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

@Mrhodgeymaheg

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.

Wow are you totally economically illiterate or wilfully stupid. What you are wishing upon others will impact you as much as them as negative equity for millions would be a terrible thing for the economy. Honestly, the mind boggles.

With the rising unemployment and resulting reliance on universal credit may result in many landlords shooting themselves in the foot if they can’t rent to people on benefits.

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.

They will more than likely not rent damp flats from what I remember they seemed to go for new builds. They also seem to know what they are doing and have the maintenance back up to support it

So if you don't want to rent a overpriced damp shite hole then where exactly are you going the go then?. Tell us where if you will please.

I rent out a few properties, happy tenants, they get faults fixed very quickely one had a Gas boiler fail one 24th Decemeber the gas people said it needs part x the suppliers are closed for the Xmas break no one has one so we have half a dozen electric heaters in store to back them up in that insatnce and refunded the extra power they used as the gas was down.

I worked bloody hard to build that lot up, no one gave it to me, just hard work I'm OK with bigger outfits I don't feel jealous like some do.

Yes there are things that couidl be improved in housing in the UK but don't have a go at the private rental sector, more lay into the politicains they control the market in effect.

@Pixxie7

With the rising unemployment and resulting reliance on universal credit may result in many landlords shooting themselves in the foot if they can’t rent to people on benefits.

It’s scaremongers, mortgage lenders and insurance companies that are to blame for it

The changes to the welfare system didn’t help. I have a tenant current who, 5/10 years ago I’d never have worried about because she has life long disabilities that will never heal. Yet now when her benefits are reviewed I worry because even though her conditions are obvious the system is unpredictable.

I’ve never understood the reluctance by those who can rent to those on benefits to do so, especially to those on long term benefits for caring or disability reasons. You don’t get made redundant from benefits. You don’t get sacked, the company doesn’t go bust etc.

The only bad tenant I’ve ever had was a well paid respected professional with a sense of entitlement and a coke habit.

Funnily enough he was the one and only I got through a letting agent. They are the biggest problem

Presumably a tenant in receipt of housing benefit could be considered economically safe when it was paid directly to the landlord. Now it's assumed they may not be able pay their rent even though, as Nearlyalmost50 says, there are going to be many people not having access to benefits who are going to struggle with rent/mortgage.

It's true, as has been pointed out, that not everyone wants to buy a property, as it suits them to rent. However, it's about the absence of choice. I've lived in well over 20 different properties, the majority of them rented. I've also owned three properties that were/are my home. At some point (80s?) the law was changed so landlords could offer short-term lets (6 months), and after that period your rent was hiked or you were kicked out. When I was able to own a property it suited me a couple of times to rent for convenience, when I was moving, so it was good to have that option.

In many parts of Europe it's normal to rent a property; as a home is not considered as a financial asset to be sat on. It's your 'home'. You can live there all your life. The difference between that, and being kicked out of a property with one month's notice, means those living in rental properties here[?] do not have a home, they just have a space they pay money for, however long the landlord allows it.

Presumably a tenant in receipt of housing benefit could be considered economically safe when it was paid directly to the landlord

It’s still safer. If tenants get 2 months behind you can request it’s paid directly. Then you can have it paid directly while you go through the eviction process (assuming they don’t catch up and they stay).

If a tenant not getting UC or HB gets 2 months behind then you can start the eviction process, but there’s no way of getting rent from them during that process.

The one nightmare tenant I had took me 9 months between issuing notices, getting court dates, getting bailiff dates and then having to give him time to return for his stuff. Luckily I was insured for that, but he paid not a penny.

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

What effect would that have?

As they don’t really own any places and presumably have a lot of cash in the bank all that will mean is they will be picking up more houses for a much cheaper price.

Am I the only one who isn't bothered by this?

No-one should own more than one home. Anything more is greedy and pushes up prices, making homes unaffordable. They’re not providing a service, they’re exploiting the poor.

You can access payments direct to LL before getting any months behind with the rent.
There may be a problem with people not knowing its there. There may be a problem with people not being able to budget for the first month on UC when it does come to them.
But the system is there to protect tenants and landlords.

No one should own more than one car then.
Or more than one phone.
Or take more than one holiday.

How is being a landlord pure greed ? They are providing a service.

No. No they aren't. If they were, they would all
Accept people on benefits in at least a proportion of their properties
Keep their properties in good condition - no mould, do repairs promptly, not leave problems like woodworm to remain untreated until houses are unsafe, install decent appliances & get them serviced & not leave families without heating or hot water for several weeks in the winter
Allow pets
Meet their legal obligations, e.g. gas certificates etc.

