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?

@CatsArePeopleToo

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.

But it's not just repainting and fixing doors - is having tenants who won't pay and that you can't evict for months. Who leave a property in such a state that fixing it would cost upwards of £10K. It's tenants who will use your property to run dodgy businesses that will 'tarnish' that address on records for years. It's tenants who will ring you at all hours. So no, you don't rake in millions unless you have thousands of properties, mortgage-free and that hardly require any maintenance. Because don't forget. The more properties you have, the more people you need to employ to manage them. And those people need paying every month too...

@joswis
That's exactly the point!
12 years waiting for social housing! That's exactly why we need less private landlords and more social housing. In many parts of the UK, people are waiting years for a stable affordable home (in the meantime living in shoddy insecure private rentals or expensive temporary accommodation) because too much of the rental system is in private hands.

If there was no problem with the private rental system in the UK - if it offered stable, long-term affordable housing for all who needed it (including the lower waged and disabled) - there wouldn't be long waiting lists for council housing.

@Zenithbear

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?

Learn about shares or pay a financial advisor to help you with your investments. It won't cost anymore (likely less) than the costs associated with letting out a home (gas safety check, maintenance and repairs, etc).

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@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.[/quote]
It does sound better in Scotland - going by what you say.

But...do the private landlords allow the lower waged and/or long-term sick and disabled to live in their properties?

If so, and if what you say is true that tenancies are secure, than that sounds great and the rest of the union should follow suit.

If however, tenants on lower wages or disability benefits are shut out of having a home then there is clearly still a need for more social housing in Scotland.

Certainly the quality of must be different in Scotland. In England the very worse slum housing is in the private sector. Have you not heard of the beds in sheds?

Things aren’t handed to you on a plate. You usually have to work to buy a house. I had to work abroad to save money for a house deposit and it was a small first house. So many people expect to move into a 400k house straight away.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@Yohoheaveho - there are (maybe like the organ trade etc.) but I wouldn't term renting domestic property as being inherently exploitative.[/quote]
It's profiteering from an essential need.

Supermarkets don't turn customers away just because they're on a low wage or they're paying for their food with benefits. Private landlords do - leaving many families and disabled people without a home.

Supermarkets don't refuse to sell their food to people with children or pets or who are long-term ill or disabled or have been made redundant or on low wages.

It seems impossible to get it into people's heads. You D O N O T get 'social housing' because you are poor, because you have low income, because you have nowhere to live, because you are escaping the 'incorrect' type of domestic abuse, because you are elderly and disabled, and because you have an unblemished record as a tenant and no history of debt to anyone in your life.
What you do get is punishment of being banned from application to a council , even in your nineties and as a wheelchair user, if, instead of a penny of private pension, you are eking out your last years on the remains of a lifetime of savings.
What you do get is the official assumption you will have no problem in getting either a mortgage, or a private tenancy.
The rules are inflexible, and never change merely because of reality.
Please, never call for 'social housing' until you first ensure that the rules are changed to permit social housing for those whose life savings provide the substitute for owning a home and for having a pension.
If you believe anyone who cannot get a roof over their head merely pops into the nearest estate agent or council office, and emerges with a set of keys, please check with reality.

@SheepandCow - supermarkets are also profiting from essential needs. So are doctors. And many others. It’s not an argument.

Landlords provide housing- private landlords generally do credit check their tenants though. It’s not their responsibility to house people any more than it’s Tesco’s responsibility to feed people. In both cases it’s a business. Tesco certainly would turn away people who wanted food but couldn’t pay. And rightly so - it’s not their responsibility. Private landlords also take on a huge risk if they accept a bad tenant who could cost thousands to evict or destroy the property. It’s not the same as Tesco just letting someone in the door (although they do for example ban shoplifters).

I would say that we haven’t seen much change in the Scottish rental market so far from changing to more secure tenancies but it may be that landlords are more diligent about affordability etc now it’s very difficult to get tenants out.

Certainly though I don’t believe there’s any issue with private rentals refusing to rent to disabled people. if you can pass the credit check I wouldn’t think they would care. Also there are council schemes where councils guarantee rent for lower income people.

Beds in sheds are illegal. They’re not an example of private rented housing. Slum housing is generally public housing in the U.K.

