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

Basically, we need the council housing stock brought back up to pre-Right-To-Buy levels, or beyond

The council housing stock was never sufficient even then

In the 70s friend tried to apply for a council house in the local and surrounding areas (she travelled miles on the bus to different councils) and was told the shortest wait time was 23 years.

There was nothing to rent privately because it wasn’t in a landlords interest unless they had a load of heavies who they could take round to people who hadn’t paid their rent on their scummy damp and cockroach ridden flats or houses and threaten to break their fingers if they didn’t pay.

Is that the type of thing people really want to return to.

At the moment landlords with a mortgage do not make a profit in many places as property prices are dropping and they are taxed on the rent rather than the rent less the interest on the mortgage in many cases.*

It's an investment. Other peoples labour is paying their mortgage. Whether a landlord made a good investment or not is done to them.

OP We live in an inequitable world. this is part of it. Its not right. If course it isn't and needs to change. Not sure when that will be. Hopefully more people will have seen how inequitable it is recently. Shame it was after the election not before because this government arent going to change anything for the better unless they are forced to.

That has to be the most ridiculous comment of the thread. Of course they provide a service. A whole host of people need or want to rent. Not everyone wants to own the house they live in.
I'm very grateful to the various landlords that I and my children have had over the years. I don't recall a single bad one but then we were/are good tenants. I'm guessing that helps a lot.

It isn't ridiculous, it is the difference between rentier capitalism and the service economy and it is an important one.

Landlords are not providing a service in the same way as those who are selling their knowledge and skills in a market place. Landlords are a class of people that use pre-existing capital assets to monopolise housing stock and extract rents, rather than investing in production or a true services business.

Monopolies, either by individuals or a group are generally bad news in terms of those who are customers or renters in terms of value for money, you can see it everywhere such private monopolies exist. That is why you need regulation.

In the UK regulation has been improved, but we are still behind other comparable economies in that and the industry has to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way. Part of that is creating barriers to entry so that unscrupulous and incompetent landlords are discouraged.

However the suggestion that one person owning 700 properties rather than one pensoin fund surely doesn't change the monopoly issue nor if only the state provided housing (as in North Korea or old soviet russia). One of the strengths of the UK letting market is there are so many different small landlords rather than concentrated power. You have huge scope in most areas to shop around. Someone owning 700 homes unless it is the council is pretty rare.

The interesting point is that it was over regulation which led to hardly any suitable properties by about 1980 as who would let if the rent was fixed for life and the tenant could never be asked to leave. Assured shortholds did improve things. I would argue state interference in the housing market and in interest rates has caused some of our current issues with high house prices (which lead to high rents) int he SE of England (I am from the NE where things are a bit different)

I looked at buying btl and from my calculations I could get about £20 a month from it. This would have to go into repairs etc fund (ha. As if 20 buys anything, but well).
It was a cheaper property with cheap rent, but I was still surprised how little people get from it in month to month cash because I saw people talking about how it's their part time income. I can only assume there is a little to no mortgage on the ones who provide monthly income.

I do hope that those posters on here clamouring for more regulation of the private rented sector never find themselves in the position of becoming 'accidental' landlords (a nightmare according to one previous poster because we are so bad apparently), maybe from having to rent out a parent's property to cover care home fees? It soon became apparent to me that landlords are seen as parasites desperate to rip off their tenants and house them in the most substandard accommodation they can get away with for a quick buck. This sector is probably one of the most regulated sectors in the UK economy; I had to take a fortnight off work just to read the sheer volume of documentation required to ensure I was complying with all the legislation; there are dozens and dozens and dozens of laws and more on the way. I spent many a sleepless night worrying that I would miss something and end up in prison.The problem is enforcement not regulation; all the regulation is there. Of course if you are a council like Kensington then the law doesn't apply to you but had a fire killed my tenants I would be typing this from jail. I go out of my way to make sure the tenants in fil's property are safe and happy. & when the day comes when the money has run out, we will have to sell it and ask our tenants to leave but I guess the alternative is that fil never worked and saved and the good old taxpayer could be footing his care home bill. There is always a bigger picture but some people will always want to view it a certain way.

*It isn't ridiculous, it is the difference between rentier capitalism and the service economy and it is an important one.

Landlords are not providing a service in the same way as those who are selling their knowledge and skills in a market place. Landlords are a class of people that use pre-existing capital assets to monopolise housing stock and extract rents, rather than investing in production or a true services business.

Monopolies, either by individuals or a group are generally bad news in terms of those who are customers or renters in terms of value for money, you can see it everywhere such private monopolies exist. That is why you need regulation.

