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.

What about the wealthier tenants of council houses or under occupied housing stock? Aren't they just "taking" from society? What about "feckless" tenants who don't pay their rent (in either sector) or are noisy, abusive, etc? Do they have a "right" to housing if it is redistributed from BTLers? Where do you draw the line? If you say BTL LLs can't have their rent paid from public funds, where are people who can't or don't want to work going to live? If there are no rewards for working hard to cater for your pension, etc, what will motivate people? You only have to see some of the comments on MN that there are quite a lot of people who don't give a stuff about other people!

We never solve these matters on here. I think we divide into two groups - those people who think most people are masters of their own fate and make things happen and those who think others should not have what they have (i.e. more than they themselves have) and it is all about luck, privilege and underserving home owners being given money and advantage.

The answer though is that every country which has tried communism and also socialism has largely failed so we know which is the right side to be on, the natural fair side which actually works - and tha tis capital. Anyone with time do watch the Propaganda game on netflix - interesting new programme about life in Noth Korea.

People assume on here that anyone can save for a mortgage. Its not always possible even if you make ' correct ' life choices,
So my entitlement to shelter only extends to a mud hut. Gotta love mumsnet.
I will hopefully move into my dads house next year but I honestly hope the housing situation is regulated for future generations.
The average age of first timehouse buying is now 37, it simply not possible for many to buy in their 20s.
Many women would be infertile if they waited until they are 37 to have children.

So my entitlement to shelter only extends to a mud hut. Gotta love mumsnet.

That's not what I said. I said that using the "humans need shelter" argument to accuse landlords of exploiting people only applies if landlords are offering the bare minimum of shelter to survive. Anything over and above the basic human need for shelter is a service that can justifiably be charged for.

The fact that you believe that you are entitled to more than a "mud hut" and that your expectations are higher, only goes to reinforce the fact that you have lived a privileged life.

I have lived a priveledged life yes, but I do not agree that a mud hut provides adequate shelter from a human need or rights argument. Nor do I believe the current solution of housing families in b&b accommodation for long periods of time provides adequate shelter.

Well curviest it's never been easy to get a universal suffrage democracy to vote against capitalism. Of course it's been even harder to get non-capitalist governments to allow their populations to vote for capitalism, hasn't it?

I don't think there's going to be a situation where private renting is going to disappear or even a situation where it doesn't house a significant amount of the population. Sadly it seems there will be a large proportion of people who will spend their lives in private rented accommodation. However at the moment the way the rental sector doesn't reflect that. It is set up for a situation where people rented for a short period in their lives before moving into their own home.

What long term renters object to is the lack of security and the contract being skewed in favour of the landlord. People point to the experience of mainland Europe where renting is the norm. But there tenants have a right to a longer term contract and rent protection. Legislation in this country needs to reflect this new reality.

Why bother maintaining the garden or improving the appearance of the property when it isn't in the contract and you can be kicked out with next to no notice and where landlords can and do drag their feet over doing repairs and there's little recourse for tenants.

At the moment renting in the UK is pretty mich a free for all, too lightly regulated and minimally enforced. When it is for a few years in your early 20s it is a annoying, but when that's the reality for the foreseeable future then it is soul destroying.

Lots of current capitalist practices are exploitative. That doesn't make BTL-ers who know that they are pricing a first time buyer out of the market any better.

Capitalism/communism; whatever - the current housing market is such that most BTL's disadvantage other people. They push the price of property up and gain from a shortage of property at other people's expense.

Social housing is not the great panacea that PPs seem to think. I grew up in social housing in the 70s and 80s, and it was a horrible, dirty terrace which my parents couldn't afford to 'do up' for many reasons. When the back builder broke, I can remember a considerable amount of time when my mum would have to boil and carry a couple of saucepans of water up the stairs so we could have a bath, as the council didn't fix the boiler. In the winter we had ice on the inside of the metal window frames, until a large motorway was built at the top of our street and the council put in cheap double glazing, leaving large holes in the plaster where they ripped out the old windows. I remember rats in the garden behind the falling down shed that the council would neither remove nor replace.

I remember moving out of that dump as soon as my wages would allow. I then remember renting a lovely little flat from a fantastic private landlord who treated us fairly, kept up with repairs and didn't put the rent up.

When my mum died I spent several months working full time, looking after dad and then driving home to eat and sleep, before starting again the next day, as none of the agencies judged my ex alcoholic schizophrenic depressed father as needy enough for support, DH and I gave up our lovely little flat and moved in with dad to look after him. We completely refurbished the house (lived in for 25 odd years by chain smoking alcoholic with little personal hygiene and less knowledge of cleaning); new kitchen, carpets, decorated throughout, all with the knowledge of the council who were delighted we were there to support my dear old dad in his time of need. Fast forward about a year with me 8 months pregnant, abusive father off his meds and sectioned as considered a danger to the community, and us served with an eviction notice and offered hostel accommodation as thanks for all our hard work. Don't ever think that social housing is all naice caring provision for those in need or who deserve it; the councils are overstretched and underfunded and unless we get away from this cosy idea of needs being met, we'll never see it for what it really is, just another taxpayer supported failing business.

