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

[quote Quarantimespringclean]@101jobs

We have a second home, a small flat in a busy seaside town. We cost the local council very little as we don’t use local services like schools, libraries or social services. Effectively we pay full council tax for having our rubbish and recycling collected when we are there. And we put a load of money into the local economy.
We bought in that area because there are so many theatres, cinemas, restaurants, bars etc so it’s a year round destination. When we are there we are very much in holiday mode so we eat out most nights and we make full use of all the entertainment options as well as employing local tradesmen, using local salons, nail bars, shops etc. I use the Mindbody app so I can attend dance and exercise classes at local studios which are mostly small independent businesses. We also support local charities. And when we aren’t there we lend the flat free of charge to friends and family for holidays and mini breaks who also use these services. I am fully confident we are a net gain to the local economy.

Thanks to lockdown we haven’t visited the flat for some months so haven’t been spending there. It is very dependent on visitor and tourist trade so I am sure local businesses are feeling the pinch. I hope to be back very soon, revisiting our favourite venues and spending again.[/quote]
Quarantimesoringclean

I think you misread my post. I’m on YOUR side.

Read my post again 😊

Probably lying ... 👍 sounds over the top to me

@Justaboy

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;)..

The land cost as a proportion of the total cost is very dependent on area though. Closer to a town is more expensive, but more rural likely to be harder to get pp on. For a brownfield site, there's rarely any problems getting pp, but a large amount has to be budgeted for "cleaning" the land, not just clearing but surveying for toxins in the ground etc.

But yes supply & demand is IMO probably the biggest factor in housing costs. In my area (Kent, just outside the M25) a new build 3 bed terraced house will cost you upwards of £400k. Those a built on waste ground between the station and the motorway. Go a couple of miles inside the M25 (theoretically the land should be much more expensive, as much more built up, with higher costs as Brownfield), price is the same. Go about 8 miles down the motorway into a very popular market town with loads of business parks nearby, and you'll pay around £70k less for a 3 bed semi.

The big difference is that MY town has an HS2 station, as does the market town further out, but with many fewer trains.

So in theory, the house price should be much more expensive inside the M25 than outside, but the high speed link makes it much more desirable.

Of course while I agree that private landlords are necessary if people didn’t buy such huge volumes of houses to rent then prices would be lower for those who cannot buy because of the ridiculous current house prices in some areas

If they are good to their tenants then all good

What?! They are paying tax on their income which is a major source of income for government. It’s ‘people’ like this who feed the economy. What is wrong with you🙄

YABU. I don’t like it per se but if they want to then they should go for it.

My son and his disabled wife have a good landlord. The rent he charges is probably half what he could get.

So many inaccuracies on this thread, including a lack of awareness around the way landlords are already regulated and tenants are protected. BTL is not a money spinner in the way it used to be under Tony Blair. LLs must be on the ball at all times throughout a tenancy (quite rightly) or they can suffer later down the line.

Nor is BTL wholly to blame for rising house prices; this is a lazy argument and one often trotted out but rarely backed up with credible sources.

Getting rid of Section 21 (the 'no fault' eviction process) which is in the pipeline, will create far more secure tenancies but will also drive many LLs out of the market who know it will take far longer to recover properties from tenants who aren't paying and aren't looking after their property.

Ironically, it will also make it harder for tenants struggling to be rehomed by the council because they don't accept tenants in rent arrears (deemed to have made themselves deliberately homeless). S21s are often issued by LLs even when there are rent arrears as a way for both parties to be released from the tenancy without the need for court proceedings and CCJs. Once S21 goes, the only action a LL will be able to take is via the courts and all tenants in arrears could end up with CCJs to their name.

So the govt will have to rethink how all that works as well. As with most new legislation, ultimately, tenants pay the price in some way.

How do we know they're not great landlords and then they'll be better than the council. Because our council own 1000s of property and lots are needing repairs for months on end because they don't fix them quick enough.

@GeorgieTheGorgeousGoat

'I agree. I don’t even think people should be allowed to buy a second home.'

Generalised twaddle. We bought the property next door so that, potentially, our two boys with special needs might be able to live at least semi independently.

