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

These threads are so bizarre, all properties that are rented out are owned by someone or something, whether it's a private landlord, a housing association or a council body they are owned by others.

Each of those owners own them for profit, a housing association has to support its organisation and many staff, it also wants to generate profit to build more housing some of which aee sold to generate more money. They arent some saintly body who does it for fun. Same with local authorities. Private landlords also own properties to either create a profit from the rent or to cover their costs and gamble on the direction of the property markets. And yet jealousy leads to these sorts of threads.

Its easy enough to avoid bad landlords, when you visit a property look at how it is maintained, if its beautifully presented and well looked after that's a pretty good indicator that the landlord cares. If however the property is neglected however the rent is lowee than elsewhere then don't be surprised when it takes forever for something to be fixed or improved.

UggyPow

You used the term ‘brought their house’ twice in your last paragraph on a recent post: I wanted to ask why? I see that everywhere lately, people saying they brought houses, it doesn’t make any sense at all and I thought I’d ask what the logic is behind it.

@Sharkerr its pretty obvious she means 'bought' not 'brought'.

I wasn’t sure @Gran22, if it’s a typo then fair enough. Just curious as it seems more than a typo as I’m seeing it everywhere lately. Almost every thread has several people saying brought instead of bought. Wondered if it was some regional dialect thing.

Plus it’s not something that would fit a typo. The R is over on the left of the keyboard, not something you’d accidentally catch.

@Justaboy actually I do too. My current tenants have two cats and the house is immaculate.

Not all tenants are as respectful though. I once had a 'lovely' couple, who allowed their dog to shit on the carpets and did a piss poor job of cleaning up. It cost me over 2k to replace the carpets, over a month in lost rent and the deposit protection scheme sided with them

The reality is, I see tons of 'house wanted' must accept pets where the tenant can no longer find somewhere to rent because landlords are no longer legally allowed to ask for a higher deposit, in case of the worst (not that they would win any claim regardless, but that's another debate)

Some landlords, the ones who will accept pets, now usually charge a pet rent, so whether or not the pets cause damage, the tenant pays extra, whereas they wouldn't have previously if they'd looked after the house.

I would like to see a system where residential rental properties are provided by housing trusts, in the same way academy trusts run schools. However, I understand that it's near impossible to do this because property ties up a lot of capital and you can only get it to invest it if you are willing to provide a reasonable return.

As an alternative, I would like there to be housing companies owning property, and a tax incentive or similar which effectively made it tax effective for pension funds to own these.

Just to chime in, I don’t understand the vitriol towards all landlords. The bad ones, sure. But the decent ones provide a service. It’s wholly illogical to suggest that people not be allowed to buy and let out properties: the tenants won’t automatically be able to buy property. Buying property is something that can take years. I rented for twelve years before buying, DH and I rented while saving up and didn’t get a penny of help from anyone (nor did we get help in the form of living wit family while saving), it was tough but we managed it and became homeowners at 27/31. Where would I have lived before that?

I’ve had some crap landlords but also some absolutely fantastic ones who took care of their tenants brilliantly, were professional and quick to get issues resolved, kitted the place our high spec, didn’t withhold deposit at the end. But you don’t hear about those because there’s nothing to complain about there!

As an alternative, I would like there to be housing companies owning property

This is a housing company but we have had virtually 15 pages of why people don’t want this

*Treacletoots

I’d never risk being a landlord. I just wouldn’t trust it. I’ve always been a good tenant but I know some aren’t, and I couldn’t bear if I rented out a property and it got trashed.

Sharkerr

It's not a typo it's annoying poor grammar that is everywhere atm.

You buy things when you purchase them. Past tense: bought.

You bring things when you take them with you somewhere.
Past tense: brought.

No one ever "brought" a house.

@Sharkerr it is, as loveisland says, annoying. I don't think it's regional, just another irritant like the ubiquitous 'would of'.

I just thought I’d give someone who uses it chance to explain if they’d be so kind... it’s a very confusing use of the word!

Oliversmumsarmy

Sorry to be clear I would want the following requirements for a property company:

• publically listed
• banned from having single non institutional shareholders owning more than 100k worth of shares
• not open to international investment

We should treat our rental property stock the way Norway treats oil, as a pension asset to be owned by all.

Oliversmummy its clear what people do not want is for high proportions of housing wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of individuals.

If they own 700-1000 houses presumably they are employing many people and paying taxes. Someone needs to be a landlord unless the gov buys up all the stock and rents it out.

