To think there should be tighter controls on mortgages for buy to lets?

[ovidivo]

Surely stopping people from having mortgages for buy to lets would make properties more affordable for people. I'd see this stretch to corporate land lords too.

So you want only the wealthy to be able to buy houses?

How will that help in any way?

Agreed OP. From speaking to estate agents here in the last few months (I’m renting and was looking for a new home) I understand there have been restrictions to the amount that can be borrowed for BTL mortgages which has meant fewer new builds are coming on the rental market. It does mean there are fewer rentals available though so rents will be higher as supply

I disagree. A lot of people are “accidental landlords” - ie those who meet someone else with a flat and decide to live together for a period of time before buying together. What would they do if one couldn’t rent their place out and become a landlord for a time?

Landlords who have no/low mortgages will likely still charge rent at market rate imo

I think there should be something in place to ensure affordable properties aren’t snapped up by landlords before normal buyers get a look in. Let there be a short period of time that LL can’t make an offer, when the it is first put on the market.

I don’t see how it would make any difference tbh

If people couldn't buy to let because there were no btl mortgages, that might well put downward pressure on house prices for owner occupiers.

The increased availability of btl finance may be one of the reasons for increasing house prices as a multiple of income (along with other reasons).
In a way the government is already doing what you suggest ovidivo, by reducing the tax relief on btl mortgage interest; and increasing stamp duty on second homes. I did read somewhere that this was leading to btl owners selling their rentals; although I have also read that new btl borrowing is still strong - so who knows?!

Some people use property instead of private pensions.

Landlords who have no/low mortgages will likely still charge rent at market rate imo

I have no mortgages on my houses and charge rents very much lower than market rate.

But I might be the exception rather than the rule.

"A lot of people are “accidental landlords” - ie those who meet someone else with a flat and decide to live together for a period of time before buying together"

Those people don't get a btl mortgage originally though, they presumably have a residential mortgage (although they do have to get permission to let the place out from their lender. it is true)

Completely agree, OP. If BTL funding was much harder to get, the supply of FTB property would increase expedentially and prices would become more realistic.

There are controls on buy to let mortgages. What are you suggesting is changed? And why? To stop people buying to rent? What about people who want or need to rent?

I have no mortgages on my houses and charge rents very much lower than market rate.

But I might be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm the same. The rent I charge is inline with social housing locally.

I think proper registration and vetting of landlords would be a much better tool than more mortgage control. That would be a much more effective way of weeding out and discouraging shit landlords.

In an ideal world there would be a bar on btl investors having access to properties until they had been on the market for say 9 mths. However the big problem would be with estate agents (who make far more money out of landlords than private buyers) not promoting properties to suitable private buyers.

A lot of people are “accidental landlords” - ie those who meet someone else with a flat and decide to live together for a period of time before buying together

Absolutely nothing accidental about that. That’s a conscious decision.

We do need a private rented sector but the balance away from owner/occupation has shifted, particularly in the younger generations.

I would think there are many renters in their 20s and 30s who would buy if they could afford to - btl is one of the reasons they can't afford to (only one of the reasons) as the increased competition to buy, and finance availability, leads to higher house prices.

No one is an accidental landlord. You don't just wake up one day and think "Fuck me, I've got a spare house in my pocket how did that happen" and then accidentally charge money for someone to accidentally live in it.

So
When I was offered an all expense package abroad and my house was in the uk but I knew I was coming back
To it ... are you suggesting it was netter to leave that house sat empty?

I think proper registration and vetting of landlords would be a much better tool than more mortgage control. That would be a much more effective way of weeding out and discouraging shit landlords.

We have that in Scotland. Every landlord has to be registered with the council the rental property is in, renewed every three years, and every property also has to be registered with the council. £55 per landlord per council area plus £11 per property. I'm honestly not sure it helps much.

are you suggesting it was netter to leave that house sat empty?

No, but you didn’t accidentally rent it out did you? You weighed up your options and made the best choice for your situation. If you’d left it empty, that wouldn’t be accidental either. If you’d sold it, that wouldn’t be accidental. Do people who sell their houses because it’s the best financial decision for them call themselves “accidental vendors”?

No, you didn't buy it specifically to rent out.

*accidentally offered an all expense package abroad which you accidentally accepted and then accidentally advertised for tenants for your accidentally empty house then accidentally signed a tenancy agreement to accidentally charge them rent while accidentally getting your rent paid

Fixed it for you.

Absolutely nothing accidental about that. That’s a conscious decision.

And ii my experience they are the worst people to rent from. They generally seem to see the rent as pure profit and think being an accidental landlord exempts them from things like gas safety checks or doing repairs in a timely manner. Most I've encounters act as if they're doing their tenants a huge favour by letting them live there.

I had the boiler break when renting from a so called accidental landlord. After three days of no hot water or heating, they umm and ahhed and said they'd try and get someone out after Christmas and when they'd lived there they hadn't had heat for a month. Well that's was their lookout but that's why i paid them rent to sort things like this out.

Got burnt like this twice amd have stick yo letting agencies. Yes they're money grabbing bastards but at least you have a fighting chance of getting a tradesperson out within the same decade.

Registration is a start but we need more. I suggest nobody should be a landlord who has

• a criminal conviction
• an unspent bankruptcy notice
• three or more enforcement actions re unfit properties against their name

for starters.

Registration is fine, I’d go along with that personally, nothing to hide and tenants are required to be transparent. Last two tenants wouldn’t have got houses from
Anyone except me due to
Their disasterous credit history but I was prepared to give them a chance, works both ways