Greed of ‘buy to let’

[LittleLottieChaos]

When did people start to think that they should profit from housing? It all feels incredibly Dickensian. Pees me off when I see housing being listed as buy to let investments rather than ‘here’s a house for a nice young family to live in’. Especially with the market so horribly skewed right now.

It is shocking that people seem to think they have a right to profiteer from those less fortunate by whacking on high rents, that more than cover their mortgages. Legit: you need one house, one house only. Or maybe I’m missing something... or these are genuinely just bad people.

Interested to hear how people justify it? Do you just think, fuck ‘em I want to be rich? Do you not think about the morality?

(I rent but am saving to buy an appropriate house to live in... not to profiteer from)

@WaverleyPirate Exactly what you say! And it seems also that it’s in the interest of current owners to keep the situation like this, because of their house values! Everyone wants their home to not go down in value, which probably could happen if there was no housing crisis. So owners would rather people are homeless & in bad housing if it means their property value stays up? I just don’t know if I can accept that people really are so cruel, but I guess this is the Hunger Games now. Better than Gilead 😉

Honestly I'd rather my house price hadn't gone up as I can't see how my children can get on property ladder.

It doesn't really benefit anyone who has children.

It's the whole system that should be challenged. People will always do what's the best for them and their family and they can't be punished for that really. I have a second house only because we needed to move and wasn't worth selling. Owed too much on it to get anything back at the time so would have been a stupid move. So is rented out now to break even really and eventually it will be paid off and is a retirement fund. But being self employed it's basically our only option for us being older Nd having any money. It would be stupid to wait for a pension that may never come or not even buy a days meal 😫

AutomaticMoon

I’m willing to move but it’s not about whether I can get the house I want, it’s about having to be in a place where I can walk to work, it has to be a short walk as I’m disabled

Are you saying that you can only move within a few streets of where you are now but can’t afford to buy because you need to walk to work.

Why can’t you get a job somewhere else within walking distance or if you are paid more couldn’t you take a taxi, the bus, drive etc

Do you know you couldn’t get a job within walking distance of a new place.

Lots of people also need to rent as selling and buying are so expensive. If I wanted to work in a different town or city, not commutable, paying two lots of stamp duty would mean I could no longer have enough funds to buy my property back (even if property prices hadn't risen)! It then becomes necessary to be an 'accidental landlord'.

My tenants are perfectly happy as far as I'm aware. I choose them wisely though – I wouldn't let to someone as nasty as you.

No one is preventing you from mourning your mother.

You can shout and stamp your feet and keep calling me "repulsive" and "vile". I don't mind. I know it's just the bile and jealousy spewing forth. No problem.

How come you deserve your unearned inheritance, but people who earn money and invest it sensibly are leeches. One rule for you and another for everyone else, eh?

@AutomaticMoon what people do you know who would want anyone homeless. I hate anyone on the street, it's inhumane and disgusting! Anyone should be entitled to a bed and a hot meal whatever their circumstance, and countries and governments work on the rich stay rich keeping poor extremely poor. But you can't judge most people on this, that's really unfair.

Spacejammer if you maintain your property to a high standard and treat your tenants fairly you've nothing to feel guilty about. I rented very happily for many years before I bought my places and I'm renting happily now. I love my current flat, we are very settled and our landlord has been really decent whenever we have dealt with him.

@RickiTarr

That said, people need to live somewhere, and wherever theres a market there will be people willing to fill that gap.

The thing is that before 1989 it as a much cooler market because tenants has security of tenure and BTL mortgages didn’t exist. There were still rentals, though, just without the frenzy and churn.

Hell holes though, many of them. Landlords used to be able to set whatever prices they liked on the meters for example and cream off profits from lighting/ heating, legally. This rose tinted view is not how it was. Yes some rented properties now are in a dire state but most are far more luxurious that those available back then.

@ImInStealthMode

To add, not disputing that some people want to rent and that rental property needs to exist, my issue is the rents.

If I bought a second property I would consider the piece of property itself and the equity I'll make from it as my investment for the future. So long as rent income covers the mortgage, insurance, maintenance & a bit aside for periods when it might be empty, then all good. The problem is (around here at least) landlords making generous monthly profits too, by charging far far above what the property is costing them.

I was very lucky to have help through inheritance to buy my little flat. I'm one of a handful of owner occupiers in my building, and I couldn't afford to rent in this building. My mortgage and service charge come to a bit less than £800 a month; whereas I could probably rent the flat out for £1200 + bills.

But what does this tell you? There are additional costs involved with insuring a property, managing it (or having agents do it), repairs etc. So the rent and mortgage aren't directly comparable in this way. The mortgage payment also depends on your credit rating and level of equity - so a comparison of somebody renting 100% of the flat can't be made to someone paying a mortgage on 70% of it on a nominal basis, obviously, because your payment to the bank would be only for the part of the property you haven't paid for yet.

@Lostatsea1988 we sort anything the tenant wants. It was our home before and want the people living there now to enjoy it like we did. My close friends have lived in some awful houses, that should never be allowed to be lived in. I couldn't live with myself letting out a ooze like this to anyone just to make money, I agree that's horrendous

We are in exactly the same boat spacejammer, our house was in better shape when we put in on the market than it was when we lived there. We spent a lot of money making improvements because I wanted to attract a house proud tenant who would stay long term. If the washing machine breaks I don't piss around for a week or two trying to find a plumber interested (good luck in London!) so I can save £200 I just pay the extra and buy them a new one.

