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

Just in case it hasn't already been stated ...

one of the biggest issues for landlords with tenants on benefits is when they swapped it from paying the landlords directly to paying the tenants directly, so there's a chance of not being paid

Both tenant and landlord are able to request that rent is paid direct to the landlord. So it's not a big issue at all.

Both tenant and landlord are able to request that rent is paid direct to the landlord. So it's not a big issue at all

There was a programme on this.

It is a huge issue

Lots of landlords here OP. Vested interests. Plus lots of virtue signalling. Rental market in UK does not work supply not meeting demand. A roof over one's head should not be an 'investment'. Rent caps needed. And yes, gov should step in. Thats what happened (and worked quite well) pre Thatcher. But as I said... Vested interests. Landlords provide service, are jolly good people etc.

lyralalala If that's the case it's a real shame and very short sighted to scrap it.

@skodadoda

lyralalala If that's the case it's a real shame and very short sighted to scrap it.

It is really short sighted as it worked really well for a lot of people and quite a few of the really shit LL's sold up as they couldn't compete with the combination of that and a bundle of new social housing.

I guess you're not successful OP?! Rather jealous perhaps?

That scheme sounded really good and probably helped save money for the council

The problem is all Landlords are seen as profiteering monsters and must be stopped at the first opportunity even if it means shooting themselves in the foot.

I remember the glee when the government said landlords couldn’t put their mortgage interest payments on their rental properties. All it did was turn perfectly good rental properties into Airbnb’s and raise the rents because there were fewer rental properties available

Mooballs Thu 02-Jul-20 19:52:32
I guess you're not successful OP?! Rather jealous perhaps?
....
I wondered that. Why resent people who are better off, it isn't going to make you any richer. A complete waste of emotion.

They may be providing good, affordable housing for all you know. I honestly wouldn't want the responsibility, it's hard enough having one property! I'm fine with others having more, though.

The Rent Act system did not work at all well and there were just about no properties to rent as a result as why would you rent our a property if rents were £10 a year and people could stay for life? it was an utter disaster.

Most mortgages do not allow buy to let landlords to let to those on benefits and anyway the amount benefits pay is much less than market rents so they are really too totally separate markets particularly in London.

Most landlords in the Uk have one property they let out only and hardly profiteering Rachmans. Indeed many are now leaving the market if they have a mortgage as they are now taxed on profits they don't make because of tax rules changes

@Oliversmumsarmy

That scheme sounded really good and probably helped save money for the council

The problem is all Landlords are seen as profiteering monsters and must be stopped at the first opportunity even if it means shooting themselves in the foot.

I remember the glee when the government said landlords couldn’t put their mortgage interest payments on their rental properties. All it did was turn perfectly good rental properties into Airbnb’s and raise the rents because there were fewer rental properties available

It was a great idea. I had planned to let out the flat again. It was my Nana's home and shortly after she went into a care home and I'd moved out someone who knew about the adaptions done to it asked if they could rent it for a few months while they waited on the social housing list.

This was before the scheme was in place, but about a month after they moved out the housing officer involved with them contacted me to ask if I'd consider letting it out again as they had someone who needed housing urgent, but needed adaptions. I agreed on a short-term basis. After 6 months I took it off the market. After 2 years they finally got somewhere and it went back on the market. Then I got a call from the housing officer again....

I offered to sell it to the council at one point, but apparently the adaptions take too much upkeeping - I don't know how that logic works.

Somewhat ironically I'll be keeping it now because my own DD will need life long care, adaptions and will never be completely self sufficient. I have no hope there will be social housing or anything like that by the time she is an adult.

Most mortgages do not allow buy to let landlords to let to those on benefits and anyway the amount benefits pay is much less than market rents so they are really too totally separate markets particularly in London.

In some areas that's because LL's are ridiculously profiteering.

I openly admit I've made good money renting out my flat. I've always charged roughly around social housing rates so it's always been covered by housing benefit.

I've made enough to have good insurance, do good repairs, carry out all my responsibilities, and have a nice profit.

The guy who rented out a flat in the same building as me for £200 a month more was just taking the absolute piss.

London may be a different story, but in a lot of areas a lot of LL's took the absolute piss.

Now that many, many more people are going to be on UC LL's will end up in a situation where they realise that their property is over-priced because it's actually only worth what people can afford

YABU.

It's a business. Owning a load of houses is no different to owning a load of shops or restaurants or whatever.

Shit landlords should be brought to justice, of course, but a landlord can be shit whether they own one house or a thousand.

I rented for 9 years. Just me and dd in 2 different flats, then with dh as well in a small house. Now we own a slightly bigger house. I would have been living with my parents til I was 30 if I hadn't been able to rent!! All 3 of my landlords were fine, no problems with the properties or the service provided.

