and mortar!

Fit the record I also paid stamp duty each time I bought and income tax along with the tax from my full time job! Money that goes into the system not draining tax payers money.

My first ever post on MN - I agree with OP. So many people can't afford rents in London, there's no social housing ('affordable' is 80% of the market rate), why should people have to move away from an area where their support network is just so they can rent or buy? As for the 'if your child works hard there's no reason why they won't be able to afford to buy' - yeah right, if you go to Eton maybe. My son has aspergers, I don't know if he'll ever live independently, or if he'll be able to get a job that earns him enough to rent or buy. Why should he have to move 200 miles away from me & the rest of his support to be able to rent or buy somewhere of his own?

Wow... if this is what mumsnet is like then I think this will be my first and last post.

The current housing benefit bill for private rentals stands at 9 BILLION pounds a year Wotty. About twice that of the Jobseekers Allowance bill interestingly enough. How much of that is going straight into the pockets of BTLers who couldn't give a fuck about the morality involved as long as their own bank balances are going up?

So many other points from people desperately trying to use the benefit of the few to excuse the harm of so many. I'll get round to a few more after me dinner.

Agree with Mrrsjays and Whois. Owning a house isn't a right. I didn't own anything until 3 years ago and I am 51... Where is it essential to life exactly?? And when did we start to become all Kolkhoze like in 2016? That has to be the puzzling thread of the week at least to me.

I think it's a bit harsh of people to be calling you jealous, but I don't think there is a problem with what the guy is doing. My husband is in the same line of work (buying buy to let properties) and the reaction he often gets is similar to yours. People always assume that we are wealthy and that he is a bit money-grabbing. In fact, this is not the case at all. What people don't see, is that this is a job like any other and we are not rich off the back of struggling people who are unable to get on the property ladder. My husband never got many qualifications or went to university, but he was very good at renovating properties and therefore made a career out of it. People will always create these opportunities for non-traditional careers in a free economy and they should have the opportunity to do this. It's hard to see other people doing this when you don't own a property, but it is just what it is and will always happen. Also, I've lived in various countries and this obsession we have with buying is very English. In many countries, people don't want the hassle of owning and renting is the norm. However, I do realise how fortunate we are to own out our home.

YANBU.

Owning a home isn't a right but actually, having a secure roof over your head is a human right (article 25 of the International Declaration of Human Rights if anyone is interested) and as it stands, many people can't afford that. Even to rent, let alone buy.

The whole logic of BTL depends on limited supply - if there was enough property in the UK for everyone to own one to live in and one to rent out as a pension, there would be nobody to pay the rent. Unlike other forms of investment, like shares, which harm no-one, owning property is a zero-sum game - if one man owns 3 properties, then that is 2 other households that don't own their own property, because there is a finite amount.

Obviously, in an ideal world, everyone who ended up living in rented accommodation would have chosen to do so and be happy with their lot, have an affordable rent and live in a well-managed property. But in reality, that simply isn't the case, and we all know it. Most people who rent pay out more than home owners but get nothing after 25 years. Most rental properties are in worse condition than owned properties and a substantial proportion are actually damaging to health. That is not just and equitable, and is exploitative of tenants, who have no choice. (Being homeless is not a choice people can realistically make).

SaucyJack that is also a very ignorant and simplistic view of the world. We rent out a flat which is paid for by housing benefit and it is constantly problematic. The council never wants to pay the market rate and the tenants often damage the place or create problems with the neighbours. Let me assure you, these type of people are not aspiring to own their own properties and never will. If there weren't private landlords willing to let to these type of people, the country would have a problem!

LollieB - so you just let out your property at a loss then, out of the kindness of your heart? Like charity?

Hmmm.

If the properties were standing empty I would be annoyed, or only used part of the time, but he lets them out - therefore giving two families or sets of flatmates a home. I know that there is a very valid argument that buy-to-letters push first time buyers out of the market (dp and I are trying to be first time buyers and God, it's tough) but I like that we have a place to rent at the moment.

I have had very shitty money-grabbing LLs in the past, who cared a lot more about profit than the welfare of their tenants and who acted criminally (I still sometimes consider reporting them and then I don't as I don't know who to) and these are the people who give buy-to-letters a bad name.

Excellent post fidelix. Well explained, and so true of course.

The government needs to put something substantial in place to discourage buy-to-let.

Why are we so quick to slate and criticise hard working people in the UK?

He works hard and has invested his money wisely.

My Dsis rents her house out. She lives and works abroad. Should she sell it (maybe at a loss) so someone else can benefit from her hard work. Hell no, she rents it out. It is part of her retirement plan. She is very fair with her tenants, average rent for the area and fixes anything that goes wrong as soon as she is told. This hasn't stopped her having a tenant that took the piss and decided she didn't feel like paying and spent the rent on holidays.

A friend of mine has worked abroad for the last 20 years and has invested her savings in property in the UK. She has worked bloody hard to do this and again is a very good landlord. This didn't stop tenants trashing one of her houses and another using one to grow canabis.

I applaud them for their hard work. They are not super rich and both started in their early 20's with nothing.

