To hate landlords?

[MsPeachh]

Last month, I had to move suddenly. I found the flat I’m in now, it had just been bought by my landlord and I’m the first person in after the former owner moved out. It’s an ex-council house that the owner had purchased under “right to buy” and now I have to pay a third of my salary to a private landlord for what was originally meant to be affordable housing.

I’m a scientist in my late twenties with good qualifications and I feel total despair that I might never be able to afford my own home, and I will be lining someone else’s pockets via rent for the rest of my life. Let alone what anyone in a position less fortunate than mine is supposed to do.

To make matters worse, I looked up my landlord’s info on Companies House and I discovered that they have 22 properties in my area! It’s a village on the outskirts of a town where lots of people move when they are ready to move out of the hustle and bustle and settle to raise kids. And more and more of these properties are being snapped up by this landlord. It makes me sick, honestly. I know a lot of people become landlords accidentally in later life due to remarrying etc and ending up with two houses between one couple, but this landlord sucking up 22 houses in such a small area disgusts me. I feel like I’m completely losing hope for the future of people my age and younger as house prices keep soaring and soaring.

AIBU?

We've just bought a small house to rent out. We had saved up a sum of money and thought it would be better invested in property than anything else at the moment. We do have a mortgage on about 60% of it but it's interest only, and we won't be charging a huge rent because of this. We're not doing it to make money out of tenants, we're doing it so we can eventually sell it when we retire and have some pension money (mine is pitiful). So any money we make will come from any increase in property value, rather than rent. I think there are quite a few landlords that do this.
Unfortunately there are also unscrupulous landlords who are in it to make as much money out of their tenants as they possible can, whilst providing them with an extremely minimal service. There are also many (particularly in cities) who are totally breaking the law in terms of tenants' rights and living conditions. I think it's those that the government needs to stamp down on.
I don't think it's necessarily ok to hate people because they have a business. All businesses are in it to make money, not to provide charity for society out of the goodness of their hearts. It does seem unfair when people are priced out of their local area though and that's why there are quite a few councils that slap a 'local occupancy' clause onto a percentage of new build developments, as well as affordable housing.

We're not doing it to make money out of tenants
you're doing it so that your tenants can service the mortgage on the property that you own
Or to put it another way, so that they can pay for the the loan which you took out to acquire the asset which you are going to use to fund your retirement
and you call that not making money out of tenants 🤔

Any money we make will come from an increase in property value
And you are only able to make that money because your tenants are paying the interest on the loan that you took out to acquire the property.
Be a landlord if you like but don't try and pretend that you're somehow not making money out of your tenants 🙄

Where else would people put a large sumof money then?
No high interest savings accounts anymore.
I understand Property, mortgages paid off. I don't really understand shares. Have pensions through work but they can only be accessed at a certain age so don't want to add to them.
Also have full holdings in premium bonds.
As Xenia above tells it, it's not a big money maker if you only have one or two. You need at least 6 properties to make an income.
Would those against property investing really just let a wad of money waste away in the bank if you have everything else sorted financially?

I completely agree that property is the obvious place to park your money
this situation is a bad thing for society as a whole and this situation has been created by governments

@SheepandCow - as I said above there is not much difference in security between private rental housing and council in Scotland. Also its far more flexible for the tenant who can give up their private rental tenancy with one months notice and get another that suits them without having to go on a long list to swap as they would with council housing.

There is a huge difference in availability and standards - private rental housing is generally of a much higher standard and is more widely and easily available. Even in Scotland where there is more building and availability there is very little council housing available. However, there is a good stock of private rented housing in good condition in reasonable areas. In addition, much of that housing is not much more than council housing (if at all) and is relatively secure. Some private housing in more fashionable areas is more expensive of course, but these areas tend to have little to no council housing availability at all.

I think we need a variety of housing for people. While I am generally supportive of public housing, having grown up in it, I recognise that it has its issues. Its notable that slums in the UK are almost exclusively in areas of public housing.

