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.

For years I struggled to get DH to understand our council house was better value than private rental. Back in the early 70s he rented a very large 3 bed house for half the cost of renting his, 10 yrs later council house, ..the landlord inherited the house and rented it out for peppercorn rent...DH thought for donkeys years all BTL was like that...

Value is determined by available tokens.
If the government provides tokens at the bottom of the chain then the entire chain floats by that amount.
If the government decides to cut back on said tokens then the chain sinks to a lower level.
Housing benefit has ensured a minimum floor on rental value via Lha. It is being reduced.
There is a well documented housing crisis in this country. Ideas are being sounded out through the media to guage opinion.
It may be that the new pm takes a new path on housing.
We may but hope.

reveal Great idea!

Think of the revenue generated by HMRC.

BTL LLs would set up a new registered company to own each of their properties, in order to bypass the quota regulations you propose.

Gini99, I would agree with a lot of that but I'm surprised that they think amateur, accidental LLs cause most problems. Being both is the very reason for using a reputable agency. I am very surprised to find that most accidental LLs don't do the same as surely a main cause of becoming an acc LL is relocation which renders it almost impossible to function as a LL without agency help.

I would suggest a better approach to housing in general from the government, where renting is more secure and housing is more affordable

I get the bit about rental security, but can't quite see how government can exert any real control on property prices? In a free and normal market things will generally sell for what someone's prepared to pay for them - and there'll always be some who can't afford the price

reveal, if you limited people to two properties (their home and the one they let out) in that way woudl they not just spread the properties around thef family? Also isn't the nes 3% extra stamp duty - often £12k on top of usual stamp duty frmo this April a similar thing except it applies to the first buy to let and also the new changes this year that you are taxed on profits you don't make from buy to let if you pay 40% tax?

(..if you pay 40% tax and have a mortgage I mean)...

Why the surprise that amateurs are the problem? You wouldn't hire an amateur lawyer would you and expect them to be any good? Even the language used by landlords on this thread shows an astonishing level of ignorance with talk of 'providing a service' and so on. You aren't providing a service; you're creating a subsidiary interest in land and there is a massive difference between the two. As for everything being ok if you compensate for your own woeful lack of knowledge re the agreements you enter into, this would only work if such agencies were properly regulated. However, they are not. I think it quite shocking that the provision of shelter has been handed over to a bunch of spivs and amateurs who describe themselves as ' lovely' and twat on nail polish on carpets.

We have a BTL property because we have to live in a property owned by my husbands employers. We want to be on the property ladder as one day we'll want to live in our own house. The only way we can afford to have a house is to have renters in until one day we live in it or sell it and buy another to live in. There are many reasons why people may choose to BTL. I too don't understand what seems as some kind of anger towards people who decide to let out a house. In my mind it's a sensible investment for the future. Everyone's situation is different so yes in my mind

'Twat on about' that should read.

I'm an "accidental" LL. My mortgage company insists that I appoint an agent to manage the property. I'm more than happy to do so as I live about 50 miles away & have young DC. Plus the ever-increasing legislation is hard to keep up with.

I do have a friend who is an accidental LL. She is lovely & am sure she is very nice to her tenants, but she is clueless ie didn't know to protect deposits, do inventories with embedded date-stamped inventories. I think there are lots like her, thinking that you just download a tenancy agreement from the internet & do a gas safety check. There is an assumption that you just need a handyman on speed dial.

I often see threads on MN where LL are encouraged to self-manage, usually because an agency has been crap. It's far more complex than that and many amateur LL haven't a clue about their responsibilities as a LL.

I think if agencies were better regulated & accountable, it would solve a lot of problems. There seem to be a lot of shitty agencies out there, with no comeback for either tenants or LL. Voluntary regulation doesn't seem to work. Most "professions" are regulated eg nursing. I don't see why lettings agents shouldn't be either.

Agree absolutely that agencies are in desperate need of regulation especially as we seem to be moving back to being a rentier economy, only without the security of tenure and rent controls that previously protected tenants.

We have a flat we rent out (bought outright not on mortgage). Of course, we are doing it to make money. If it makes you feel any better about it (unlikely) it enables my husband to be a SAHD so he can spend time at home with my daughter and not have us rushing around like blue arsed flies giving one of our salaries to a nursery.

