I'm so sick of people buying multiple properties for BTL

[flashbac]

So the landlord next door has hoovered up another house on the street for BTL. A nice house that wasn't even on the market but they managed to get their mits on it. Yes I know I sound bitter because I am! I'm so fed up of investors hoovering up all the houses. There should be a limit but with most of our government being BTL landlords nothing will change.
I'm sick of the increasing gap between rich and poor.
now runs and hides because reckons half of MN have a BTL or holiday home

And that Homes Under The Hammer programme needs to p i s s off and die!

I agree! There should be a limit so that families and individuals can buy property to actually live in rather than the BTL market pushing up or keeping up the high prices!

Yes we need some rental properties but we’d need less if normal people could afford to buy!

There also needs to be some sort of rent control as the rental costs get stupidly high too

I wouldn’t want to live in a country where the government had control over whether or not a private individual or company could own assets they were able to afford to buy.

We need more housing in the UK and we need the infrastructure to keep up with it. There are ways you can make housing easier and more affordable to build and this is what the government needs to tackle (including rampant NIMBYism - driving between a number of Wiltshire towns yesterday I noticed hundreds of campaign signs to the tune of “[Town name] says NO! to new housing development here.” But new housing has to go somewhere, and if we want affordable housing then we have to accept it might be built near us.)

YANBU

I consider BTL and buy to leave to be the root causes of the housing crisis.

I wouldn’t want to live in a country where the government had control over whether or not a private individual or company could own assets they were able to afford to buy.

I guess you don't live in the UK then seeing as there's lots of restrictions on what assets an individual or company can own, regardless of their wealth?

I know what you mean OP, it is frustrating. Even though they will come on in a minute and talk about how they are not doing anything wrong and they are lovely landlords and how their poor tenants would have nowhere to live without their kindness and generosity blah blah.

The reality is, all it does is push up rental prices and stop other people from being able to afford a family home.

I'm not talking about people who have a holiday home that they rent out for a few weeks a year, but people who profit from other's inability to be approved for a mortgage is frustrating. And yes, it is legal, but morally it is dubious.

There should be a high tax on landlords who have multiple properties. But this will not happen because the government and their friends are landlords.

I wouldn’t want to live in a country where the government had control over whether or not a private individual or company could own assets they were able to afford to buy

This.

I think a lot of MNers (and the political left in general) are very naive and trusting when it comes to the relationship between the State and the Individual.

Yanbu at all. Totally agree with you

@Bucanarab

I wouldn’t want to live in a country where the government had control over whether or not a private individual or company could own assets they were able to afford to buy.

I guess you don't live in the UK then seeing as there's lots of restrictions on what assets an individual or company can own, regardless of their wealth?

What a bizarre argument!

There are already far to many State encroachments into the private affairs of individuals and companies, so it’s ok to add a few more to the mix?

Agree OP.

it's immoral and damaging to communities.

Gets my goat, especially when it's ex social housing. I currently pay market rent to an absentee landlord who owns I don't know how many ex council houses across the city.

Completely agree.

@dangerrabbit The root cause of the housing crisis is that Thatcher let thousands of people buy their council homes and councils never built new ones.

Why shouldn’t they buy? They have the money, the property is for sale, the seller is happy to sell. End of.

We live in a capitalist society. If you have the money, you should be able to buy whatever you want.

Tax is used to control behaviour. Tax on BTL is less than stamp duty on primary residences in places like Germany.

So the government want BTL to buy more houses. Why? No idea, but buck stops with them. It's very easy to control behaviour with taxes.

Aw, just let the rich people have everything because they can afford to pay for it.

Also, with buy to let mortgages often requiring miniscule or no deposits and the tenants paying rent that more than covers the mortgage these rich people often aren't even investing any money in the properties they end up owning.

YABU - I love Homes Under the Hammer!

On a serious note, I see where you're coming from. I honestly don't know what the solution is though.

I've often thought people shouldn't be landlords if they're relying on tenants to pay most or all of a mortgage on that property as this is what's partly contributed to rents becoming so inflated and no longer the significantly cheaper alternative to buying that they always used to be.

However, making that a rule would effectively prevent social mobility through the medium of housing stock, essentially ensuring that only the haves are able to buy more stock and the have nots who are trying to improve their fortunes through housing becoming even poorer. The link between housing stock and profit is IMO an unsavoury one, but in a capitalist society I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Building more stock to drive down demand and therefore prices is often mooted as the answer. I disagree. It has negative implications for future overcrowding of the UK and actually there are loads of houses for sale - it's just too many of them are too large /unaffordable. Stop building 3 and 4-bed executive homes and building only 1 or 2 bed developments may be a better solution, but I'm no expert.

Ultimately, too many people's fortunes are tied up in housing for any government to risk electoral suicide and really change our approach to see housing as providing people with a home rather than as a financial investment. We'll only ever see tinkering around the edges.

I appreciate your POV though and sympathise. I find it extremely sad that so many people can't afford basic accommodation appropriate for their needs even when working full time. That's not how the social contract should work.

@flashbac

And that Homes Under The Hammer programme needs to p i s s off and die!

One day we'll look back and this programme will be seen as more damaging to society than any reality show.

[quote FangsForTheMemory]@dangerrabbit The root cause of the housing crisis is that Thatcher let thousands of people buy their council homes and councils never built new ones.[/quote]
Absolutely!

@flashbac

So the landlord next door has hoovered up another house on the street for BTL. A nice house that wasn't even on the market but they managed to get their mits on it. Yes I know I sound bitter because I am! I'm so fed up of investors hoovering up all the houses. There should be a limit but with most of our government being BTL landlords nothing will change. I'm sick of the increasing gap between rich and poor. *now runs and hides because reckons half of MN have a BTL or holiday home*

So what do you suggest people who need to rent do? Rental properties where I live are often snapped up before getting a sniff at Righrmove

@ComtesseDeSpair

I wouldn’t want to live in a country where the government had control over whether or not a private individual or company could own assets they were able to afford to buy.

We need more housing in the UK and we need the infrastructure to keep up with it. There are ways you can make housing easier and more affordable to build and this is what the government needs to tackle (including rampant NIMBYism - driving between a number of Wiltshire towns yesterday I noticed hundreds of campaign signs to the tune of “[Town name] says NO! to new housing development here.” But new housing has to go somewhere, and if we want affordable housing then we have to accept it might be built near us.)

This current housing boom isn't caused by lack of housing. It's cause by free flowing money in the form of credit and quantitative easing.

people who profit from other's inability to be approved for a mortgage is frustrating. And yes, it is legal, but morally it is dubious

This.

One of my friends has BTL properties because she wants to meet some religious requirements (she is muslim) and put more people on the housing ladder in a Shariah compliant way. This basically means she is renting houses out with zero profit to herself (with a view that her tenents will eventually buy them). I personally wouldn’t stop this.

I also know that our local churches, temple and Gurudwara have BTLs so they can offer affordable housing to their congregations. Again this isn’t something I would begrudge.

The problem isn’t, per se, the tenure in which housing stock is held. The problem is that housing is unaffordable in many areas because we don’t have enough housing in the areas most people want to live. If we had enough housing stock then we wouldn’t need to worry about BTL landlords because the market would even out.

Should the government restrict the size of property each individual can own according to family size, because large houses with big gardens and garages and driveways take up a plot which could be used to build three of four more modest homes?

I agree op.
It should be banned and housing should be available to the indigenous population not foreign investors.
Also social housing should be handed back to councils.

YANBU Op, not fair, who needs 5+ houses or the rental income from 5+ houses.