Frugal neighbours, 7 houses no intention of selling ever

[Mrspitt3]

My neighbour and wife live in a 3 bed modest semi, is in late 50s, has been really frugal (still has 20 year old carpet tiles in kitchen etc) all their life which I do respect actually, they have always invested in property (totally understand), what I don't get is that they are now retired they have no intention on selling any of the houses and having a really nice retirement even though the rented houses cause them a lot of stress with their tenants, I said to my neighbour a few weeks ago about one particular troublesome property, why don't you just sell it? His reply was "well what would I do with the money?" ...... if they had no intention of selling them/enjoying a nice retirement then I don't understand why you would buy property. I understand they get a monthly income but they still live frugal lives. It feels immoral to me and greedy when they could help the housing market by selling the houses. AIBU?? Have I missed something??

Titchy yes I do think if landlords started to sell off their portfolio it would help the situation

SleepingStandingUp haha! You say: But even with cheaper house prices, not everyone can afford to buy. A 2 bed by me is about 150k. It would be just as unfavorable at 100k. Or 75k.

Absolute bollocks! Of course more people could buy a house if they cost less. LMFAO.

I agree OP - a deserted rotting house opposite me has just sold for £270k - WTAF?!

There’s no shortage but the more there are, the less they cost?!

OP - it really probably won’t - it is much more likely to create more problems in the rental sector which are greater than any benefit it can have to the affordability problem.

It’ll be gutted and divided into a rabbit warren of tiny flats, Rosie, bet you anything.

Titchy there is a lack of affordable housing to buy partially due to how many people are renting (having to rent as no other choice) and landlords cashing in!! There are still the same amount of properties in this country (crap number thou), we need more to own them rather than rent them.

Once again - there are a NUMBER of factors that contribute to affordability - financing dynamics being one of them - which are not going to be addressed by this.

Osbornes stated intent for increasing stamp duty on buy to lets was to encourage larger corporates (including build to rent) into the property sector.

These properties - and the financing for property purchases - arent just going to swap over to own homeowners.

When they retire, their lives will be less stressful and they will have more time on their hands, so they will find their role as landlords easier. Giving up paid jobs and giving up being landlords all at the same time when only in their 50s could be quite bad for their mental health, as it would probably feel like giving up a large part of their identity, leaving a massive hole in their lives. They need time to develop other hobbies and interests first, not just suddenly drop everything as though waiting for death!

As for selling - chances are they will be selling to other landlords who will be paying far more for the houses than they did over 20 years ago, so the new owners will probably then increase the tenants' rent. How is that a good thing? Also, if they are good and responsible landlords, why mess up their tenants' lives by chucking them out of their homes so that they can make a profit from a sale? I'm sure their tenants would far rather a bit of stability and experienced, reasonable and trustworthy landlords, thank you very much. It's the landlords with a cavalier attitude who are only in it for investment purposes and don't care about the human side, like stability, comfort and security for their tenants, or about selling up at short notice, that give landlords a bad name.

Also, these houses may be the couple's pension. You wouldn't cash in your entire pension on retirement as a lump sum, would you?

Also, do this couple have any children?

Personally, I can think of plenty of reasons why this couple wouldn't suddenly sell all their houses so that they can sit on a pile of cash in the bank which is worth less and less every year for the next 40 years of their lives, until they run out 10 years before their actual death...

No we don't need people to own them. I agree in some places affordability is an issue. But the far bigger problem is the lack of affordable rentals. Reducing supply has the opposite effect. Plenty of people are unable or unwilling to own, regardless of how cheap properties are.

Titchy what are you suggesting to renters when they come to retirement/old ageand can no longer afford rent?

OP - if the problem you are trying to solve is retirement funding (a real issue) this is a very round about way of doing it. And basically your proposed model of a house price crash means that the cost of fixing the very really problem of poor retirement funding falls on current owners. That can’t possibly be the solution.

What’s needed for that is a significant change to the approach to retirement savings in the UK (which BTW your neighbours are doing a cracking job at themselves). Which is a whole different thing.

The sound like DHs elderly relatives who are immigrants from a very poor country. They must have £1.5 million in property and other assets having worked all the hours since the got to the UK. However, they live very frugally and their house is furnished with odds and ends. They are very generous to other people but can't treat themselves. We think they have been neurologically hard wired through their experiences to never feel safe unless they have access to money but cant bear to bring themselves to spend it.

OP I suspect your neighbours are either like this or actually enjoy having their houses to manage so keeping themselves busy and useful despite the problem tenants.

Well if rent was lower retirees would be able to afford it without relying on benefit...

the reason why a mortgage is often less than a rental is the fact that interest rates have been kept so low over the last few years

But probably only until rates start to rise from their current very low level ... the same level which has been passed on to savers, incidentally, driving many savers into BTL properties to get a decent return for their investment

The same low rates may well have fed into the massive price hikes in property too, in that many may have been unsaleable because purchasers could never have afforded them if the rates had been higher

There’s a bigger picture here, no?

Person A spends all their life paying a mortgage/multiple mortgages and if they become ill or go into residential care their house pays for it

Person B doesn’t buy a house and when they go into care there is nothing to sell, so the state had to look after them.

This is a huge issue!

Sometimes you just want to rent though. Allows you to move rather more easily.
I don't think fifty is any age though to start spending all your cash. They could live another twenty/ thirty years. A lot can happen in that time.

I don't think keeping carpet tiles for twenty years is particularly a problem!

You don't have to understand what someone else wants to do with their own property and money though do you. It really is none of your business.

Indeed. I have the carpets that were in this house when I bought it 20 years ago. I would never feel extravagant to change them, ditto the kitchen, bathrooms. Some of my tpwels were tiven to us 30 years ago. Some people just waste money and think they need new stuff and other people are careful. One fridge freezer is 25 years old and still going strong. Old stuff can be wonderful and it's better for the environment never mind your pocket not to be a spend spend spend kind of person.

Will people just stop with the none of your business shit.

Really, why are you reading a forum? Its none of your business, why are you even interested?!

this is like a former colleague. tight as arseholes as they say. earned a good salary as a single woman. knew the price of everything, to the penny. married someone even tighter, match made in heaven with spreadsheets. last count they owned 4 houses, no kids, 2 incomes. never go on holiday . the point of it is missing to me but they are very happy together

I don't think you're being U to wonder. But frugality becomes such a habit with some people that they'll never break it, and don't want to, regardless of what assets they have. Dh had an aunt like this, it really hurt her to spend a penny more than she absolutely had to - and she had plenty stashed away. Tight was not the word.

But why would you buy new things when the old are perfectly ok?

Oh and retiring on a property portfolio takes quite a few houses. IT has to cover both their incomes.

It sounds like they are being very sensible plus providing housing for 6 people or families in the houses. If we banned landlords letting out we might revert to the situatino during the Rent Acts. As rents were frozen at very very low levels and tenants could stay for life lndlords did not on the whole let out property and council house waiting lists were 20 years etc so people lived in over crowded houses with their families or slept on sofas.

It is certainly the case in London that property prices have fallen over 1% in the last 3 months for various reasons but I doubt they will drop to the £100k to £200k level for reasonable starter flats that many low income people need. A small house near us is about £400k (outer London) which those on two £20k salaries would not be able to afford.