Private rented housing doesn’t do anything to stop public housing. If the government had the will and funds to build more housing they would. There is a general shortage of housing to both buy and rent in the U.K.

That's precisely the point why we need more social housing. Because at present, anyone who needs one can't "just pop to their nearest estate agent or council office".

Instead they're left to rot in slum private housing or expensive temporary accommodation or the streets.

Stable affordable housing is an essential need and should be available to all who need it (although if somebody has hundreds of thousands in savings, I'd say they should be at the back of the queue, until people with no means to buy are housed first).

@CayrolBaaaskin
Social housing is not slum housing.

And yes beds in sheds are illegal.
But there's plenty of them. Why? Because private landlords, unlike supermarkets, refuse the money of the lower waged and those on benefits (which includes many long-term ill and disabled people).

When people have nowhere else to go they have no other option but slums - like beds in sheds. Some of the exploited tenants aren't aware of their rights, but others are and can't report because they simply can't risk losing the roof over their heads - no matter how dangeous it might be.

Additionally, the punishments, on the odd occasion these landlords are caught out, are pathetic. Paltry fines.

Learn about shares or pay a financial advisor to help you with your investments

So no basically, you don't have any ideas.
I don't want to learn about shares when I already understand and make money from property and other investments. Why would I take the option I know nothing about, rather than one I do?
What if a financial advisor suggested buying property to let out?
I doubt a financial advisor will offer me any solutions I haven't already thought of eg:
Mortgages paid off, two rental properties, max in premium bonds, cash emergency fund, pensions, no debts.

You want to profiteer from an essential need - in a way that excludes many from accessing that need. You're (currently) free to do that. Equally, other people are free to disapprove.

basically you don't have any ideas. I don't want to
So yes I do have ideas. You just don't like them. Which you're free not to. Plenty of other people are perfectly happy with those options.

*It's profiteering from an essential need.

Supermarkets don't turn customers away just because they're on a low wage or they're paying for their food with benefits. Private landlords do - leaving many families and disabled people without a home.*

Supermarkets would turn away someone who turns out could not afford their shop - why do you think some high-price items have security tags?

Why do you think car dealerships, or even phone providers won't give you a contract if you can't afford it? Because they don't want the risk of a customer who won't be able to pay.

On the basis of the justifications in this thread, I'm looking fotward to free food, electricity, water and heating soon!

These are very communist views. And no it 8sny better in Scotland, not if you 7nderstand the law and aren't taken in by governments interferi g too much in life. The SNP party membership has just voted to make a 4 day working week compulsory should Scotland become 8bdeoebdent. This is also the country which was told to get rid of its "named person's" proposals where all children born in Scotland were to have a state appointed guardian who could overrule parents. In fact, they were told by the European Court of justice that their minimum alcohol pricing legislation was illegal too, and taxation should have been used instead, but since we are coming out of the EU, ignored the ruling. The first minister has so much control of the media that she is allowed to make what amounts to uncontested daily party political briadcasts.

So, yes, while minimum standards are fine, I want to be free to choose in a rental property to leave my doirs open or not (can't do that in Scotland) or to pay more for a luxury flat close to my work in the city centre (soon to be outlawed).

I don't want thousands of my rent going to government or local authority departments and to be treated like a child. I want freedom to make my own choices.

@GreenlandTheMovie no one ever said free. We said state subsidized. Singapore has state subsidized housing, I don't think anyone in their right minds would say its communist. Dyson even moved there because the UK's taxes were too high.

Most people can afford food, electricity and water. There are food banks. I am 28 and I can say for certain that most people my age find it very difficult to buy property. only 50 % of millenials own our homes. I would not have managed if I didn't have a husband and we didn't have a family home in London to live in for 3 years. If you were telling me 50% of people can't afford tesco, that would be another thing but thats not the case! When it is 50% of the population, it cannot just be down to individual bad decisions.

Sadly, the only cold comfort is that the boomers would probably be reaching care home age soon so i expect their children would turn them out of their 5 bedroom houses and become home owners. My DH's uncle is trying that with his father, its quite worrying really. He wants to live in his father's house (and pay out his sister) so that he can rent out his 2 apartments and his house and become a BTL landlord with 3 rental properties.

