Selfish bastards on Homes Under The Hammer

[SquishyBones]

Watching this shit show as I was bored and a family bought a house. The woman then proudly explained that they already own 700(!!!) houses in the area already and are hoping to own 1000 by the end of the year. How the fuck is this even allowed?? AIBU to think selfish bastards like this should be stopped and there should be a cap on how many properties a person can own? Even 10 houses per person would be ridiculous but would stop the likes of these people

@MerryDeath

i agree. i don't think people should be allowed to profit from housing. it's immoral. like for profit healthcare, prisons etc. it just doesn't work in a successful society that actually wants it's citizens to live fulfilling lives rather than oppressing vulnerable people

But where does that end? Surely people shouldn't be allowed to make a profit selling food or clothes? Or providing water, gas or electricity? And no private schools or hospitals, obviously. Dental care and opticians, another essential service. Insurance - not a luxury, and required by law in many cases.

And what are the rich people supposed to invest their money in? You surely don't think if you suddenly inherited or won £20 million that you should be forced to give it to some poor people instead of being allowed to spend it on whatever you want?

Even in Communist countries, some people get better housing and luxury stuff and others get the cheap shit. We simply wouldn't work so hard if there was no advantage in doing so.

I am never really sure why people pick on letting out houses rather than say someone owning 10 shops or 5 plumbers' vans or a chain of nurseries is supposed to be particularly wicked.

I can understand but do not agree with the communist view that all private ownership of any kind of property including your clothes even is morally wrong and should instead be pooled as some states and indeed religious groups have tried. Providing housing whether you own 1 house you let out whilst renting elsewhere which is actually pretty common or more houses than one is not a particularly wicked thing to do.

Part of the reason a lot of landlords have one property they let out because interest rates are low. I got 52 pence today on my entire savings from my bank. I have given my twins some of the money they will have for a property early in part because of that issue. If they could get 4% interest in the bank on the same savings tax free (they don't earn anything) we would have the money on deposit and they would only buy when they had earnings, a career and knew where they wanted to live. At one point I paid 13% interest rate (fixed for 10 years) on one home loan but times have changed since then.

If no one needs 700 properties. Why does Costa need so many stores? Why does B&Q need so many shops when he could have a few, make a tidy profit and leave some business for other people?
To have a problem with this couple buying the houses and still shop in Tesco is ridiculous. There is people earning gross amounts of money all over the World and you are most certainly using their services to the detriment of a better way of sharing. That’s Capitalism and every single o e of you that claims to be a socialist probably only applies the parts of socialism to your lives that suit you and make YOU better off in some way or another.

@Alaimo

I'm not in the UK. I've just signed a new tenancy. My tenancy is for an indefinite period. I can decorate the place however I like. I'm allowed to have as many pets as I like, as long as they're not a nuisance. No agency or other fees, not even a deposit. And this is not council housing, it's normal market rent, but with all the rights and protections one needs to turn their house or flat into a home.

When I lived in the UK I couldn't wait to buy a place in order to not be at the mercy of a landlord, but I'm very happy renting in my new country.

This is the nub of it, for me.

I own one house so have no skin in the game either way but don't think the immorality is about how many properties an individual owns. The immorality is that tenant rights don;t go far enough. They still fall on the side of it being a business transaction - not someone's home and life.

If we are to have a country where long term renting is the norm then we need it set up much closer to as described here. Rights to decorate, have pets, have people to live and stay etc.

Hahahaha! Agree!

so where exactly would you wnat people who rent privately to live - they are clearly doing it as professionals and have the resources and wherewithall to sort issues etc. Its a business - would you ban all supermarkets and give everyone an allotment

If they are good landlords then what is the problem? (don't know if they are)
Personally I've only had one landlord and they were pretty decent. I had a problem with my oven and the next day they came with a new one! I had a problem with my dishwasher, sent someone out same day and they came with the new part the next day!
My uncle is a landlord and left one Christmas day during dinner to help someone with a broken door. Not everyone is in a position to buy, not only because of funds but because they might be on temp contracts etc. It's such a hassle buying a house with all the paperwork! sometimes its more convenient to rent!

Yeah they are selfish, and I absolutely hate how cheap and basic the finish of the houses are.
Would feel super miserable to be living in one.

I don’t remember saying that people shouldn’t be allowed a 2nd home ... I said there should be a limit as to how many residential properties a person can own ... such as 10 (which imo is still ridiculous).

Wtf needs 700-1000 houses? It’s pure greed. I was actually really pleased when it turned out in the end that they hadn’t actually made any profit on it.

Of course you get the two experts in to say how much the property is worth on the rental market though ... one said between £450-475 and and the other said between £475 - £500. Guess what the landlord said she hoped to get per month ... top price of course.

Greedy bastards.

you haven't elaborate why your issue is with private property owners and no one else SquishyBones

My main issue is when people dont live in them. I think there should be proof they are being rented out or lived in at least 75% of the year. The tbe super wealthy wouldnt own all the stunning London mansions that are completely empty. They'd at least need to rent them out. Even if the super rich are r renting them, someone gets to enjoy them and keep a community going.

And yes op, these people are greedy and bloody annoying. Pushing up property prices for everyone else. But it's a business like any other and they are supposedly improving them.

Wtf needs 700-1000 houses? It’s pure greed. I was actually really pleased when it turned out in the end that they hadn’t actually made any profit on it.