We are about to relocate for work and are happily going into rented accommodation - the landlord owns in NI because they’re in Aus for work. We’re renting out our house to two doctors who need to be here for a couple of years as my town is in the middle of the two towns they work in (both an hour in opposite directions), my in laws have just sold their 7 figure property to a couple who were renting for a year whilst they explored the Home Counties trying to find the right village - doesn’t sound like they were financially over a barrel - my in laws are looking for a rental in central Ireland so they can find their retirement location. The rental market does serve some purpose and not all of us have cheap as our only requirement.

NoIDontWatchLoveIsland but in this case it isn’t.

If they own 700-1000 houses presumably they are employing many people and paying taxes

They don’t own 700 properties if you read the thread the op was wrong to say they did.

It's difficult because despite a few PP insisting no one should have a second home, there are a lot of reasons why people might want/need to rent for short periods of time.
The shortest period of time obviously being a holiday.
But new graduates, uni students, kids moving out of home, people on temporary contracts , moving to a new area, sold a house but havent found a house to buy, having own house renovated are all reasons why people may choose to rent rather than buy. (I'm sure there are lots of other valid reasons) Not sure how pps who unilaterally disagree with second home owners would do in each of these situations?

But I think that people dont want to rent long term, unable to save enough to get on the housing ladder, and not have the chance of the security of owning a house.

...but I dont know what the answer is to enable both scenarios.

As @Oliversmumsarmy said. Lots of good intentions have actually fucked tenants in the reality. Yep! Shelter lobbied hard for shit nobody really gained from. THAT really needs to be investigated - as does their often utterly incorrect advice!

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. Absolutely.

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!

Sadly for landlords the pet ban is being looked at, hard, in the next round of mooted changes. It has already been said that depriving people of the ownership of pets as a blanket ban is not acceptable. A landlord would have to give a reason. And Pet Deposits are NOT going to be allowed, I thin, becasue of the deposit cap! And additional wear and tear is to be expected from pets, as it is with children... So what does a clear thinking landlord do... yep! Raise the rent under the assumption that a pet will be resident at some point. Having seen the damage a single cat can do I am with the landlords on pets. Even with the best of intentions they can do a lot of damage in a very short time!

Again, the mooted changes are intended to be more tenantly friendly. But what they actually do is force all landlords to reconsider their rents etc.

www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2020/1/tenancy-agreements-to-be-overhauled-to-end-pet-bans?source=mostcommented

How any of that save any tenant any money at all I have no idea!

@Jux

I think the real selfish bastards are the ones with holiday homes or second homes. Homes which aren't rented out to local people at reasonable rate and aren't maintained.

No one NEEDS a second home.
No one NEEDS a holiday home.
Not when we have such a shortage of housing.

I think Councils should charge 400% Council tax on holiday and second homes in their areas to compensate the local population for losing yet another house and year-round regular business.

Why be so nasty about people who have worked to achieve something in their life?

Adultier is right and that has been common with us. My daughter lets out her flat to a teacher and his partner who only want to be in London a year. She rented elsewhere for various reasons and is moving back into it in August when those people move back to the Midlands. Other people want to stay for a while. My sons let their house to a couple from elsewhere in Europe with a child but they have not been here very long and do not want nor are able to buy yet. it is not some exploitative transaction. If we only let pension funds buy houses where no pensioner owned more than £100k of the shares in the pension fund it would certainly be difficult for tenants as I am not sure enough pension funds want to move into property to take over all the UK's rented stock of that kind which is let at market rates although some do. What would we then do if someone had to move cities for work for a year and wants to let out their house for a year?>Would they have to keep it idle.

It cost my son a third of a year's income last year to pay his stamp duty when he moved counties and bought a new house so in many cases you cannot keep buying and reselling all the time because of stamp duty being so high every time you move.

I remember what it was like when we didn’t have ASTs and the lack of council housing was really bad.

Friend went to put her name down for a council house when I lived in the north.
She listed a few areas that she was interested in and the shortest wait time was 23 years

The time of getting a council house if you wanted one was gone long before people think

Friend who was pregnant at the time was given a flat miles away in a really not great area.

AST were supposed to help out with the lack of housing and they have done.

Imagine taking away all the privately rented properties and you have something akin to what we had growing up.

Really really bad housing.

We're buying a flat to rent to our son so it's a buy to let. He's saved the deposit and will pay the mortgage and ultimately it will be his. There's no way he would be able to get the mortgage on his own. We've got the equity so it's easy for us. I expect there are many parents doing the same for their children. Without us parents being able to buy a second home, the younger generation would be renting forever and never get on the ladder.

No one ever "brought" a house.
Actually...
www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8408171/amp/Owners-Elizabethan-manor-house-entire-home-Sudbury-hill-new-location.html

rarehistoricalphotos.com/structure-relocation-romania-1987/#:~:text=They%20dug%20under%20the%20building,a%2033%20degree%20inclined%20angle.

theconstructor.org/building/moving-buildings-types-process/17570/

😁