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

[madhurjazz]

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.

Well, quite, MoC. That's was I was saying. Besides, is it not something that would need to be declared? When we moved here and rented we had to fill out all sorts of forms and DH had to produce evidence of income etc to prove we could pay the rent. I'm sure my tenants have to do the same, don't all?

DH is a builder and now our DC have more or less flown the nest and our mortgage is paid off we intend to start property developing to rent so we have an income when we retire. We intend to be good landlord and provide quality housing at a fair rent. Plenty of people rent because it suits them not always because that's Al they can afford to do.

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

Because I ask for bank statements as part of the application process.

I worked hard to get deposit for A buy to let. Why do you say the renter works harder?
Jealousy

I have no issue with the traditional landlord with the repayment mortgage. However this new breed (buy to let) over the last 15 years is disgusting. Buying up all the first time buyer properties with interest only mortgages, putting up rent each year above inflation when mortgage costs are record lows, avoiding tax and committing fraud by lying about mortgage repayment vehicles.

I'm glad the government are finding ways to tax them.

This attitide really pisses me off actually. We have managed to accumulate 2 (modest) rental properties. Do I want 'someone else to do the hard work of paying off my mortgage'? Yes. Of course I do. Afterall, I did the hardwork to get the funds together to buy the properties in the first place by working my butt off in a job that I despised for over a decade. So whilst I hear 'it's not fair' from a couple of friends, I do take pleasure in reminding them that whilst they were off travelling and flitting between jobs because they weren't their dream jobs, I was busy paying mortgages..

betty when I was a student and recent graduate 20-odd years ago, my landlord was a tax-evading businessman who used his extensive property portfolio to launder money.

He was the "traditional" type of landlord in the city I lived in. It's not new. The BTL market has always been a preferred target for fraud. My landlord had fled the country when I eventually moved out of his property - couldn't return for fear of arrest. His wife used to turn up on my doorstep in tears asking me to pay her my rent in cash so she had money to buy food for their DCs. I eventually withheld my last months rent in order to recover my deposit.

Now, I see more and more students living in shared houses owned by parents of former students, who have bought and maintain the home they bought their DC as a longer term investment.

I know who I'd prefer my daughter to rent from.

The regulation has increased significantly over the last 20 years - and your rose-tinted view of what it used to be like is inaccurate. There will always be good and bad in every sector - those who find loopholes and those who abuse it. It's not getting worse, it's just different.

Pat, I've had those conversations too. Both in RL and on here. We got together at university and moved in together afterwards. Literally all out graduate friends were travelling and going out all the time and eating in nice restaurants and having holidays. We did none of this. Instead we saved and saved and saved. We saw friends at the NY who were complaining that they need more space but can't afford to move and how lucky we are to be in the situation we're in. But we've had no more luck than them. We all had similar salaries and levels of debt at 22. But whilst we saved and bought modest in a good area, moving up as soon as we could each time, they rented a trendy apartment, had amazing holidays and ate out all the time. Lots of our friends did this between 22-30. They undoubtedly had a great time in their 20s, which is fair enough but it's certainly not down to luck.

I would have no difficulty in imposing a covenant against BTL on new-build, but you cannot restrict it on existing properties. I am not sure how afar any such covenant would be enforceable without intrusive monitoring of people's private lives. That's even more true of any attempt to restrict second homing. And there too owners have the right to sell to whoever will pay the most.

I agree with you OP. Buy to let landlords profit out of other humans' basic need for shelter. They do very little and accumulate assets through other's hard work. Those rich enough to have a deposit get richer, while those who can never save enough for a deposit work all their lives to line the pockets of others.

We were in a position last house move to consider it. I spent a lot of time thinking about it, but I couldn't live with the morality of it (or lack thereof).

Cheby.

And food retailers profit from other people's basic need for food. Are all grocery stores therefore acting immorally?

'Those rich enough to have a deposit' may well have worked hard and made sacrifices in order to get it!

I always find it interesting when BTL landlords talk about 'breaking even', by which I assume they mean the rent covers their mortgage payment (plus other costs).

