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.

We have 3 house that we rent out.
The first we lived in for many years, then we moved in and tried to sell the house. 3 sales fell through losing us a lot of money, as well as paying the mortgage in a house we were not living in (we rented a bigger house in another area for several years).
We thought we'd try renting it out for a while and maybe try to sell in the future, but touch wood, the rental has gone well.
Since then, we've both taken redundancy (about 4 years apart) from a company we were with for a considerable length of time.
We wanted to invest the money, looked into many things and property was the best option.
The last 2 houses are on interest only mortgages to give us more cash flow each month (which in a round about way pays towards the mortgage on the house we now live in). It also helps as I'm a contractor so not a perm job and no job security. They act as a security blanket as we can just about survive without my wage for a while if need be.
We usually charge a slightly lower rent than some of the greedier landlords do in the same areas as we're not out to rip anyone off. We just want nice people to rent a nice house.
Most of the people who have rented from us have rented for years and have no intention of buying.
(Apologies for the long post)

All these daft arguments about who works hardest are pointless. It have sod all to do with how hard anyone works as to whether they get on the property ladder or go into BTL.

Regardless of whether you've worked hard or not, it's sometimes about luck (inheritance meaning you can buy easily) but it's more about your level of income to start with and how much you are prepared to go without lifestyle luxuries in order to save to get a deposit.

You can't argue that you work harder than someone else because you have fewer holidays and takeaways than they do. You just choose to be frugal and they don't, that's all.

Lots of people could afford to get on the property ladder if they moved to another area. You can get a house for 80k round here. Flats for 50.

I think there is a case for longer leases, but be careful what you wish for in terms of following a continental model. We have a 9 year lease in Belgium, but the l/l can give three months notice at any time. Everything I pay for as a l/l in UK, I pay for as a tenant here, buildings insurance, gas service, chimney sweeping, gardeners etc, and have to use the contractors specified by the owner. There is no concept of wear and tear here, so if anything is damaged or worn, the tenant pays, so a scratch on flooring can cost a new floor. The rent automatically rises annually according to a govt calculation.

My l/'s work in France, so haven't asked to inspect, but I know some people have hassles with their l/ls here, who turn up without notice.

What is wrong from renting from a private landlord? I would much rather rent from an individual than a big corporate faceless organisation .
So my rent might help a family in retirement or their child costs, I would
rather this than a large company that probably does not pay any taxes.

What is wrong with paying rent for the use of the house and all repairs maintenance not your responsibility ?

You are tied down with a mortgage and have to pay out for all repairs.
I dont understand why BTL is deemed such an evil sinful thing to do?

I don't think BTL is sinful, but it is inherently exploitative of others' need.

Which is how a capitalist system works, so I don't blame people for being part of it.

But I agree with OP. When I was privately renting years ago, I was very aware that I was effectively paying someone else:s mortgage for them. Not out of choice - I wanted to buy but couldn't afford it.

The RTB of social housing has benefitted many individuals, but caused more harm to others and collectively is destructive and decisive.

Summer888 maybe you should get an agent to manage the let for you. Ok they take cut/fee but my relative who lets out their own house (because they live at work) does it and they do manage to get money out of the deposit. One tennant smashed a big hole in the wall () and the agent got this repaired (good job, zero cost to landlord).

but it is inherently exploitative of others' need.

But could this not be said of any job? You work for a wage and the owners
of the place of work benefit by this XXX amount . But they take all the risk and headaches of providing the work for you. Without the job would you not be worse off?

Yes - thats exactly how it works. And because there are so few laws protecting tenants they are very vulnerable and often moved on every six months because the landlord can up the rent at that point. I have several friends with families in this situation and it is terrible for them, not least because of schooling. (Both parents work btw.)

Personally, I think it was preferable when council housing was an option for people who couldnt afford to buy. Rents were controlled, tenancies were secure and the money went back to the council. The irony now is private landlords are getting rich on housing benefit - double since ten years ago and set to double again in the next five years.www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/private-landlords-taxpayer-money-housing-benefits-rent-housing-crisis-low-income-families-a7199111.html

I am baffled by some comments and perceptions.

If a landlord is "exploiting" people by charging rent for accommodation then surely hotels are too.

And is Waitrose exploiting people for selling food at a premium so that people are not compelled to grow their own?

Its nothing like hotels and posh supermarkets which are a luxury.
It is exploitative. Landlords in some parts are able to charge high rents for poor accommodation because some people cannot get in the housing ladder.
Not all landlords are exploitative but many are.

To be fair, most landlords do not make a lot of money from a single property especially when the mortgage is being paid off. If there are a lot of available properties for rent in an area, the rent obtained probably won't even cover the mortgage if it's in the early stages. Making money from property is a very slow game - they usually only start making money towards the end of the mortgage.

Its nothing like hotels and posh supermarkets which are a luxury.

Who decides what is 'poor' accommodation and what is a luxury? Humans basic need for shelter does not include most of the features of even the most basic rental property - such a premises would be considered luxury to many people around the world.