Also a good point regarding the cost of mortgages vs rents. We have overpaid to an extent where the LTV on our flat is now only about 35/40%. I haven't done the maths but I think if we weren't overpaying our mortgage would be about 1/3 of the (slightly below market) rent we charge. But I don't see why it would be any better morally if, when we remortgaged, we had borrowed extra and bought two range rovers so that our rent only just covered our mortgage. The only person who wins in that situation is the bank!

@Lostatsea1988 I don't even live anywhere near London but to me I could never afford to live there, but some careers are centred at the capital and need a good place to rent while career takes off. For the next 20 years I'm making nothing On renting out, the tiny bit of profit per month I get goes straight back into house maintenance. Eventually I will retire and then the plan is mortgage will be paid off so the rent will be my income. Nothing major but I can't rely on the pension scheme . It's the best opportunity I have to plan for my future.

I think Brexit and the shift to WFH will have a big (downward) impact on London prices but unfortunately I'm not sure it will result in higher standards. As families and professionals move further out I think more students, short term workers and backpackers etc will move into the city centre and they will (in my experience) be more willing to accept lower standards. Maybe because they don't know their rights or maybe because they can afford to grit their teeth and think "it's fine it's only for 6 months" etc. I do wish council EH ted would stop being so bloody toothless, if a property is unfit for occupation they should be able to step in, collect the rent on behalf of the LL immediately. No warnings, final warnings, long winded appeals process. Just get it done!

*EH teams

If there weren't landlords then how would people who didn't want to buy find a home . Students, people on short term contracts etc?

I choose to rent, I prefer it for all sorts of reasons.
I tend to rent properties which are long-term and which I'm allowed to do up (paint, decorate, re-carpet and generally put my own 'stamp' on them) rather than short-term stuff.
I have no issue with landlords who are making a profit as such, but I do have an issue with sub-standard, shitty properties being rented to those who have no other choice, or for sky high rents which are really not justified. I do think we should have a rent-cap in this country.

And you didn't answer the question, but that's ok, you didn't understand it. You can't understand that inheritance isn't the same as victim compensation or maybe you do, and you just don't want to admit that you are as bad as me. You sitting on your wodge of unearned cash and me sitting on my surplus properties. We're both as bad as each other.

@daisypetula

If there weren't landlords then how would people who didn't want to buy find a home . Students, people on short term contracts etc?

I suspect in their limited view of the world, students are meant to live at home or preferably, do apprenticeships.

People on short term contracts should rent from landlords who magically become absolved from bland the moment they take corporate form. Obviously at extortionate prices though, as these then become "corporate lets".

Surely even thosse against landlords think it is better someone lets out a property than leaves it empty? We have someone in the family letting it sit empty now until sale as tenants were too much hassle - their choice and good them in a free capitalist world but I think some posters on here would think that was also a morally better choice as being a landlord is avoided even if that is one less property available to rent.

On the "new houses are bad standard" - that is not universally the case. My son's Bellway one is really lovely. Godo quality. No major faults _ £303k detached, SE England, 3 beds, downstairs loo, upstairs bathroom plus an en suite. Everything I have seen of it is excellent - newer obviously than my own house - I have 30 year old carpets and bathrooms and kitchen etc I am not saying most couples can afford £303k but that is a new built which is good quality (and "Bell the Builder" (as my mother called Mr Bell him) in the 1960s lived on our road in Newcastle. They have done very well since those days)

I think some people think only councils / housing associations should be landlords. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see how the council could administer and manage student and short-let tenancies.

Private landlords allowed me to rent informally when i needed the flexibility - I had a few 6 month tenancies, I had a bed-sit arrangement one summer when I only needed a place for 6 months for an internship, etc. Without that I couldn't have relocated and undertaken the training opportunities open to me and I wouldn't have been able to get my job in London and life would have been very different.

But then you do get people who complain about locals being priced out. Maybe I should have 'known my place' and stayed up north....I'm afraid I don't have time for those who think they have a divine right to live where they were born and grew up. It smacks of xenophobia to me. If someone who was born in [insert crappy town name] gets a good job and can afford to move to Devon/Cornwall/the Lakes/Putney (etc etc etc) good on them. They don't have to stay in [insert crappy town name] their whole life just so they don't price out a local. It's a horrible attitude.

Obviously the rental market needs to be there as some people prefer to rent for various reasons. Where it has got out of hand is the sheer numbers of people now wanting second homes, multiple homes and using housing as financial investment (for good personal reasons).

Once too many people buy up more than one house then first time buyers, low income buyers are stuffed.

Not sure what the answer is to solve it. Also the decision makers are beneficiaries of a distorted market.

I think some people think only councils / housing associations should be landlords. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see how the council could administer and manage student and short-let tenancies.

A few weeks ago there were news reports of people living in horrendous conditions (water leaks, flooding, mould, unsafe electrics etc) in council owned or run accomodation, so even if the ideal scenario (for people who dont approve of BTL) was that you could only rent from the council, theres no saying standards would improve.