That should raise the home ownership rat. The problem is if the people inheriting those houses are also the same people who also own now, so all it does is exacerbate the inequality as some people like my DH's uncle end up with multiple properties (his father also paid the deposits for his apartments and houses).

28 would be young to buy your first home in most European countries though. Most people are still students at that age, or moving about establishing their careers.

@GreenlandTheMovie I bought at 27, DH was 29. The 50% stat is for people up to the age of 35.

It's profiteering from an essential need
A nice house with a garden in a nice area is not a need. So are only Landlords providing minimum accomodations the ones to despise for making a profit? Those renting extra nice accommodations are ok because they provide a luxury rather than a need?

On a walk last night I passed a very nice house, the one to dream of and I realised that if we sold our rented property, we could afford to buy it. We could live in it for 20 years and then downgrade and live of the equity.

That would be much more acceptable to those who hate landlords. Yet we would be paying much less tax that way, tax that helps paying towards social houses.

The hatred is really to personal bitterness rather than common sense.

So yes I do have ideas. You just don't like them

Barely.
No I don't like them. I already knew about shares and that they aren't for me.
Think I've done alright myself but anyway thanks for the free investment advice

I haven't read the entire thread because it is v long but I own two properties that I rent out with my OH and we then live in Officers married quarters as he is military. We don't live in either of our houses because he moves every 2 years with the army.

We have to charge more than the mortgage because otherwise our lender would not less us have the mortgage so blame the bank there not us. And tbf the bank is right, we actually make very little profit on both properties after maintenance and tax so you do need to charge more than the mortgage. We save a lot on costs because I am a tax accountant so do our accounts and tax returns and my Dad is a property manager so we are comfortable managing the properties ourselves. If we had those costs on top we would make no profit (but yes our mortgage is effectively being paid off by someone else).

But we are providing a risk free, no maintenance home to two families that otherwise would not afford the house they are in, the houses were bought, gutted and done up to a high standard. Repairs are fixed ASAP and we allow pets.

I had an awful landlord at uni so I know there are horrible landlords out there that are purely for profit. But there are also a lot of "hobby landlords" that just want to have a nest egg for later on. It's not "easy money", it is stressful and risky.

I don't know the scientist career and how prevalent jobs are across the UK or wherever you are but if you were desperate to buy could you not look to buy somewhere cheaper? Then you would "save" money on rent by paying off the mortgage instead, building more equity, maybe make a little capital gain on price increase and then be able to afford to buy where you are now?

For context I am 26 and OH is 31, we bought our first one at 23 and 28 and second 2 years later. It was hard (I also have a horse so an additional expense!) but it was our priority so made it happen.

@dontdisturbmenow You hit the nail on the head. But when the personal bitterness is shared by 40% of the population, that is worrying.

If most people could buy houses the way most people can afford to buy food in tesco and buy iphones, no one would hate on landlords. Its also massively different renting a £17k per month 7 bedroom house in bishops avenue or a £5k per month apartment in Regents Park with renting to a family on minimum wage. if the landlord of those expensive homes treated their tenants badly, there would be zero sympathy.

I saw it with my own eyes when i viewed a 2 bed flat in north finchley in london for sale. The tenants didn't want to move, they were pleading with the agent to sell the property to an investor if possible as they didn't want to move with an 11 month old baby. Agent also lied to them that 27 year old me was an investor, so that he could get permission to let me view the property. You can see that when families are renting in conditions like this, they are not going to like landlords a lot. If this family in question was a wealthy family, it wouldn't have been much of an issue. Celebs rent all the time and I am sure they don't have any of the problems faced by the majority of private renters.

I don't agree with Right to Buy, and there are political views I have... but YABU to hate your landlord for working within the current system.

Also, why are you glorifying home ownership so much? there are pros and cons of each. As a renter, you have flexibility to move more freely and no liability for any horrendous and expensive problems the property might have, or the risk of being stuck somewhere in negative equity if the market crashes?
If you had a mortgage, you would still be lining someone else's pockets, just less directly and you wouldnt have a specific person to direct your hate at.

Now, if your landlord is a bad landlord and doesn't maintain the property as they should, then that is a different matter and you have a right to be angry...