Also, some people do not want the responsibility of ownership, or simply couldn't cope with it.

Unfortunately, the policies of the 1980s left a deficit of public housing stock which means there wasn't enough public housing to meet demand.

Where there's a gap, someone with an eye to large profits will step in. I know it seems to work in some European countries, but where people start to de-personalise family homes, seeing them only as part of a portfolio, there is little interest in the people whose lives they are messing with.

I had a colleague who bought a home, not because he wanted to, but because on three occasions he had rented a flat on the understanding it would be with long term in mind, only to be given notice after 6 months because the private landlords had either received an offer they couldn't refuse to on the property, or because they had overstretched and had to sell some of their portfolio.

Call me unbusinesslike if you will, but treating people like inconsequential pawns in your real life game of Monopoly doesn't seem a suitable way to deal with a housing shortage.

That's just crazy, how can anyone effectively keep tabs on that many properties. Probably all in a shabby state how could anyone keep up with the work on them all?

That's just crazy, how can anyone effectively keep tabs on that many properties. Probably all in a shabby state how could anyone keep up with the work on them all? Perhaps they pay someone to do so on their behalf?

'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'.

Except one means people pay more for concert tickets, the means people have to keep uprooting themselves and their families.

So yeah. Just a bit different.

@BuggerOffAndGoodDayToYou - not just people who need rental properties but people who want them too. Many people prefer to rent for some or all of their lives. I’ve rented for many years in different places and I own now.

My PIL own around 30 properties around the country and rent them out. It's their retirement plan and is no different to an investment portfolio. They're fair landlords and have a very high standard of repair. They can't take any benefit claimants though as their mortgage and insurance terms prohibit this. On mumsnet all LL are villains

@Devora13 - eh? Landlords providing rental property don’t mean “people have to keep uprooting themselves and their families”. Possibly quite the opposite.

Landlords are not stopping anyone else buying property. There is a shortage of supply but if landlords didn’t buy there wouldnt magically be more property. Just less for those who want to or have to rent.

'@Oliversmumsarmy on what grounds can’t you have a buy to let mortgage and not let to family?

I’ve come across more than one situation where family are tenants.'

Well I guess you could just remortgage your own home then use the cash raised to buy another property, then you wouldn't actually have a BTL mortgage on the property you're renting out?

We own another property and my dc and partner rent it from us because they can't afford the rentals available through agents. Stopping people buying second properties for rent will not help the housing situation in fact it will put more pressure on LA who do not have enough properties to go round and many are in poor repair or areas many would not want to live (I know because I lived in one of them). I know some private landlords take the piss but not all and it was the best investment for pension. Savings were earning nothing and at least our dc will have a two properties to inherit and can either rent them out, sell them or live in them. 700 is a lot though, if I had that sort of money I'd retire!

I do not understand. You are entitled to buy property. If they are fair to their tenants, rent, upkeep etc. What is wrong with that? If they aren’t, then need sorting ASAP via authorities.

@Stefoscope

That's just crazy, how can anyone effectively keep tabs on that many properties. Probably all in a shabby state how could anyone keep up with the work on them all? Perhaps they pay someone to do so on their behalf?

They don’t.

They don’t own 700 properties.

The OP misunderstood, or deliberately posted something goady. They have bought, done up and sold 700ish properties over the years

@CayrolBaaaskin

Perhaps read my previous comment.

It's a business who are you to tell people what they can or can't own?

I've not read the whole thread but they sound like landlords. I do not understand the nastiness towards them?? Many people don't want to own their own home or can't afford to buy. Renting suits them. If there were no landlords, there would be no privately rented houses. That would mean so many more people either homeless or stuck at home with parents. If they are decent landlords, people who repair the house when necessary, charge a fair rent, etc., then why shouldn't they own so many houses?

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@BuggerOffAndGoodDayToYou - not just people who need rental properties but people who want them too. Many people prefer to rent for some or all of their lives. I’ve rented for many years in different places and I own now.[/quote]
Absolutely!

Interesting that none of the posters who say that BTL should be outlawed have any answers for where those who want to or need to rent should live.........