DH, DD & I were homeless this spring, despite being able to pay market rent locally & having a perfectly good credit record, no missed payments at all, ever, in nearly 20 years of renting. Our LL sold the house, as worried about Brexit & future property prices. But we're on benefits (I'm disabled). We couldn't find anyone who'd consider us. Thankfully, eventually, we got social housing. After some while in a shelter.

Private LLs are not "providing a service ". They are making money, for themselves. Hence it being so attractive to investors.

DH & I have literally never had a good LL. Hoping that as we're now in a HA house, it'll be better. Obviously, I'm sure there must be some good, honest, responsible LLs. I've heard about them like an urban myth

Or take more than one holiday.

...and that couldnt be in a self catering cottage/villa because it would be a second home...

@MiddlesexGirl

You can access payments direct to LL before getting any months behind with the rent. There may be a problem with people not knowing its there. There may be a problem with people not being able to budget for the first month on UC when it does come to them. But the system is there to protect tenants and landlords.

Only if the council agree. My previous tenant asked for it to go direct to me because she has major problems budgeting. They said no, she had to learn.

When she got one full month behind we asked asked and they said no. It took her getting her MP involved when she was slipping ever further behind for that decision to change.

It’s not automatic, even if the tenant gets behind they can say no, they just have to explain why.

Private LLs are not "providing a service ". They are making money, for themselves. Hence it being so attractive to investors.

It is possible to do both. Most businesses do. How do you think supermarkets make money? Hairdressers? Window cleaners? They all provide a service in exchange for money, and they do it for profit.

@Hangingwithmygnomies jeez for that much dosh you'd think they could have a better wardrobe.

My parents rented from when they got married until I was about 8, the landlady owned nearly all the houses in the area. Her family had owned the brick works & built the houses with their own bricks. When the landlady died all the houses were sold, most to sitting tenants, my mum's was £2000, she still lives there now & it must be worth £250k now. Back then there wasn't the stigma about renting there is now, families lived in some of the houses their whole life, you could do what you wanted with your house, no ban on decorating, pets etc. We could do with more landlords who want to rent out properties long term & if there was legislation passed that any tenant would be given first refusal to buy at a discounted price.

To those saying landlords are providing a service or it it a legitimate business no it's not it is hoarding and profiteering. Housing is a necessity with few realistic alternatives secondly it is in limited supply due to planning restrictions. So as an earlier poster mentioned buying 700 properties is not that different to buying 700 packets of toilet roll before the lockdown and then selling them on at a profit. If housing was not a necessity then it would be difficult to profiteer as people simply wouldn't buy it or would buy an alternative. If there was no restrictions on supply again it would be impossible to profiteer as there would simply be more and more houses built. Would you describe buying up enormous quantise of hand gel then selling on eBay as legitimate or providing a service? So buying 700 houses imaybe legal but it is not ethical and it is not providing a service but is clearly profiteering.

@MiddlesexGirl

• there are no restrictions on the production or building of new cars or phones. Also a holiday is not a necessity. That is why housing is different.

@1dayatatime but the houses are available for living in, so not hoarding. It may be hard for you to believe that not everyone is willing or able to buy a house but it's true.

Gosh, do people buy places in Centre Parcs? Or do they just hire a room/suite for a week?

So as an earlier poster mentioned buying 700 properties is not that different to buying 700 packets of toilet roll before the lockdown and then selling them on at a profit

But the houses are usually in such a bad state of repair that unless you have cash you can’t get a mortgage on them.

These people do the houses up so people can get a mortgage on them then sell them on.

Dd has done something similar and will do it again and again as part of her income.
She knows how to do a lot of diy stuff having been on courses to learn and is good at it.

Eventually she hopes to be able to get people to do a lot of the work and turnover more and more until she can afford a place of her own

Ds is probably going to do something similar and buy his first place this year. He is 18

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

Landlords wanted this. Because when landlords were paid directly, if the housing benefit claim was then deemed fraudulent, it was clawed back directly from the landlord. (Who often didn't have a hope in hell of getting anything from the tenant).

Sorry if that has been mentioned already.

It's a legitimate and legal business subject to taxation. Landlords provide an essential service which if it was not there would make many homeless. Government housing would and could not provide sufficient homes making many homeless, there are many who do not qualify for government housing who rent as a stepping stone before eventually owing their own houses. Some are simply unable to secure a mortgage and need to rent in the private sector.
You seem particularly vindictive against landlords and I don't understand why, without them the state housing system would collapse. You shouldn't be jealous of people who have built up a successful business, if they were bad landlords I'm sure they would not be able to expand the business at their projected rate.
Yes you YABU.