Research shows that funding housing associations and/or councils to build homes is poor value for money so I am open to the private sector providing housing at better value to the public purse. Councils and housing associations are notoriously bad at maintenance too.

@Tumbleweed101 - that is the case in England yes, that private rented tenancies can be ended by the landlord without specific grounds. However its not the case in Scotland and in other countries.

also i dont see any issue with the landlord (whether public or private) making capital gains out of a rental property. They are also subject to any capital losses. It makes no difference at the end of the day to the tenant.

Its not exploitative to make money out of your customers. Its business.

There are exploitative businesses

Yohoheavho There are exploitative businesses

I just love the way some posters can construct such well reasoned, justified comments.

I was being sarcastic by the way, before a certain poster comes on...

supermarkets sell food for profit. They have to meet standards, although they don't always do so. Not many 'I hate supermarkets' or food retailers in general posts on here.

landlords (and mortgage companies) provide housing for profit. Standards also apply. We live in a society where people do work for profit. The playground mentalities on MN do struggle with this, and also with recognising that most landlords were not given the property for free. I doubt these people would want to work for nothing which is what they want landlords to do.

no-one becomes a landlord for fun, or to lose money. With normal humans as tenants (the vast majority) it is a matter of providing an initially smart and tidy property, fixing things that go wrong and doing the checks and services needed. If you get dealers/stealers/wreckers it becomes a lot of money-losing hassle.

bad landlords and bad tenants could be addressed with intelligent laws and enforcement. We have some of the former but little of the latter, and some of the laws are counterproductive. Not helped by housing campaigners who focus on the wrong thing. If you can't find a rental that accepts a pet, for instance, that's Shelter's fault.

@Yohoheaveho - there are (maybe like the organ trade etc.) but I wouldn't term renting domestic property as being inherently exploitative.

@murbblurb

supermarkets sell food for profit. They have to meet standards, although they don't always do so. Not many 'I hate supermarkets' or food retailers in general posts on here.

landlords (and mortgage companies) provide housing for profit. Standards also apply. We live in a society where people do work for profit. The playground mentalities on MN do struggle with this, and also with recognising that most landlords were not given the property for free. I doubt these people would want to work for nothing which is what they want landlords to do.

no-one becomes a landlord for fun, or to lose money. With normal humans as tenants (the vast majority) it is a matter of providing an initially smart and tidy property, fixing things that go wrong and doing the checks and services needed. If you get dealers/stealers/wreckers it becomes a lot of money-losing hassle.

bad landlords and bad tenants could be addressed with intelligent laws and enforcement. We have some of the former but little of the latter, and some of the laws are counterproductive. Not helped by housing campaigners who focus on the wrong thing. If you can't find a rental that accepts a pet, for instance, that's Shelter's fault.

Excellent points.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@SheepandCow - as I said above there is not much difference in security between private rental housing and council in Scotland. Also its far more flexible for the tenant who can give up their private rental tenancy with one months notice and get another that suits them without having to go on a long list to swap as they would with council housing.

There is a huge difference in availability and standards - private rental housing is generally of a much higher standard and is more widely and easily available. Even in Scotland where there is more building and availability there is very little council housing available. However, there is a good stock of private rented housing in good condition in reasonable areas. In addition, much of that housing is not much more than council housing (if at all) and is relatively secure. Some private housing in more fashionable areas is more expensive of course, but these areas tend to have little to no council housing availability at all.

I think we need a variety of housing for people. While I am generally supportive of public housing, having grown up in it, I recognise that it has its issues. Its notable that slums in the UK are almost exclusively in areas of public housing.

Research shows that funding housing associations and/or councils to build homes is poor value for money so I am open to the private sector providing housing at better value to the public purse. Councils and housing associations are notoriously bad at maintenance too.[/quote]
Thanks for this post, the Scottish system sounds much better, if as you say there is little distortion of the market by state housing, plus more reasonable landlord and tenant terms.

The invariable, unthinking, foolish bleating of the demand for 'social housing, social housing, social housing' is doing a lot of harm.

