Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think all buy to let people are just in it to get someone else to work to pay off their mortgage?

683 replies

madhurjazz · 03/09/2016 07:13

I wish people would say it as it is. Buy to let in my mind is just about getting someone else that can't afford a deposit / without a stable job to do all the hard work to pay off the mortgage of someone else. It does feel like a massive step backwards in equality.

Very few actually want to rent, the vast majority are stuck doing so as speculation keeps pushing ownership out of reach.

OP posts:
Puzzledandpissedoff · 04/09/2016 12:50

That's true 53rd, but it's the suggested solutions to the perceived inequalities I was referring to ...

Mutiny0nTheBunty · 04/09/2016 12:51

Just to add to a previous poster's comments regarding the for MOD barracks at Mill Hill East (now called Millbrook Park).

The Inglis Consortium has indeed sold phases of the scheme to Taylor Wimpey but as with most large-scale developments the S106 Agreement for the site as a whole will include an element of affordable homes. I understand that it's 15% at Millbrook Park, which is 300 out of 2000 homes total. Not enough but better than nothing. The affordable homes I believe will be managed or sold under shared ownership models by Family Mosaic.

53rdAndBird · 04/09/2016 12:52

Well, you said that objecting to the inequality in the current system was "a straightforwardly communist principle."

If people were calling for the abolition of all private property in favour of direct state ownership, that would be more like communism. Pointing out that things are a bit shot the way they are is a whole lot short of that. There are plenty of capitalist countries where the state has more direct involvement in housing and the rental market than in the UK.

MuseumOfCurry · 04/09/2016 12:53

Well, you said that objecting to the inequality in the current system was "a straightforwardly communist principle."

No, I certainly did not.

Shakey15000 · 04/09/2016 12:54

Charley50 I compared my situation to someone I know that, yes, didn't work as hard at saving as I did. And I'm sure there are others. But that's not me equating ALL renters as not working hard. In case that's what you'd gleaned from my post.

53rdAndBird · 04/09/2016 12:55

Bit shit, even! Although shot works too, in the sense of a sustainable future.

Lots of landlords on this thread have said that they went into BTL because otherwise their own children would be stuck in bad rental accommodation forever. I don't think that's wrong of them, but surely it would be better for us all if we changed the current system so nobody's children were doomed to a future of bad rental accommodation.

53rdAndBird · 04/09/2016 12:56

No, I certainly did not.

What was it you did say, then?

MuseumOfCurry · 04/09/2016 12:57

It's only a few posts up, 53, why not take a look? Confused

MuseumOfCurry · 04/09/2016 12:58

Here you go.

Hang on, there are lots of people on this thread who are saying how unfair it is that some people own more than one property when some people own none. That's a straightforwardly communist principle and it bears comment.

Wink
53rdAndBird · 04/09/2016 13:00

I'm directly quoting you? Seriously, one or both of us is clearly missing the point here.

What you said was: "there are lots of people on this thread who are saying how unfair it is that some people own more than one property when some people own none. That's a straightforwardly communist principle"

No, it isn't. Pointing out that inequality is undesirable, or that it's unfair that people have lots of a necessary thing while some people have none, falls far short of communism. I think it's unfair that some people have lots of food while others are starving - that doesn't make me a communist.

Communism would be one (fairly drastic...) answer to that kind of inequality, but it's far from the only one.

RebelandaStunner · 04/09/2016 13:05

Knowing roughly where two of our tenants ended up buying, nice location was their first priority not price.
Another tenant we had moved around with her job constantly and had her own property that she rented out. The present tenant is a professional with a good job but just not ready to buy just yet.
All of our tenants have been good so far- never left a mess and apart from one month late payment (banks fault!) have always paid on time.

Question>
What would anti LL people do with a fair amount of savings?

If in the position of having a big enough house that's paid off and happy with, pension sorted and emergency fund?

What would your investment choice be?

MuseumOfCurry · 04/09/2016 13:05

No, it isn't. Pointing out that inequality is undesirable, or that it's unfair that people have lots of a necessary thing while some people have none, falls far short of communism. I think it's unfair that some people have lots of food while others are starving - that doesn't make me a communist.

Inequality is predictable and in and of itself not undesirable. One person owing two houses and another 0, ditto.

Extreme inequality, lack of social mobility, and stagnant wages are a problem.

