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

Nearly all my friends have had big inheritances from property ( dh and I have missed out on any of this as our parents didn't own or have anything ) and nearly all of them are buying up properties for their own children , so it'll be a buy to let for years until they can live in them or sell them on.
People realize that pensions are not as good now and probably won't exist in many years time and it's also an investment for their own offspring too. I'm not saying it's right to do this, but until there are any laws brought in to stop people buying up property for these reasons then it will go on. Landlords have the hassle of keeping these places going, I'm sure it's not all easy and dandy at times, but buying property is a sound investment.
I can see why it's annoying people though.

The problem is not people buying BTL properties, the problem is that the rental market is useless for tenants.

Get a grip with rental contracts, more rights for tenants and away with the “I need to go on the housing ladder” attitude.

Look at countries like Germany where the rental market is a lot bigger. No rental contracts for a year but unlimited time. You can decorate your rental property as a tenant, you don’t need to buy to have decent housing.

What OP and @JourneyofthenDragons said

@Bucanarab

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?

Owning your own home is absolutely a luxury that should only be afforded by a given percentage of society.

If you make a luxury like that available to everyone, then what incentive is there to better oneself, seek out and take advantage of opportunities etc?

Removing incentives to succeed has a hugely detrimental effect on society.

To answer your question, yes I think the government needs to back right out of people’s lives and leave the invisible hand to do the work in the vast majority of cases.*

*I do agree that there are some examples of market failure (such as environmental matters) where the government should step in, but the housing market is not one of them.

YANBU, I agree OP.

YANBU.

I don't have a problem with the landlords, they are following the rules and capitalising on what they can, but I do have a problem with the system, which is broken. I'd much prefer a housing system like that in France or Germany where rents are controlled and people don't just gobble up houses when they can as that's the best way to make cash.

Airbnbs are ruining lots of small villages. I still stay in them though, so I know I'm part of the problem.

Landlords, notably pension funds, buying new build properties is a growing problem recently. Friends of retirement age were considering one of ten bungalows built for sale to downsizers after selling their large family house. Unable to proceed with this, as said pension portfolio stepped in and snaffled them all.

We plan in about 18 months to sell the lovely 4/5 bed family home we've lived in for 28 years, to buy something suitable for the next 20 years of our life, but finding it is very difficult. Who would think a house that has plenty of reception space but only two bedrooms is such a huge ask? Until we find (or build) something though, we won't be leaving.

I agree. I am also sick of the "we need to build more houses" this is trotted out so often people just now believe it without question.

There are other issues. BTL, empty properties, second homes, building on green space rather than brown, airbnb,

always about blood money

@hufffflufff

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

Someone whose only income is derived from property letting?

Anyone I know trying to move home is having a lot of hassle lately , makes me wonder if people only want the cash buyers or the 'buy to letters ' who are not in a chain etc and that's why it's so hard for everybody else?

@MargotEmin

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

Even if it's harmful to society? So buying images of child abuse, guns, drugs etc should all be legal?

For heaven’s sake 🤣 no, of course they shouldn’t. They’re all illegal and absolutely should stay that way.

Purchasing property is not illegal. Nor should it be.

Are you really likening the purchase of images of child abuse to purchasing a flat and letting it out?

I agree OP, it does seem immoral when so many can't even get onto the property ladder. On the other hand perhaps many of us would do it if we had the chance, with bugger all interest on savings so can see the appeal of putting your money into property.
If not restricted then it should at least be taxed at higher rates and the tax go towards building affordable housing - that is not available to private landlords.

@dangerrabbit

YANBU

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

You would be wrong.

The housing crisis is caused by failure to build enough homes, the effective near destruction council housing through the Right to Buy, the failure to build up a different model of social housing to meet needs, and the failure to build a professional private rented market as they have in other countries where people have secure tenancies.

The existence of lots of individual landlords with one or a few properties to rent is actually a product of the failure to build decent sustainable housing markets across different tenures, rather than a cause of the problems.