In the UK regulation has been improved, but we are still behind other comparable economies in that and the industry has to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way. Part of that is creating barriers to entry so that unscrupulous and incompetent landlords are discouraged.*

this

@CHIRIBAYA

I do hope that those posters on here clamouring for more regulation of the private rented sector never find themselves in the position of becoming 'accidental' landlords (a nightmare according to one previous poster because we are so bad apparently), maybe from having to rent out a parent's property to cover care home fees? It soon became apparent to me that landlords are seen as parasites desperate to rip off their tenants and house them in the most substandard accommodation they can get away with for a quick buck. This sector is probably one of the most regulated sectors in the UK economy; I had to take a fortnight off work just to read the sheer volume of documentation required to ensure I was complying with all the legislation; there are dozens and dozens and dozens of laws and more on the way. I spent many a sleepless night worrying that I would miss something and end up in prison.The problem is enforcement not regulation; all the regulation is there. Of course if you are a council like Kensington then the law doesn't apply to you but had a fire killed my tenants I would be typing this from jail. I go out of my way to make sure the tenants in fil's property are safe and happy. & when the day comes when the money has run out, we will have to sell it and ask our tenants to leave but I guess the alternative is that fil never worked and saved and the good old taxpayer could be footing his care home bill. There is always a bigger picture but some people will always want to view it a certain way.

Whilst this is sad and I sympathise, you could’ve sold the property for the care home fees. You’re still maintaining an asset that I assume you and your spouse will inherit

@CHIRIBAYA I'd never become an accidental landlord because I'd just sell the house in that situation. I do not want to be a landlord.

I really don't see why it is any different from owning a small shop and putting a manager in it to run it. Also there can be quite a lot of work in it. When my son's house was vacant last year I put a lot of hours into the house before it was let (never mind repairs since). It was the same in the 1980s - we put hundreds of hours into the two flat (and then sold them at 50% losses in the 90s property crash - perhaps you could even say in some cases tenants exploit landlords in that sense.

Also Boom, why is letting a property worse than say a partner in a business or even a GP doctor outfit who has people working for them doing a lot of the work? Surely It is just the same except landlords may do more day to day DIY/work than some small business owners might do.

No one has to be an accidental landlord. You can sell up, or hand the whole thing over to a letting agent and collect the balance once their fees have been paid. Although if you do the latter then I do think you have a moral duty to choose a decent agent.

It soon became apparent to me that landlords are seen as parasites desperate to rip off their tenants and house them in the most substandard accommodation they can get away with for a quick buck.

@CHIRIBAYA, why do you think that is? All the landlords on here seem to be benevolent service providers who have their tenants' interests at heart.

Also Boom, why is letting a property worse than say a partner in a business or even a GP doctor outfit who has people working for them doing a lot of the work? Surely It is just the same

This is more than a little bit silly. To be a managing partner of a GP practice you need straight As at A-level, seven years doing a medical degree, a few years working 70-odd hour shifts as a junior doctor, then to go into general practice, do that for a couple of decades. Then you have to risk significant assets setting up a practice, deal with HR, payroll, complaints and negligence claims, the stress of supervising multiple nutjob patients, the rest.

The offset is that you may make many people's lives immeasurably better by running a good practice. There is every chance you will save many peoples parents, spouses, children's lives.

Please explain how this is the same as investing your inheritance in a BTL and refusing to answer the phone when the boiler breaks.

@Porcupineinwaiting

No one has to be an accidental landlord. You can sell up, or hand the whole thing over to a letting agent and collect the balance once their fees have been paid. Although if you do the latter then I do think you have a moral duty to choose a decent agent.

Handing over to an agent is often worse. Especially if you are an inexperienced landlord. The agent I used was part of a major national chain.

The kind someone uses when they want to get it right. Unfortunately agents are an absolute law unto themselves and actually are often much, much worse than LL’s. They cause more problems than they solve.

My problem isn't with landlords, because I can't remember having a particularly bad one. As someone mentioned, if you're a 'good' tenant you may have a better experience. However, I think that probably only applies when you're able to have a direct relationship with a landlord. When you're only able to deal with a rental management company, I don't think the fact that you're a great tenant comes into consideration.

My bugbear about renting in this country is the change in the law which made short-term lettings (6 months) the norm. Yes, it's right that property owners are able to have reasonably quick recourse to oust bad tenents, but in effect it's a licence to hike up the rent every six months or evict the current tenants and get new ones in. With 'good' landlords, happy with their good tenants, the rent may only go up once a year, and there may be room for negotiation. And, yes, I know, there'll be plenty of people who won't charge higher rents every six months, or even every year.