Feefeefs · 04/09/2016 13:09

YABVU not everyone wants to buy, students, those working here short term, lots of apartments in my block are rented to MOD.

Who do you think these terrible people are? People like me and my husband who both work in public services and want an investment so we can pay for university and help our children out in future?

yougottheshining · 04/09/2016 13:31

I love the landlords who say they've never rented to anyone on housing benefit - how do you know? Two thirds of the six million households who claim it are in work - they just can't afford the rents that you lot charge without state help. And of course they're not going to tell you if they can at all avoid it.

Charley50 · 04/09/2016 13:35

Shakey - that was the implication, or else why bother saying it?

yougottheshining · 04/09/2016 13:36

Mutiny on the bounty I wouldn't put too much faith in the claims of housing being deemed as 'affordable' - friend of mine looked into so called 'affordable' shared ownership housing in Woolwich and she would need to have been earning £70 know to qualify.

yougottheshining · 04/09/2016 13:43

£70 k not £70 know.

Shakey15000 · 04/09/2016 13:46

Charley- I clearly didn't imply that all renters don't/didn't work as hard. I was specific to someone I know.

I'd be interested if you'd reread my post and point out what's unreasonable about it.

reallyanotherone · 04/09/2016 13:50

So you get rid of btl landlords, what is the solution then?

interested to know how it might work. Do you restrict everybody to one property only? Does the council buy back the surplus?

I have a friend who's family trust owns lots and lots of property. Instead of selling it off they set up a housing association. Would you force them to sell, taking a swathe of low cost rentals off the market?

I can't see how one property only would work. There will always be a need for rental properties, i don't think getting rid of all private rentals would help many people.

Propertyquandry · 04/09/2016 13:54

yougottheshining, because not many people can get housing benefit to pay 2.6k a month rent. Nor can they get it if they already own another house somewhere else. Quite a few of our tenants have rented our house whilst having major work on their own. As I said, in the next village along from where our old house is are houses to rent for 10 or 12k a month. I can't see housing benefit running to those.

Propertyquandry · 04/09/2016 13:57

And at the end of this tenancy, we'll put it up to £2750pcm for new tenants. We have never increased during a tenancy but then as I said, ours have always been short term tenants mostly having moved to the area and spending the 6mths finding a house to buy.

Propertyquandry · 04/09/2016 14:09

Also, with regards being a good or bad landlord. I think someone would need to be delusional if they thought it was acceptable to let themselves into someone else's home. We have our property managed by the EA as we're now the other end of the country. They're not a crappy letting agent. They're a large EA dealing with both sales and lettings. They do a check after 3mths otherwise leave the tenants alone. If there's a problem, we have a local handyman who they call. If it's gas or plumbing related they use a local guy that we used when we lived there. The EA have authority to spend up to £500 immediately without checking with us (although they must forwRd any invoices) Anything more needs to be run past us first. Our tenants have never waited more than 48hours for an initial assessment of the problem and never more than a week for anything to be resolved. To me, that's being a good LL. It's how we were treated when we moved here and initially rented too so I doubt it's unusual.

Propertyquandry · 04/09/2016 14:12

We also ask for 4K deposit at the start. Only once in 12 tenancies have we not returned the full deposit. That was due to nail polish being spilt across a large area of cream carpet in one of the bedrooms. We deducted £300. They agreed. No problems on either side.

MuseumOfCurry · 04/09/2016 14:17

I love the landlords who say they've never rented to anyone on housing benefit - how do you know?

The cost of the rent?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 04/09/2016 14:19

surely it would be better for us all if we changed the current system so nobody's children were doomed to a future of bad rental accommodation

You might have difficulties getting some LAs on board with that, despite their fine phrases to the contrary

Since being a BTL landlord with unknown tenants doesn't appeal, I considered renting my soon-to-be second property to my son, who's disabled and can't work. The idea was to charge much less than his current high rent, so DS have won, the council would have won in paying far less HB - and yes, I'd have won too, though I could have got a higher rent elsewhere if I'd chosen to

But they said no; their policy is to disallow HB claims where the LL is family, and that ALL rental properties should be on the "open market". Considering this is an ultra left wing council, I have to wonder if their endless babbling about supporting the disadvantaged is any more than just words; another example, perhaps, of public bodies being much less capable than individuals of sorting out ... well, anything really Hmm