Social housing for life is as much to blame for lack of availability as RTB; how many social houses are stil occupied 20+ years later by people who could easily and comfortably afford to buy on the open market, but chose instead to remain in their rent controlled house because it is 'their family home and their right'??? (Four as soon as the government takes action the Guardian luvvies deride the plans www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/06/pay-stay-rules-families-council-homes-private-sector-rent)

Ps sorry about the rant

And the autocorrect typos

People assume on here that anyone can save for a mortgage. Its not always possible even if you make ' correct ' life choices,
So my entitlement to shelter only extends to a mud hut. Gotta love mumsnet.

As was ever the case, you're 'entitled' to whatever you can afford. You can figure the welfare state's contribution in there at your peril (it can change) but no one is going to give you something for free. Are you willing to give your things away to strangers for free? If not, then why?

The average age of first timehouse buying is now 37, it simply not possible for many to buy in their 20s.
Many women would be infertile if they waited until they are 37 to have children.

You're incorrect here, the average age of a first-time home buyer is 30. Your childbearing decisions are your own to make.

I haven't read the whole thread, but from what I have read there seem to be a few misconceptions. From 6 April 2015 BTL landlords cannot offset against tax any mortgage interest, nor any notional 'fair wear and tear', only actual expense. So it is no longer the case that they have their mortgages paid by someone else, the tenant paying the rent (I put to one side any discussion of whether the 'tenant paying the mortgage' is right or wrong).
Before the Housing Act 1996 (which introduced the AST concept - much more limited security of tenure) the private letting market was pants: rents were regulated, and private landlords would often do little to maintain or improve properties, as they saw no reward for doing so. The supply of rented properties was also much more limited, although social landlords were more active (Right to Buy had not yet hollowed out social housing stock).

The BTL market developed because security of tenure became limited through the HA 96, and this meant that banks were more willing to lend on BTL properties. Previously, banks would lend, but would usually only do so on a heavily discounted value, e.g. 50% market value (because of the prospect of foreclosing on the security - the property - and being stuck with an unmoveable tenant, possibly paying below market rent) .

The logical thing for many people to do is to rent the house they live in (so having more flexibility if they need to move, e.g. for work) and own a BTL as well. Several people have mentioned doing this, and it makes sense. (It is also, as I understand it, common practice in Germany.)

If BTL has distorted the market, it is (perhaps) in encouraging developers to focus on building smaller properties like two bedroom flats rather than larger houses. However there are other factors contributing to that trend.

Social housing for life is as much to blame for lack of availability as RTB; how many social houses are stil occupied 20+ years later by people who could easily and comfortably afford to buy on the open market, but chose instead to remain in their rent controlled house

Surely kicking people out as soon as they can afford to live elsewhere is the perfect recipe for a ghetto, though?

Nowhere is this more obvious than London. It's not really very nice for the people who live in SH, or around it.

I do not agree that a mud hut provides adequate shelter from a human need or rights argument.

So are your human needs greater than people in other parts of the world, for whom a single room/hut, shared between many in the same family, is considered adequate?
Or do you believe that the majority of the world population do not have their basic need for shelter met?

This whole mud hut discussion is pointless because the council will house you in something far superior to a mud hut should you find yourself homeless. As we all know.

museum I didn't say they should be kicked out, but perhaps if they paid a fair market rent rather than taxpayer subsidised capped rent, then the council would have more money to build new houses for those in need... We would have happily taken on the tenancy and paid to live in the house we had just refurbished to make liveable after 25 years of pretty much neglect, but were never given the option (we're pretty much laughed at for suggesting it, actually).

We have a buy to let which we only took out to help out an older family member, as it enables her to have a decent roof over her head in a very expensive area (prices pushed sky high by holiday lets/second home owners), and for which she pays under market value in rent. It's not always as clear cut as wanting to make a fast buck, there can be other motivating factors.

museum have you ever actually seen any hostel/b&b accommodation? Much of it is run by the unscrupulous money grabbing bad landlords being vilified on this thread...

Sure, but realistically no one is going to pay market rates for council housing (at least around where I live) because they're ghettos sitting on prime real estate, so in a state of complete disequilibrium.

Which is just one of the many, many problems with social housing.

museum have you ever actually seen any hostel/b&b accommodation? Much of it is run by the unscrupulous money grabbing bad landlords being vilified on this thread...

No, I haven't. Are you suggesting that they are literally uninhabitable, or just undesirable?

ITT: people totally unaware of their own privilege.

Sian tell me about it. The only reason we own our mortgaged flat is that I was left money in a will when I was 34 and that was enough for the bank to overlook our piddly income. It wasn't hard work or seizing opportunities or some other piece of Thatcherite dogma, but good fortune. People have worked far harder and longer than we have and aren't any closer to owning their own home.

museum both. I have seen undesirable, but know of people who have lived in damp, dirty, infested temp accomm. And then there are those who are not eligible for housing, whether through life choices or other reasons. I volunteer with a homeless charity, and there are so many obstacles and not enough help. Putting a recovering addict in temp accomm next to a dealer does not do anybody any favours.

I'd be interested to know just how buy to letters are getting government help? My husband and I own 5 BTL's and haven't once got government assistance - it's pie own hard work which did it.