It's all very well saying everyone in Europe rents so it's ok but remember that whilst a mortgage repayment will go down in costs, rent will only go up meaning that that your essential outgoings will always rise rather than go down. When you've retired and have paid off your mortgage, a renter will not be able to afford their rent any longer and will have nowhere to live. You also lack stability when you rent so might find yourself unable to live in an area where you have accessibility to your work place or kid's school because your tenancy is not going to be renewed. Surely people can see how impractical it is to rent, especially with a family. What's going to happen to the huge amounts of retired renters in the future and how is the country going to pay for their housing??

All investments have their downsides incl buying shares etc... Think about the effects of pensions funds on companies, the effects of ensuring that the shareholders do earn a bit of something etc... It's not unusual that companies pout the sharehol;dears first in their decisions rather vb than the company itself, let alone their employees - eg shares go upp in prices when a company makes people redundant.

BLT has some issues too, mainly because the market is so much in favour of the landlord. Take a country like France where the market is very much in favourite of whoever is renting (eg it's extremely hard to get rid of someone who isn't paying its rent. It can go on for 6 to 12 months before the get evicted) and suddenly you have a big shortage of places to rent because people prefer to have an empty house/flat than someone in that refuses to pay.

What is needed is a fairer system to redress the balance of power between the landlord and the person renting, eg you can't evict someone at the drop of the hat etc etc.
Because yes, even if houses prices were lower, in this country they would still be high and hard to get for a lot of people. And little rentals available would be a massive issue.
IMO, what would make a big difference is to see the price of rentals to go down. I'm always at the fact that it can be much cheaper to pay a mortgage than to pay rent on a similar size property. How on earth can people even start saving a bit of money? (That would probably mean MORE rentals available though so MORE people having some BLT)

Fidelix, no silly, that would be preposterous. What we do is spend a lot of time and effort negotiation with the council and we spend a lot of time repairing the damage that most 'normal' tenants wouldn't inflict on a property. The upside is that the flat is almost constantly let.

OP - your posts sound so bitter / sour grapes. It is depressing.

I felt a wince of guilt as I clicked on this thread, mindful of the 6x 2 litre bottles of Tesco value Spring water I've stockpiled in my shed!

LollieB - presumably you let your property out because it makes you a profit. If it didn't you could choose to walk away and invest your money in something else. Your suggestion that you are doing tenants a favour because otherwise they would have nowhere to live is silly - you owning the property doesn't increase the amount of property in the UK nor decrease the population needing to be housed. It just ensures that any profit from the transaction goes into your bank account rather than someone else's (like a homeowner).

And because we now have fewer council houses with reasonable rents, the housing benefit bill is vastly higher than it need be, meaning that all of us who are taxpayers are contributing to your profit.

Frankly, I think the one who should be grateful in this transaction is you, not the tenant who deserves a roof over their head whoever they are.

There is nothing in the international declaration of human rights about the right to make a profit at the expense of those with less capital than you.

Fidelix, I never one stated that we are somehow doing these people a favour by renting to them. If you read my earlier thread, this is my husband's job. Do you turn up to your office or wherever you work as a favour to your boss? I assume not. What I was saying, is that these private lets are required by councils, as there are not enough council last to house council tenants. I thought that would have been obvious. Clearly not.

Council lets

fidelix - but there is something about the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's own property (and last time I checked, that included landlords).

LollieB - your "Let me assure you, these type of people are not aspiring to own their own properties and never will. If there weren't private landlords willing to let to these type of people, the country would have a problem!" does imply that you are solving the country's - and tenants' - problem by being ever so kind and letting to these tenants.

I think that is disingenuous - I think your (or your husband) are doing this to make a profit out of people who have no alternative.

So yes, I think the OP has a point. If those tenants had an alternative - because those were loads of spare properties to go round - your profits would be vastly reduced or non-existent.

YANBU
I agree with Fidelix.

BTL has become a pension alternative and I think the government needs to do more to ensure there are places for people to put their money which will give them a decent return and they return to building council homes. There are many good and valuable jobs that are not well paid that should qualify people for subsidised housing. Police flats, military families accommodation, council house EVERYTHING has been sold off.
I don't believe the market works to the benefit of all but the benefit of the few. However this guy is not to blame it is just the dusted we currently have is unbalanced. If you wanted to puke there was an ex-footballer moaning about tax who had built up a huge property portfolio, in iodine several houses in Mayfair that he rents out at 50,000 a week!

shillwheeler - true, but as wiki puts it: "Property rights have frequently been regarded as preventing the realisation of human rights for all, through for example slavery and the exploitation of others. Unequal distribution of wealth often follows line of sex, race and minorities, therefore property rights may appear to be part of the problem, rather than as an interest that merits protection."

If you follow your logic through to its ultimate conclusion, as people did at the time, slavery would be not only fine but protected by law. In reality, the rights of property owners to own property is limited where their owning of property reduces others' rights. As it is in this case, where the landlord's right to make a profit needs to be balanced against the tenants' right to have a secure roof over their head. To me, it seems pretty unequivocal that the latter is more essential than the former.

Maybe we should go back to communism as a viable alternative. Would that make those people who feel jealous of private landlords (good, considerate ones, I mean) feel better about themselves? This argument of restricting landlords could be applied to anything in the private sector, if you really think about it.

I don't think YABU at all! I hate the idea of buy-to-let, I think it's totally unethical. The housing market in the S.E. is totally messed up. What really saddens me is that 40% of what was council housing is now privately rented.