My sister rents, and she's had less luck, but purely down to circumstances tbh. A couple of places she's lived have needed to be sold due to the landlords situation changing (one died, one divorced and needed to move into the property and one was made redundant so needed the money from selling). All the properties she's lived in have been fine though, with no issues in terms of maintenance or crap landlords.

Owning your own house is great if you're settled and staying for a while, renting is better if you want to try somewhere out before you buy, or if the plan is shorter term.

This annoys me, took dh and I until late 30s to buy our first place. DH is a builder and works for a Chinese couple who are multi-billionaires, they own over 200 properties in London, the majority are kept empty as they’re an investment and they don’t want them to be ruined by people living in them. They keep about 5 up and running with staff, fully furnished. Every day breakfast/lunch/dinner is served in each of these ones even if there is no one there in case they feel like popping in. DH has often been working in one of these and has ended up eating breakfast as the staff have invited him to as the food mostly goes to waste, they’re like 5* hotels with a full buffet and seated dining. It’s totally insane.

It's a business and they provide a service . And there critea for tenants was based on bad experiences with previous tenants .
What business wouldn't try and protect themselves from that.

As @Oliversmumsarmy said. Lots of good intentions have actually fucked tenants in the reality.

The tenants fee act, a good idea in theory, stop nasty landlords from charging any fees. Whilst I agree, letting agents were royally taking the piss and needed some control, this went too far.

Now what we see is landlords flat refusing to rent to tenants with pets because the deposit is capped at 5 weeks. Any landlord here will tell you the damage a dog or cat can do to a property if allowed to can run into thousands (I can vouch for this)

So, now tenants will find it almost impossible to find a pet friendly property (sound of shooting self in foot) or at best, they will pay an additional 'pet rent' which will undoubtedly cost more for those good pet owners who wouldn't have damaged the property. Own goal!

It's a business. Owning a load of houses is no different to owning a load of shops or restaurants or whatever.Shit landlords should be brought to justice, of course, but a landlord can be shit whether they own one house or a thousand.

Exactly!

Chinese couple who are multi-billionaires, they own over 200 properties in London, the majority are kept empty as they’re an investment and they don’t want them to be ruined by people living in them

Also known as "Buy to leave" not illegal either..

@Mooballs what does 'successful' mean to you? Highly educated? Rolling in money? Dripping in jewels? Big house? 4x4 in the garage?

As it happens I tick some of these boxes (though not rolling or dripping and definitely no 4x4). But part of what I think of as 'successful' is fostering and maintaining a social conscience. That means many things for me. One of them is a skepticism of the idea of buy to let as a business and increasingly AirBnB. It also means wearing a mask when social distancing is impossible. And it meant taking public health guidance seriously and playing my part in trying to 'flatten the curve'.

Im not jealous of you. I hope you enjoy the dripping and rolling. But we are all interconnected. Covid is teaching us this. And sometimes the acquisition of wealth has effects for those less fortunate (housing). And sometimes the refusal to wear a mask makes others sick. Id rather be unsuccessful than lack a socual conscience.

So, now tenants will find it almost impossible to find a pet friendly property (sound of shooting self in foot) or at best, they will pay an additional 'pet rent' which will undoubtedly cost more for those good pet owners who wouldn't have damaged the property. Own goal!

I rent out three places to people with pets, one dog and two cats.

The animals are as well behaved as the tenants, and they don't get charged any extras!

@Beautiful3

It shouldn't be allowed to own that many. Definitely should be a limit and heavily taxed after the first one.

Then I would be kicking the ex out of the old house as I wouldnt be able to afford to buy anywhere. Think my Dad wouldn't have bought my grandparents a house either.

YANBU. I really do hope the market crashes on these people one day. Then they can rent an over priced damp flat they will never own and understand what this feels like. You can't provide a decent service owning that many individual properties and I very much doubt they do.

I guess you're not successful OP?! Rather jealous perhaps?

No not jealous, just not a cunt.

Besides, why does success = owning 700 properties and being loaded. Is success really all about money and ownership?

It's a real problem if BTL mortgages are saying no tenants on benefits...is that really still the case?

I think the government should step in on that, as it is discrimination to prevent access to housing in that way. If it is an issue then there should be a mechanism whereby landlords can get insurance against the slightly greater risk of defaults, and that is down to them to sort out so they can not legitimately advertise 'no tenants on benefits' . I thought this was already illegal in Scotland where I rent out property.

But they don’t own 700 properties and even if they only own ten they have most likely got maintenance people to look after them.

Why must every rented property be damp and overpriced? I rented for years. I never lived anywhere that was damp or overpriced and I was grateful that landlords and rented accommodation existed.

Where would I have lived during my twenties if not for rentals? My first job was 100 miles away from home, and I wouldn’t have wanted to live with my parents in any event.

Not everyone wants to buy and for many it is a question of the right timing when they do. And in fact, if you are a savvy first time buyer at the moment, with secure jobs, you will probably continue renting a few months to take advantage of the drop in house prices that is coming when the redundancies and pressurised house sales kick in.