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.

I get that. What I don't get it making the claim that all LL or even most, are like that.

And FWIW, I grew up in dire poverty the daughter of a Notts miner during the strike and in the years after, living in a community decimated by the deprivation caused when the pit closed. DH grew up in a Glasgow slum. So yes, I know what poverty and reliance is.

And just to be clear, IMO, and LL using such an agency is already failing in their duty. That's a given, surely.

But the problem lies squarely with the government selling off the council housing stock. Before that, those in poverty or need had no need to use the private sector so the abuse at the economic bottom of the market didn't happen.

Landlords collectively cost the country £10 billion in housing benefit every year with four million of those who claim it being in work

Using that logic, how much do nurseries, preschools and after schools clubs "cost the country" in nursery education grant and child tax credits every year?

If childcare providers charged lower fees, the government wouldn't need to subsidise.

Or better yet, as has been suggested by some on this thread about private landlords - expand the provision of state-run childcare, which is currently subsidised through the income received from the government by the schools they are run by. That will push the private providers out of the market.

One third. One third of private rents are substandard. It's a matter of record. Ditto the £10 billion a year housing benefit bill. As for what Shelter says about amateurs, I'll take the word of experts who actually work in the sector and commission research and studies into it, who work every day with the fallout of the housing crisis - and it is a crisis - over a bunch of people talking about nail polish and how 'lovely' they are.

YY
It would be easy to say that childcare remains stupidly expensive because WTCs pay for it. Removing the subsidy would mean the price would become unsustainable and therefore drop.

Why are you talking about nurseries? I am talking about landlords.

Why do people attempt to defend the housing crisis? Is it greed?
Its quite abhorrent on a left leaning altruistic forum?

But the crisis, and I agree there is one, is not across the entire rental sector. The crisis is due to there not being enough cheap, long term stable housing stock. Not necessarily to buy but to live in. Only one part of the rental sector covers this yet this thread, right from the start, has gone on about greedy LL acting immorally. And I'm not sure why the nail polish annoyed you so much. it was/is the only example I have if having to retain any deposit and I mentioned it in response to others posting about LL trying to withhold all deposits.

We couldn't sell our last house, so we got a BTL mortgage and rented it out.

We don't, and won't profit from it unless the value of the house rises and we sell it.

The tenant claims disability benefit, so couldn't get a mortgage herself.

DH does the garden and all the maintanance; we make sure all safety certificates are up to date; let her choose the decor/carpets, but pay for it. She's happy.

There are a lot of BTLers who are in a similar position to us.

Because it's the same principle. You are talking about the private sector receiving vast government subsidies. That's what's happening with WTC being used to pay inflated childcare fees and tax breaks via childcare vouchers.

And I'm not defending the crisis. I agree there's a massive issue there. There are not enough good quality reasonably priced homes to rent in a long term basis. But the fault for that lies squarely at the feet of the government, specifically MT's government.

Yes, Shockers, but nobody on here wants to listen to the fact that good LLs exist. It's all greed and the rich getting richer

Wait and see the coming Autumn statement from Hmg.
What was UK housing policy will be rewritten.
Exciting times.

Please stop talking about nail polish.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

My tenants are great.

Nearly 5 houses mortgage free.

Its quite abhorrent on a left leaning altruistic forum?

Blimey - where the hell am I? I thought I was on MN!

I do agree btw about the government. The 1988 Housing Act was passed with the express intention of 'encouraging investment' in housing and boy has it worked. It was one of the most damaging things that Thatcher ever did. However the people who have rushed to profit from it are hardly entirely blameless.

And if it helps create stability for those in need them I'm all for it. But unless it's going to outlaw owning a second home then I don't think I've anything to fear. And if it does then I'll just sell the house for market value which is around 250-300k more than I would have got for it when we moved away. Or should I have to sell it for what it was worth when I started renting it out? 🙄

Hello. I'm not new here as I have been lurking for a while but this is my first comment. This thread has got me a bit hot under the collar.

I own a few properties which I rent out and really don't see why some people seem to have a problem with that.

My son has rented a room in a shared house ever since he went to Uni. He left Uni and got a good job a few years but he still prefers to live that way whilst he's saving up a deposit to buy a home of his own one day when he eventually decides to put down some roots but mainly he's enjoying his youth. If nobody owned property to rent out where would he live?

Where would people live who can't get a mortgage?

I certainly have never claimed as a LL to either be doing anyone a service or being alturistic. I provide a service, but it's not one that anyone intrinically needs. It's something they choose to purchase. And absolutely they are paying my mortgage on that house.
I fully accept that this is not the case across the rental board but the problem is to deal with the issues at the economic bottom. Stopping the need by building more state run affordable family rentals will stop the demand and thus stop the abuse.

Not all landlords are bad, my parents are good LLs.
But the current housing situation stinks.
Every year my husbands pay increase goes straight to the landlord. She gets richer while we get poorer.
There is no security. The council take 4 weeks plus to assess HB claims, and then will refuse on a technicality.
I think in reality the council can no longer afford the bill either.
I blame the government (s) for allowing such a situation.
I think young people would do better emigrating if it is still possible post brexit.
Its more than sour grapes, the day to day anxiety about renting is horrible.

Don't a lot of the MP's have second homes?

Lot's of people we know have second homes and they are empty half the time. Because they want the investment and don't need it paying for by someone else. No one is paying their mortgage for them, if they have one.

At least with BTL they want the rental income and someone living there.

YABVFU

Some people choose to rent as they can't be bothered or maybe are not able to handle all the things that owning your own property entails. I inherited a small terraced house from my mum when she died, that I rent out, and it is no walk in the park in terms of fitting new boilers, sorting out plumbers for leaks and dealing with replacing windows when the tenants break them. No hassle for them, lots for me. They ring 24 hours a day for the silliest of reasons - eg 9pm on a Saturday night when they had dropped a pan of boiling water on the gas cooker and had short circuited the ignition. They never pay for destroying things in the house, always referring to it as 'wear and tear'. One set of tenants ripped all the doors off the wardrobes and I had to pay to have them refitted when they left. out of my own pocket. It is almost impossible to get any money off their deposit no matter how much damage they do to the property. Things do break in houses, and it is always up to the landlord to fix it, quickly. Another set of teants blew up the microwave by running it on empty to see if it worked. Again - I had to carry the cost as they claimed it was faulty, and I had the hassle of searching for a new microwave that would fit the non standard fitted space, then find someone to fit it and wire it in. Tenants have an easy life and don't worry about anything. As a landlord I am always on call. All my tenants are seemingly nice normal people, they are vetted and checked, but as it is not their property they show very little respect to it, and expect immediate resolution to any problem, even those of their own making.

yeah it's called capitalism

jeez is mn really this thick these days?

Paula
Why do you hate the 'investment rubbish?'
It is an investment, Investing money in property - hopefully the value hoes up and yes, the mortgage is often covered, nearly covered or more than coveted by a person wanting to rent. Of course it's an investment - I don't get what you hate about it, unless you're a bit envious?