I was actually considering buying a house to let out as my pension will be so poor I’ll not be able to retire. I am happy to work though as long as I can physically get there. But in all seriousness I totally get why people don’t like buy to let’s but I also understand why people want one. For me it would be a way to help me reduce my hours when I’m in my 60s but I am so worried about all the risks involved.
As as for building on green belt, thats happening a lot when I live at present.

So where do you suggest people that can't afford to buy/don't want to buy but earn too much to qualify for social housing should live?

Yes of course there are some landlords that are greedy and unscrupulous and don't give two hoots about their tenants or the local community but the vast majority of landlords are providing a valuable and much needed service.

I'm not convinced to be honest. Rental properties must be sufficiently in demand to justify landlords buying houses. If demand for house owning rather than renting was sufficiently high then house prices would go up and rents would go down and it wouldn't be profitable anymore.

Are there any distortions that would justify interfering? Housing is a pretty competitive market - no individual landlord has the market power to distort the market and rent houses out at "monopoly" prices or buy them cheaply. A case for interfering in the market might possibly be made on the basis of tenants having less stake in an area than house owners and so possibly being less of a positive effect on their neighbours. Maybe?

I think we need to check that BTL is not being encouraged by excessively favourable tax treatment of housing. That used to be the case, but probably not so much anymore.

I completely agree OP. I am passionate about being able to buy a home being a right for everyone and so many houses that are perfect and affordable for first time buyers in my area get snapped up as rental properties by landlords who can buy cash.

Our house recently went on the market and it’s ideal for a first time buyer. We told the estate agents that as far as they could, to not allow anyone to view it if they wanted to buy it as a rental as we were determined that a landlord wouldn’t get their mitts on it.

In the end we’ve sold to a lovely young first time buyer 😊

For heaven’s sake 🤣 no, of course they shouldn’t. They’re all illegal and absolutely should stay that way

Purchasing property is not illegal. Nor should it be

Are you really likening the purchase of images of child abuse to purchasing a flat and letting it out?

Ok, change it to access to drinking water.

The problem is not people buying BTL properties, the problem is that the rental market is useless for tenants. Get a grip with rental contracts, more rights for tenants and away with the I need to go on the housing ladder attitude

You need a decent left wing government or coalition government for that. The leader of the only moderately left wing party to be elected in the UK in the last 45 years himself has a Property Folio worth several million £ … ie he wasn’t actually left wing at all and only occasionally governed as such.

Investment properties, bought for buy to let, are generally sold below market value. These buyers are not competitive in terms of pricing. But they are able to buy fast and they buy in not mortgageable.

The property ladder is effectively dead and buried in most parts of the country. Fees and taxes are simply too high to move these days.

The investment market and the first time buyer market don’t intersect as much as many people think.

the vast majority of landlords are providing a valuable and much needed service

A much needed service that is perpetuated by their actions.

Property is a really good investment, saving money in the bank provides zero return, ISAs not much, pensions are unreliable/not that great a return and the stock market can be extremely risky. Investing in industry and commerce is also risky.

I think people have to be allowed to invest their money this way but also we should be building council houses. One does not prevent the other.

It’s capitalism

Most people are happy about capitalism and free markets if it benefits them, eg if competition brings prices down nobody complains

Interest rates have been around 0 for years now, so nobody has savings accounts anymore, instead people invest and property is (big) part of that.

If interest rates went back up to 5% or more (remember those days?) a lot of people would put their cash into savings again.

But I can’t see that happening

Exactly what @HarebrightCedarmoon said 👍

@lljkk

Can I ask a daft question... please don't shout at me.

Suppose I want to live somewhere for 6 months.
I don't qualify for public housing -- I don't want to qualify.
I do not want to buy.
If private investment landlords don't exist, who would I rent from -- how would I meet my housing needs?

On these threads, this is an area often forgotten or a glib response about there'll always be some landlords (but forgetting about supply and demand increasing prices, and landlords having you over a barrel with regards to quality of accomodation etc).

It's an inconvenient truth on these threads that some people actually like, want or need to rent. And not everyone wants to go in to social housing, even if it was open to all.