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

It certainly is depressing, and yet I can't blame people for doing it, and if there are no council houses available then there is an increased need for private rentals...

I don't know what the solution is, but I agree OP, the current situation feels wrong.

By housing I mean houses for sale, like they do in other countries.
The non indigenous population should only allowed to rent.

When I bought I was so pissed off with seeing lovely flats that were "landlord only" or "investor only".

Now this should be illegal.

If I can pay the asking price, why do I need to be an investor???

Why can't I buy the flat and actually sodding live in the place??

I agree, though I don't know what the answer is. I'm not bashing individual landlords as I know many are very good but it's a structural / societal problem.

I also think having to have a massive deposit to be able to buy a house is a real barrier to people buying. Means only those whose parents can help them out are able to buy without saving for years and years (whilst paying extortionate rent).

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

There wouldn't be so many people renting if houses weren't so ridiculously priced.

There should be a cap on rents to two thirds of local authority rents. I keep saying this on here but there needs to be a mass social housing build programme. Its a nonsense that the state pays HB to a large proportion of LL due to high rents rather than provide housing. The original SH was for all, not just those at the bottom of the pile.

@IceLace100

When I bought I was so pissed off with seeing lovely flats that were "landlord only" or "investor only".

Now this should be illegal.

If I can pay the asking price, why do I need to be an investor???

Why can't I buy the flat and actually sodding live in the place??

"Investor only" means there are already tenants living there who will continue to do so. So no use for would be owner-occupiers.

I agree, to an extent.

There is always a need for professional landlords and they will probably have a portfolio of properties because that's their business. I can see why they'd expand over time and buy more properties. It does seem to be assumed that everyone wants to buy, whereas some people do genuinely want to rent, at least in the short term. I know I did when I first moved in with a partner - the relationship didn't work out in the long run and I was bloody glad we could just hand back the keys rather than deal with a sale. Equally, I've rented when I wasn't sure whether I wanted to stay in an area in the long term, so to be able to rent while I decided was great.

But that's with the proviso of professional landlords (and, as an aside, I would argue that they (and all landlords) should be subject to licencing and harsh penalties for breaches to get rid of the 'slum' landlord minority). The problem comes with the "We've got a bit of cash so we'll invest in a BTL" landlords who have very little idea of what they're getting into and think it's a sideline that will bring them short-term income and a long-term nest egg, while not wanting to ever have to pay out for anything. Everything is always the cheapest and most low-maintenance, so they don't care if they make the property look crap as long as they don't have to lift a finger. They don't care if their tenants are an anti-social nightmare as long as the rent is coming in. They're full of their right to earn money and none of their responsibilities as a landlord.

As a solution, additional tax and enforced licencing should be brought in that would put off the 'hobby'/slum landlords and ensure that only committed, responsible professional landlords are operating.

(I do realise that there's a 3rd category of the accidental landlord and that should sit outside that arrangement in the short to medium term to allow people the freedom to, say, rent out a home if they're going overseas for a while etc)

I agree op. I'm in the fortunate position where I own my house, but I really fear for my children's future. It was only the other day that a house we used to rent 10 years ago came back onto the market for £325 a month more than we paid. This is in a relatively cheap area. Aside from a lick of paint and new carpets, the house was exactly the same. It's disgraceful.

It frustrates me that I could afford a mortgage but I can not afford the deposit.

It frustrates me that people I know are living in bigger houses than me but with mortgages that are nearly half my rent because they managed to buy years ago when the market was low.

@lassingd

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.

I'd agree with this - well not necessarily that the government want more BTL to buy more houses, but it is certainly in their hands to take steps to reduce it. Small steps have been taken - additional SDLT or LBBT in Scotland, but it's maybe not having noticeable impacts on buying behaviour.

Individuals are (usually) going to act in their own financial self interest within the constraints that are given to them, and it seems like BTL is still appealing.

Additional regulation on standards of rental housing, more security of tenancy, limits to rent increases, more severe penalties for failing duties as landlords etc may also deter people from getting into BTL.

There are steps that can be taken but it's the government that needs to oversee this to change individual buying behaviour.

What a bizarre argument!

Not as bizarre as arguing that if you can afford it you should be able to do tbh.

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?

If said private affairs create societal issues, then absolutely! Housing isn't a luxury, it's a basic human need and 100% should be heavily regulated by any and governments to prevent the exploitation and ensure everyone has a safe and secure place to call home.

Are you genuinely telling me you think the government should let private individuals/companies buy/do what they want regardless of the impact it has?

This being MN on page one we get to Thatcher. Whaaat?
Another topic has been to comment on Germany having a vibrant rental market and German newly weds not having to buy.
Duh!

[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]
Correct. Except councils weren’t allowed to build new ones. Right to buy was one of the most destructive policies ever.

YANBU.

There should be disincentives through the tax system to prevent people hoarding multiple properties.

Housing is a basic human right and need.

I think people should be heavily taxed on their third investment property, and the tax should increase with every subsequent one.

@IceLace100 that’s because tenants are in situ. It also restricts what mortgages are available in that situation.

Homes under the Hammer do certainly glance over the Stamp Duty Surcharge, the 28% Capital Gains, the 40% income tax on rental income, void tennancies, section 21's, court apperances, late night boiler broken phone calls etc

Not all landlords are greedy millionaires, some are accidental landlords (through inherited properties etc) some it is their only pension income.

As with anything, there are those who abuse.

@DifferentHair

YANBU.

There should be disincentives through the tax system to prevent people hoarding multiple properties.

Housing is a basic human right and need.

I think people should be heavily taxed on their third investment property, and the tax should increase with every subsequent one.

Have you seen that taxation on second properties!

Absolutely agree with you.
The Council flats that were in an area of West London where I lived used to be lived in by those on low incomes..Not now! All done up and gentrified, and privately owned.
Selling off local authority housing was a really bad idea.

This being MN on page one we get to Thatcher. Whaaat?

It's because the Thatcher government vastly contributed to the problem. They wanted to do away with state housing - apparently the market was going to solve all ills - so they sold off the council housing and never replaced it. Now we have a situation where 'council' housing is actually privately owned and it costs the taxpayer more than if housing was owned by the state/councils where it would be built at cost and maintained on an economy of scale by councils who would have significant numbers of properties to look after.

I believe it is starting to change, in that councils are building more housing that will be owned by them, but this will take years to fix and the political will to shift things isn't there because the current administration is also of a similar belief to the one that caused the problem in the first place.

I definitely see issues with second/holiday homes and buying just for AirBnB.

But I remember being young and not committed to staying in one place for years on end and needing to rent a flat/small house. We rented from BTL landlords who had a few properties on their books. If BTL was not profitable, our options would have been far fewer. As it was, we were able to live in areas we might not have been able to buy in or not willing to commit a mortgage to.

The 'for sale' market is too inflexible and long-winded in the UK to enable many people to buy, so the more rental opportunities the better. Plus if supply increases, the price will go down so people will be able to rent at better prices.

@Onlinedilema Who do you consider to be the 'indigenous' population? Nobody in the UK is indigenous if you go back far enough.

And by the way, it's 'dilemma' not 'dilema'.

A family member of mine who is a single parent is renting a house owned by a footballer who has a huge number of properties. It's an ex council house and charged at three times what the mortgage would be. Very sad as the minute a house becomes available in the village they are snapped up by these people.

I really disagree.

There's been loads of times in my life where I've needed to rent and buying wasn't an appropriate option. If there hadn't been so many private landlords I'd have had to pay astronomical rent, or miss out on job opportunities because I had nowhere to live.