It's true that for many people renting is the best option but the biggest problem for me was that, with the six month leases, you were no longer renting a 'home', ie a place you could settle in and make yours; you were renting a space for six months and could be thrown out after a month's notice, even if you'd been a perfect tenant. That's the difference between us and much of the rest of the continent. There, if it suits you to rent rather than buy, it still feels like your 'home'.

It's true that for many people renting is the best option but the biggest problem for me was that, with the six month leases, you were no longer renting a 'home', ie a place you could settle in and make yours; you were renting a space for six months and could be thrown out after a month's notice, even if you'd been a perfect tenant. That's the difference between us and much of the rest of the continent. There, if it suits you to rent rather than buy, it still feels like your 'home'.

dancing, we don't need to add refusing to deal with the boiler to the example. Compare a good landlord and a good doctor. If that analogy doesn't work for you what about someone who buys a tea shop and puts in a manager. The manager does the work and the owner takes the profit. Or my gas heating company I used last week - boss arranged the employee to come in to do the work - why is that not objectionable exploitation any more than in your eyes providing a housing service or what about hotels - are you against someone buying a hotel and paying waitresses to serve in it and making a profit?

I think a lot of people here don’t understand business or economics. Having lots of different private and some public landlords providing rental property is not a monopoly. Quite the opposite.

A rental property business is a business like any other. Some landlords work in the business doing up properties, etc and many don’t and it’s just an investment. This is the same as many other businesses people invest in.

Although on the Financial Times website there is also a large core of posters who also see letting property and some kind of heinous crime whereas they seem perfectly happy with someone buying a similar priced shop and having workers work there to earn them profits. I don't see the distinction personally. If yo believe people have a right to own factory equipment, clothes, their computers, their tea cups then why is letting people own property whether they live in it or not a problem?

Of course some Rachman like landlords exploit the fact the state pays the rent for some and do nothing to the property and just let it go to rack and ruin which is pointless as you jeopardise your asset just as some factories in Leicester apparently breach the minimum wage and pay people less than the law requires but both of those are exceptions, not most landlords (particularly those who charge market rents) and not more UK factories making clothes.

Some people want short lets for example between selling a house and completing on their new house, or renovating a property

There is no reason other than political will that the vast majority of housing rental needs couldn't be met with council housing.

The buy to let and private rental market is what it is because governments brought in policies which enabled and encouraged it and disabled and discouraged council housing. It has changed before and can again.

@wafflyversatile

There is no reason other than political will that the vast majority of housing rental needs couldn't be met with council housing.

The buy to let and private rental market is what it is because governments brought in policies which enabled and encouraged it and disabled and discouraged council housing. It has changed before and can again.

Exactly - but there would need to be a big shift in politics for this to happen - perhaps covid will change people's minds.

[quote Waxonwaxoff0]@CHIRIBAYA I'd never become an accidental landlord because I'd just sell the house in that situation. I do not want to be a landlord.[/quote]
Ever heard of negative equity?

Here’s my two pence on why private rentals are bad though.

This is a house, up for private rent, attached to my SIL’s social house tiny and beautiful rural council estate, the house I’ve shown was brought in the nineties:

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-94718429.html

It’s up for rent for £1075 PCM
SIL pays £302.20 a month in rent

In a year, for an identical house one family pays £12,900 and Another pays £3,626.40

One family pays £9,273.60 more to live in the same house.

I am not familiar with that agent, but I know that the council have never left her waiting for a repair for longer than six hours, and they have addressed any issues she’s had incredibly well.

I guess this isn’t the fault of people, but more of the system - but it makes me cross that people have to spend so much just to survive

The mind boggles 🤯

My bugbear isn't about short-term lets. Once, in my many years of renting, I was happy to have a short-term let where I only needed to give a month's notice, because I was between selling one property and exchanging on another in a different town. But, apart from that instance, I had to move from one property to another every six months, or maybe a year, putting down large deposits and needing to find a new place where I could reach my place of work, after the six month short-term lets became the standard. I never again had a 'home' whilst I was renting, and it wasn't because I didn't pay my rent or bills regularly. I've never been overdue with rent. The last time I rented was in 2002, during that period of house moving. Prior to that I hadn't needed to rent since 1990, and even now I dread the idea of going back to private renting. Not because I had bad landlords, because I didn't, but because my 'home' was only ever my home for, potentially, six months.

At the same as the six month let laws were brought in, council houses were being sold off under market price.