Where is the demand for wheelchair housing?
For inclusive housing?
For good tenants and good landlords to be spared from the ones with a track record of being nightmares?
(The landlord who is tricked by non paying tenants , usually with enthusiastic encouragement from L.A. and advice agencies, will need to recover his lost rent and court costs somehow, so guess who pays? The good tenant who must pay higher rents and who faces more suspicion than any terrorist encountered)

Where is the demand for old people, and for disabled people, to have a roof over their heads, not exclusively 'young' people?
And for there to be an end to the apartheid and ghetto places to live, where old or disabled people are segregated?

'

I don't hate landlords but I think it should be made illegal to not allow pets

You decided to be a scientist and your landlord decided to deal in property - freedom of choice is a key element of the country that we live in. And I say that as someone who has a shit landlord who owns multiply properties and who let water pour through our ceiling for 6 months and took 4 months to replace our broken dryer.

You cannot even guess what sorts of accidental damage people will cause
This thread is clear evidence of the naivety of people in relation to tenants.

It came as compete shock to see how seeming normal people, with jobs demading responsibilities could treat their home in such manners.

The first tenants I had clogged the whole kitchen in spatter of grease. The extraction fan stopped working as it was covered in grease all over. The oven and hobs were in an absolute disgusting state as were the tiles on the whole. I hired professional cleaners but it was so bad, it was beyond repair. Everything had to be replaced new but because the kitchen was a few years already (but in perfect condition), what I could claim through the deposit (wear and Tear) didn't come close to what the actual loss of it all cost me.

Same as painting. The walls had been painted new when they moved. They decided to paint over it all but when challenged said they repaint it all as before. I was concerned because the quality of their painting was dreadful. Nothing we could do though but prey. Sadly my fear came to reality as the Painting at the end of the tenancy was even more if a rushed job. Only one coat of the cheapest paint showing the bright colours under. Paint all over the skirting boards and ceiling, but again, could only claim a minimal amount. Yet no one would have wanted to move in the house as such, so everything had to be redecorated. This left me massively out of pocket.

It's all well to pass tenants as the innocent party in this transaction, but many are from it. They treat their rental place like shit.

It's all very well to say that it should be illegal to not allow pets, but sadly after the first tenants, we took on a couple with two dogs...and paid for it again. Massive damage done by the dogs, but the worse has to be them cutting though an original wooden door to put a massive dog flap that wasn't even secure. Of course didn't asked (would have been told no). Had to replace the whole door. Didn't get anything out of the deposit because they also fail to pay the last 6 weeks of rent.

Thankfully, we were much stricter in our selection after this and yet another refurbishment and so far, cross fingers, we have good tenants.

Take it that you're ok with housing associations paying someone over £320,000 a year then? (8 over £100k)

So, what would you do? Take all non owner resident properties into public ownership, remove the right to be and then allocate all of these new properties to tenants on the basis of need as is currently the case?

Sorry OP, but as a single person, you'd be massively down that list as a single adult (even allowing for the expansion of social housing).

You may not like it, but the private sector enabled you to get the housing you needed with some element of choice.

This thread is clear evidence of the naivety of people in relation to tenants.
If you have only a couple of properties, then it can be a pain, but if you own dozens and roll in millions, repainting some walls or a door won't push you into bankruptcy.

I would not allow pets and by the way that also applies in my own home not matter how much the children have wanted a dog or cat. They can cause a lot of damage. No pets, no smokers. My children know if they want a dog they will have earn enough money to buy a place and have it live with them their.

...there....

My partner and I both have high salaries but would happily live in council accommodation of we were eligible. If they expanded it to high income people, it wouldn't make a loss and then people couldn't complain about "taxpayers funding council housing".

Landlords should take their responsibilities seriously related to the state of the property & repairs. They should declare all income & pay all tax due

Similarly, tenants should respect the property & rent

It works both ways

There are good & bad in all walks of life

I’m only likely to be using the English rental market and that’s the one my experiences are based in but it’s interesting that Scotland is so different.