We are confusing our "needs" with our expectations. We "need" very little, what we pay for through the rental markets is the fulfilment of our expectations.

If you feel exploited by landlords and don't want to rent then save up and buy. That's what a lot of people do including most of our ex tenants. Like we did when we started out -rented and saved a deposit without feeling exploited at all.

I agree that council houses should not have been sold off but if I was able to buy one with 50% discount I probably would have done.
Many many families did benefit greatly from this at the time but now look at where we are. Are they not trying to sell off Social Housing now? madness
There is nothing wrong with renting but it seems in this country you are deemed second rate if you do not own.
I think you could have a very healthy rental market in the UK .

Ref the benefits I read last week that the rate paid was well below market rents so if the landlords did not house them where would they go?

If you feel exploited by landlords and don't want to rent then save up and buy.

Well, quite. And if a persons capacity to buy only extends to a single room hut, then that's still meeting their basic human need, isn't it?

This whole "landlords are exploiting human rights" thing is disingenuous. It's not 'shelter' that people want, but a home that meets a particular standard. That comes at a price.

RTB was introduced in 1980 and at the next election the Conservative government was re-elected with more votes that any party before or since and a higher share of the vote than any party since 1906.

That was partly because they were helped by one Galtieri, a meddlesome general, but mainly because the Labour opposition's policy was not only to end RTB but to make existing buyers give the LA first refusal at price paid plus improvements.

So if you had bought your council property and did not fancy being shafted if you sold it, or if you aspired to buy it, you really had no choice.

Since then no party (in England) has dared do more than tinker at the edges with RTB which remains a popular policy. Even on MN those who abhor it say that they don't blame the buyers!

In any event, we are where we are, the houses sold in that early rush thirty-odd years ago have mostly changed hands at least once. If you support the Human Rights Act they cannot be recovered. If you support democracy further sales will not stop.

@inequity

Please explain how landlords can charge more than market value. That would be exploitative if they could do it but I can't see how they can. If people are not happy with the price of anything they will simply shop elsewhere. Are you suggesting that landlords have some sort of cartel? I doubt that very much because they tend to be very private people in my experience. If they did have a cartel they would be far better empowered to affect media perceptions and influence legislation. The fact they get bashed so often by sloppy reporting of sensationalist headlines to sell newspapers is proof of that. If government understood the dynamics of the market they would realise that any meddling they do to reduce this sector or to milk it as a cash cow through taxation policies actually drives rental inflation.

And if a persons capacity to buy only extends to a single room hut

Well, that's pretty much what we did. Single bed flat, in need of work. Did the work, sold for higher price. Bought run down bigger house. Did the work. Many months without a kitchen, much hard work. Had to move away, now letting it.

If you're expecting to just move in to your dream house as a first time buyer, then you'll have to have the money or rent.

Social housing is not landlords responsibility. It's governments'.

If you feel exploited by landlords and don't want to rent then save up and buy.

Well, quite. And if a persons capacity to buy only extends to a single room hut, then that's still meeting their basic human need, isn't it?

This whole "landlords are exploiting human rights" thing is disingenuous. It's not 'shelter' that people want, but a home that meets a particular standard. That comes at a price.

Agreed.

If you're patient, shrewd, willing to move if necessary, and if you don't have children in your 20s, it's not that hard to save for a deposit.

All of capitalism is immoral and unethical. Why pick on BLT people?

My friend is the sole employee working in a shop owned by someone else. The shop brings in £2,000 a week and my friend is paid only £400 of that.

What is the ethical difference between the shop owner and a BTL person?

There seems to be a myth that renting from the Social Housing Market will somehow get you a great, caring landlord with cheap rents and that if you have a problem or need work done to make it suitable for human habitation. That just isn't true. You can wait months to get them to do anything and they are anything but caring. However, as a private LL, if the tenant asks the council to intervene because they feel things aren't right, the council will order the work to be done in 28 days which is as it should be.

All of capitalism is immoral and unethical. Why pick on BLT people?

I'd say a vacuum of morality and ethics. It's the responsibility of regulators to protect the vulnerable, not the operators within the system.

What nnchange said.

I bought in my early 20's. Flat in a student area. My friends thought I was barking "tying myself down", "all that hassle", "what if you want to travel or move in with a man" etc etc.

Fast forward 10 years and I now have a 3 bed in a nice area. My friends, still renting, won't contemplate a flat or property within budget. They make many of the complaints here about "having" to rent and lining the landlords pocket, but the reality is they want a nice 3 bed, in a nice area, with good schools and a garden, and they only way to achieve that is to rent. They could buy, but won't compromise on a smaller place or different area.

I, apparently, am "lucky", or must have been given money. When in reality i got on the housing ladder at a level i could afford and worked my way up. I just had the foresight to do it earlier.

I, apparently, am "lucky", or must have been given money. When in reality i got on the housing ladder at a level i could afford and worked my way up. I just had the foresight to do it earlier.

I'm sure someone will be along to tell you that you just haven't checked your priviledge.