Or do you believe nurseries are also just in it to get someone else to work to pay their profits (and maybe the owner's mortgage?) also?

Welcome to capitalism, dearie.

I think if agencies were better regulated & accountable, it would solve a lot of problems

Now that I definitely agree with Business arrangements are their own concern up to a point, but I'm thinking of those who enter into a contract and then blithely ignore key parts of it

PuzzledAndPissedOff - the govt has had quite a lot of control over property prices; when the banks went bust they rescued them; to stop house prices from falling too much; then when the market continued to be flat, they created 'help to buy' mortgages, designed to push property prices up again.

Of course though, all the regulation in the world is just a sticking plaster as long as tenants don't have security of tenure, because if you can be evicted for no reason at any time, it doesn't matter what rights you have on paper. Also, we desperately need rent control otherwise the housing benefit bill is going to grow forever and handing money over to private landlords is not a good use of public funds.

Fascinating thread as a Mortgage Broker I'd say that most B2L LL are only paying the interest on their mortgages and getting a yield of approx 5% in the South East not a huge amount when you compare it to savings accounts 10 years ago now however savings give you nothing so why wouldn't you invest in bricks and mortar it's always been a fairly safe and consistent investment, more so than gold for example. I'm not really sure that I understand your point?

but can't quite see how government can exert any real control on property prices? In a free and normal market things will generally sell for what someone's prepared to pay for them - and there'll always be some who can't afford the price

Plenty of ways. Increasing the supply would be a big one - governments can (and do) influence that in all sorts of ways. They can also shape what kind of housing is available via incentives or direct regulations, and assist people with buying through schemes like shared ownership.

There's nothing wrong with investment in property, there is everything wrong with allowing just 'anyone' to provide homes. The rental market is barely regulated; shelter is a basic human right and in this country this human right IS being abused by investors looking solely to turn a profit, providing frequently inadequate housing conditions at un-affordable prices to a market that has no other option but to use their 'service'. No other business would get away with providing the kind of service the majority of landlords do, especially a business which is providing a basic human right (like the water companies). It needs to change, and I hope that change comes soon and the majority of landlords are regulated out of the market, because landlords basically are not qualified to provide such a crucial social service to a captive market, and I think the mark they are making on our society is incredibly negative.

Buy to let is at the buyers risk. The tenants could destroy the property could stop paying rent they have to maintain the repairs where as if your renting you don't have to do any of that. Also most buy to lets are the owner pays the interest off first over however many years yhen they are expected to pay the value of the house off in one amount after the interest is paid. So they still have to fork out for it all.

It could be argued that we should bring back capitalism.
The free market.
Free from housing benefit, help to buy, starter discounts, homestart, deposit schemes for under 40's and all.
Why not kick away the props, let the market decide value?
To say we have capitalism in the housing market is naive.
Billions are poured in by the government propping up a broken system.
Ladies and Gentlemen, i give you crony capitalism.

Yes, those are fair points about shared ownership and "help to buy"

I guess, though, we're back with the thing that just because the government can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean they should ...

It could be argued that the solution would be to increse ir's.
The flight from Btl to cash would be rapid.
Why risk a gross Btl yield at 4 pecent with all its inherent stress, boilers, voids and bad payers?
The housing market would deflate, the banks are stress tested and solvent at at 40% price correction.
When ir returns from its emergency low, when cash has value once more then expect big change.
One can ponder what the catalyst may be.

What are you talking about?
I want my haircut but I'm not qualified to do it myself so I pay someone else to do it for me.
I wang to rent out my former home because I'm moving during a slump but I have no idea on the regulations so I pay 12% a month for someone else to ensure everything is in place and that my tenants are happy. What is the issue with that? The agency visit once in the 6mths unless there's an issue in which case it's dealt with ASAP. Again, where is the issue?

And what's the problem with retaining deposit for nail polish? Thry spilt nail polish. They phoned the agent and told them. We agreed before the end of the tenancy to retain a portion of the deposit. Again, where is the issue?

This concept of dodgy letting agencies with thousands of cheap properties on their books that they care nothing about, never visit nor inform the LL or anything needing done is nothing I've come across since being at university nearly 30yrs ago. It's certainly not my experience of any estate agency we've used either here, when we first moved to the SE or where we used to live in the NW.

Puzzled - so do you agree that actually the govt is propping up the housing market after all?