Surely, even if you charged half your mortgage payment in rent a month, as long as house prices don't plunge to crazy depths in the years before buying and selling your property, you're going to at least break even?

I am not suggesting that landlords halve rents for the good of society - that would be ridiculous. But it's a shame that back in the day there wasn't a will to control the proliferation of BTL mortgages. The expectation that rent = mortgage payment (+ probably overheads) was preposterous.

Are sainsburys and tesco immoral
For profiting out of peoples basic need for food?

Maybe they should stick to one branch each and free up all their other property for others who may want to run a supermarket but don't have the wherewithal to buy a shop?

Cheby - Did you buy a house when you moved? If so someone no doubt profited from your basic need for shelter when you bought their house.

All our tenants have made a choice to rent our properties, no-one has forced them. When they make the choice to own they give us notice.
Are those against rentals suggesting that other people's choice be taken away?

When I buy a loaf of bread at Tesco, Tesco no longer own that loaf of bread and can no longer profit from it. Housing and groceries are simply not comparable that way.

All our tenants have made a choice to rent our properties, no-one has forced them

Not one individual, no. But for many people the market is such that they cannot buy even if they want to.

Often, monthly mortgage repayments are considerably less than rent. That situation is ridiculous

(posted too soon) which is yet another reason why there is such resentment among many renters.

So what do you want ComputerUserNotTrained - rent control?

That worked so well last time it was tried, didn't it?

And your point is what exactly??? I have a btl and I do not have it to get one over on unsuspecting tenants. I used to live in it and when I moved out with my family I held onto to it (by the skin of my teeth) so it would pay for my DS's university education in a few years time. Tax is paid on it as well maintenance and accountants fees. So instead of sprouting unsavoury comments to get a few thousand responses, why not do your homework properly......better still think about investing in a btl yourself.

ComputerUserNotTrained, as I said, in 12 tenants we haven't had anyone in that position. I'm still waiting to hear how I'm adversely affecting the housing benefit scheme. Lots and lots of posters on here explaining how they are renting out their former homes (us included) yet the overwhelming majority of negative posts are going on and on about unscrupulous landlords who drive around in their fast cars with a wad of cash whilst letting tenants sleep in houses with faulty boilers. And suddenly for the purpose of a good thread, all LLs are like that.

Andrew, some form of control over the housing market was due a long time ago. I don't have an answer though, no.

And they take all the risk. With their own money (i.e. The deposit) in letting it to people. What happens when the renter doesn't pay their rent. The property owner can end up losing everything.

It's an investment. If they didn't buy it, it still wouldn't help those that can't get s mortgage buy a property.

Computer mortgage companies insist that the rental income be at least 125% of the mortgage, in order to cover the costs associated with renting your property out (higher interest rate on loan, LL insurance, agency fees, cost of Gas/Electrical safety, legionella assessment, repairs, redecoration, replacement eg boiler, void periods, damage, etc).

These costs are pretty sizeable & that's why most LL break even on rent.

It will be interesting to see what impact the forthcoming taxation changes will have ie not being able to claim the 10% wear & tear allowance & no longer offsetting cost of mortgage interest. I think a fair few LL (mostly accidental) will sell up.

I agree I rent and no doubt my rent more than pays the mortgage on this place what is worse is the increase in rent. I cant afford a mortgage to get my own place on my own so therefore I am forced to rent at high prices in my town, not as if I can even get a council place to make things cheaper as I have a good paying job but sooner or later with no payrise a year there is going to come a time I cannot even afford to rent a 1 bed place.

I agree with it but I guess some will call it an investment which it is also.

Shakey15000 i'm with you. i chose a vocational degree and a career strand that i knew would pay well (eventually), that i didn't massively enjoy. i worked my arse off, went without. watched others sqaunder their money. overpaid overpaid overpaid, chipped off at my mortgage here and there.

i put off having a child until i was 37 and could afford it. i have only and will only have one child. as i can only afford one.

as my earning power has gone up alongside these choices, i'm now comfortable and own two properties - i'm the vilified BTL landlord.. shock horror: i'm actually looking at getting another.

i make no apology for this...