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

It’s no more greedy than any other business. The idea is to make money and live a great life as far as they’re concerned. Life is not a charity.

100% There needs to be a cap - its ridiculous. I think particularly in London 1 person shouldn't be allowed to own more than 1-2 properties MAX!

FFS. People aren't hoarding these houses preventing anyone from living in them. They are running property rental businesses. Where do you think students are going to live? Temporary workers in the city for six months? Someone has to own those houses and rent them out to the people who need them. And there is no reason AT ALL why they should all be owned by separate individuals, rather than a properly organised, well run, business.

You can have rules about second homes, if you want, and properties standing empty, if you want, but people will actually be homeless if there are no properties available to rent. And someone has to own those properties in order to rent them out.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.

The thing is, if someone happens to be a good landlord and take their responsibilities seriously, everyone probably benefits from them having more rental properties as they become skilled and proficient in providing a good service.

There's a lot of people who have maybe accidentally become landlords and while I am sure many of them are good, it's a lot harder work for them to ensure they do a very good job, up to date with all regulations, knowledgeable about good electricians, plumbers, legislation etc. It's proportionately a lot more work for them per property I think.

They are also more likely to become vulnerable to financial pressures themselves, and be unable to accommodate short-term financial difficulties tenants experience with rent payments, and suddenly want to sell, rather than being able to provide long-term security for tenants.

I think it was a vague Labour manifesto issue at some point that all private rental properties be forcibly sold and councils took over. But that would flood the market with properties suddenly and all house prices would go down (which would at least be good for first time buyers.) And then the councils would have to take over and be more exposed to risk in terms of house price crashes, defaulting rent payments, whereas what you have at the moment is hundreds of thousands or millions of landlords who are taking that risk on themselves.

I definitely think there should be more regulation and quick complaints, appeals processes to resolve issues quickly. In Scotland there is a system to take away the registration of landlords who are failing their tenants so that they can not rent out properties when they no longer have this...but it is a slow process.

A good landlord with 1000 properties is fine with me.

I think it was a vague Labour manifesto issue at some point that all private rental properties be forcibly sold and councils took over. But that would flood the market with properties suddenly and all house prices would go down

No it wouldn’t.

All that would have happened is loads of private renters would have been evicted. Very few would sell and there would be an increase in houses for holiday let’s or houses left empty.
In the meantime the countries homeless population would go through the roof

It was another of those “let’s get the landlords so they have to sell and flood the market to give FTBs a chance” scheme that would have backfired massively

@LadyFlumpalot

I rented for over a decade before I bought, in two different houses, both my landlords were utterly lovely. My parents are accidental landlords (probate properties) and are decent to their tenants, the only people I know of in our area who are rubbish landlords are the people renting to the university students.

I don't buy into the narrative of evil landlords, as with every single walk of life, some people are dicks and just happen to be landlords, that doesn't mean every landlord is a dick.

Perfectly put.

@Nearlyalmost50, having watched some of those progs.I don’t think councils are nearly tough enough. Really heavy fines for damp/unsafe/overcrowded properties are needed, and any repeat offender, or anyone who doesn’t comply within a short time, should IMO have the property confiscated. That might really put the wind up bad LLs.

And as per my pp, and as a small LL myself, IMO compulsory registration of ALL LLs is a must, not just for ensuring liveable properties, but to help ensure that rental income is declared.

At the moment, if you don’t have a mortgage (plenty of LLs don’t) and don’t use a letting agent, then aside from your insurers, in many parts of the U.K. there is not one official body you are obliged to inform about a rental.
The self assessment tax form doesn’t ask for addresses, merely how many properties and rental income/expenses. It’d be all too easy to lie or under-state, and from all I’ve ever heard, inc. almost from the horse’s mouth, it’s rife.

In one case I heard of (colleagues of a dd’s friend) - the friend was told that she was mad to be declaring her rental income - ‘We never have!’

The ‘we’ being 2 fairly senior doctors, not dodgy slumlords cramming illegals in - at least I hope not.😱

FFS. People aren't hoarding these houses preventing anyone from living in them. They are running property rental businesses. Where do you think students are going to live they are preventing people from buying them and driving up the cost. “Ffs” not everyone is a student

“Ffs” not everyone is a student

That is true but the question remains.... where are the students supposed to live?

The student question has been raised several times but you don’t appear to have answered it. You just don’t think rental property should be available without addressing what would happen to people who NEED rental properties......

I agree about toughening up housing powers and enforcing the ones they have more often against bad landlords. Totally. Also agree with landlord register not just for HMO's.

Forget the numbers. One person owning 100 is the same as 100 people owning 1. The housing/rental market would be the same either way.

There's a lot of people who have maybe accidentally become landlords and while I am sure many of them are good, it's a lot harder work for them to ensure they do a very good job, up to date with all regulations, knowledgeable about good electricians, plumbers, legislation etc. It's proportionately a lot more work for them per property I think.

That’s where schemes like the one I mentioned earlier came into their own.

A well versed council housing officer making sure that LL’s, many in the situation you describe, keep on top of their responsibilities, in return for some help and guidance

I’m absolutely convinced it would be cheaper to keep the scheme than to return (as it is going too) to tenants having to gamble on their LL.