They aren't living in them. It's a property rental business. And like every other business in the world, it's purpose is to make money. That's not 'pure greed', that's literally how the economy works. If there was no market for rental property, they would be out of business and putting those houses up for sale tomorrow. And if they don't get tenants because they're asking too much rent, they'll drop those prices. But a lot of people need and want to rent, for at least some period of their lives, as plenty of people have pointed out in this thread.

You're being ridiculous.

Why is property any worse than another type of business OP? Yes, I'm always fascinated by the disproportionate ire that landlords seem to attract on MN.

(Wtf needs 700-1000 houses? Well, define 'needs'. Businesses exist of different sizes and with differing levels of assets and capital. A holiday let website may have thousands of properties, with the host company making money on them all; is that better? Worse? Why?

I DO agree with BabyLlamaZen though that buying property as pure investment and letting it sit empty should be heavily taxed at least, if not outlawed.

Wtf needs 700-1000 houses

But these people if it is the episode I am thinking it is about don’t own 700 houses.

They have bought and made habitable 700 houses then they have rented them out and sold them on to Landlords with a tenant in situ.
They buy 30 properties per month and the business employs several people.

The most they own is about 60 -100 places at any one time which are either being done up or waiting for a tenant or waiting for a buyer.

They were hoping to get to their 1000s property very soon.

@Thisisworsethananticpated

Why is property any worse than another type of business OP ? We live in a capitalist world Get over it

This was endorsed when Thatcher was voted in.

I’m not against renting or anybody who needs private housing. From what OP is saying I don’t think they are against it either. However let somebody else who may want to become a landlord take up that opportunity to do so as well. It is a lot of properties to own so I get what some others are saying that people need some where to live of course people do.

I’ve never lived in private housing but there seem to be a lot of bad landlords that don’t do repairs on their properties and charge a fortune. Also there is a lot of uncertainty with living in private housing which seems very unfair considering the amount some people pay

It is a business the rental market as there’s a shortage of properties there should be a limit... it’s like during the pandemic when people started to panic buy. I’m not sure one person should be allowed to own that amount of houses

If they are being rented out then they are providing homes for people. There is a demand and need for rental properties and this business provides that. As they are a big business I would hope they manage them well and know what they are doing.

Empty homes or unused second homes is the problem. Not landlords with tenants.

What I hate about the UK property market and I keep banging on about it, is that In quite a lot of cases, it’s the tax payers paying the landlords. I have many friends on housing benefit who are privately renting houses. So I pay my tax, it gets given to someone on benefits (which I have no issue with), but then it goes to the landlords, thus making the rich even richer. While the poor are at the mercy of crappy landlords, who don’t keep the property upgraded to a reasonable standard,don’t allow pets and offer no stability to the families living in their properties. Social housing in this county seems to be an absolute joke and it needs to be sorted out.

there is a naive view that if a landlord buys a house it is stopping people from buying it for themselves. This assumes everyone is in a position to buy a house. Since councils stopped providing houses to rent it is up to the private sector to meet this need. I rent a property to tenants at a very fair rent. They are a lovely family but have no ability to purchase due to a combination of limited income and bad credit. How am I the bad guy ?

They aren't living in them. It's a property rental business. And like every other business in the world, it's purpose is to make money.
Yes even housing assocations and councils make money, well maybe not a lot but in order to stay in business a profit needs to be made!

Else sod off the a commie country! And the few people i know who did live in commie countries muich prfer it here its the land of oppertunity to them!

If there are peroblems with the COST of housing then refer that to HM govvermint!.

Given they don’t actually own 700 properties and the figure is what they have bought done up then sold it is irrelevant what type of land Lord they are

@Jimdandy

No I don’t agree with stopping people owning properties.

If we’re going to stop that then we should stop people having as many children as they like. Then the need to for housing wouldn’t be so bad. We should this or that.

This is one extreme couple.

I’ve worked bloody hard to get to where I am all off my own steam, nobody gave me anything.

I am going to buy a second property tough

Well said captain!

They are buying up homes that others don't want at auction or can't afford.
This gives the seller the best option.
They do it up and rent it out to provide a home for someone. They are taxed on the rent. There is clearly a demand.

You purchase 3000 shirts/ loaves of bread/ toys/ hair extensions/ fake tan and sell then on at profit. You pay tax on the profit. Clearly there is a demand.

Both apply the same principles. Suppliers like Tesco,Sainsburys etc do the same in a larger scale. Again no different to anyone scaling up.

I am old enough to remember the Rent Acts - you could rent for life and pass that on to children and the rents were sometimes fixed at £10 a year. It might seem today like a wonderland for tenants but the result was there was just about no property to rent. Even when I came to London in 1982 to work I Had to take a room with shared diry shower down the hall because it could class itself as some kind of hostel to avoid the rent acts; council housing waiting lists were 20 years and people had to sleep on frienfd's floors. They could not get teachers at my husband's school so they had to offer teachers school flats. It really want not better - it was much much worse. Just about the only people letting were landlords happy to break the rules (and break your legs if you didn't pay the rent or didn't leave when you should). The assured shorthold tenancy then came out and suddenly there was property available because with a court order and much delay landlords could not have fixed periods of lettings. Even under shortholds tenants can sign up for even ten years today in 2020 if they and the landlord agree but many tenants are young and mobile and don't want more than a year.