The main issue I have, is that it drives up the cost of housing, and maintains the precept that property ownership massively underpins the UK economy.

Think about it, the landlords either have to take out a mortgage, and then charge a profit on it, or buy the houses outright. They can often do either more cheaply than an individual as they have cheaper access / in-house conveyancing, solicitors, surveyors etc.

The only solution to house prices in this country (and they are too high) is to supply the market with a lot more houses, or, to increase the numbers available to private purchasers.

I suppose it's the socialist in me speaking, but because house / property ownership is a massive step-up in life if you can get on the market early i.e. inherit a property or be given a deposit, the current situation is one of many things maintaining social inequality in this country.

@BuggerOffAndGoodDayToYou

“Ffs” not everyone is a student

That is true but the question remains.... where are the students supposed to live?

The student question has been raised several times but you don’t appear to have answered it. You just don’t think rental property should be available without addressing what would happen to people who NEED rental properties......

Also what about places where people are transient

Towns with a large teaching hospital?
Towns near a military base?

Places where people want to rent rather than buy.

I meant to say, the OPs example is extreme, there cant be many landlords running 700+ houses, but there should be some sort of limit, or check that allows for a decent business to be made but with diminishing returns once you get to sill numbers of houses.

Buy to let or buying a house then selling it a year later for profit is no different than people buying up sold out concert tickets and then selling them for twice the price, making money off shirt supply, except one is a need and the other is a want

The only solution to house prices in this country (and they are too high) is to supply the market with a lot more houses, or, to increase the numbers available to private purchasers.

In some ways I agree with you, but many many people who rent don’t want to buy, or simply can’t buy

I think a better solution is to build a lot more social housing. People who can never buy because of ill health or disability get properly secure tenancies in homes (rather than houses)

An abundance of social housing has the effect of naturally pushing down rental prices because demand drops. That in turn has at least a small effect in an area because properties are not as sought after by BTL landlords

Near where I live there are several flats and houses that are let to tenants as opposed to owner-occupied, quite a few on Rightmove advertised as a good 'buy to let'. They haven't pushed up house prices at all.

Most are let to cover the mortgage and a bit more, ie repairs, wear and tear, etc. They are bought as an investment. It's not a question of getting on the housing ladder', you generally have to own where you live before buying something to let.

It is difficult for young people now to buy their first property but 65.10 % of homes were owner occupied in 2018 and some of those owners will be in a position to help their children or grandchildren, it's just a case of waiting a bit longer than used to be the case years ago.

@lyralalala

they may think differently if the prices weren't so high - in the expanding student areas of liverpool circa 2000, the house we lived in and paid rent (bought my my rich friends dad as a gift for her £27,000) sold for £137,500 4 years later once the area had been studentified and bought up by the student landlords.

Nice graduation gift for her though, £110,000 profit, all of uni payed off from our rents, its a nice little microcosm of how our current take on capitalism favours people that can buy into it.

You know you can’t rent to family if you take out a BTL mortgage

Nope, well not strictly true, a lot of lenders don't permit that but some now are realising that the market and conditions are changing so do lend!..

You know you cant rent to a family if you take out a btl mortgage

Where did you pick up this little gem, of course you can.

The student question has been raised several times but you don’t appear to have answered it. You just don’t think rental property should be available I never ever said that! I said there needs to be a rental market, of course but there needs to Tighter regulation around it. Completely ban on foreign investment into the U.K. property market, regulation around how many properties a person or household can own, rent controls, longer rental terms with a perhaps linked tax benefit, make it illegal to discriminate against sections of
society. We have to change the mind set that a house is an asset in a portfolio, it’s a home and there is a shortage. This does not mean we shouldn’t build more homes as well.

I think landlords do provide a valuable service to society, in the same way that doctors and firemen do.

Also, I've never come across one who acts like an utter cunt. Never, not once.

The only solution to house prices in this country (and they are too high) is to supply the market with a lot more houses, or, to increase the numbers available to private purchasers.

Well, err yes in principle, and who controls house prices?.

It is supply and demand. The supply however never seems to meet demand.

Of the cost of a house one part is the land that its built on and "that" most of the time is a the biggest cost. So who prices the land? well the planners by issuing planning permissions. Agricultural land is quite cheap but once planning permission is granted the price rockets.

Discuss;)..

[quote FixTheBone]@lyralalala

they may think differently if the prices weren't so high - in the expanding student areas of liverpool circa 2000, the house we lived in and paid rent (bought my my rich friends dad as a gift for her £27,000) sold for £137,500 4 years later once the area had been studentified and bought up by the student landlords.

Nice graduation gift for her though, £110,000 profit, all of uni payed off from our rents, its a nice little microcosm of how our current take on capitalism favours people that can buy into it.[/quote]
A lot of the staff at the hospital seem to be on placement for 6, 12 or 24 months. They can then end up anywhere. Adding in buying, then selling a house isn’t something I imagine many would want to do. By the time some of them sold their previous house and bought a new one it would be time to sell it again