To think rent is so bloody unfair

[Tar19891]

My rent is 800 per month. A mortgage on the same value flat would be 450 per month. Not in London obviously. It’s not fair is it?

Do landlords have to move every 6-12 months and move their children schools, pay the cost of moving every year, never mind the stress.

Renting is utter bollocks, and those commenting otherwise clearly are not currently renting.

I'm not blaming landlords for domestic violence murders and don't think you every one of you is bad person. Wish you would take benefits though and was secure tenancies no constant risk of homeless. Also hope none of you who don't take benefits tell victims to leave. Cos we can't leave if nowhere safe to go longterm. Blame for the murders is not enough social housing and lawbreaking councils who don't give safe permanent rehousing to victims who are vulnerable.

Continual government changes for second home owners is driving out landlords with 1 or 2 properties (probably most LLs on this thread) and they are selling up. The properties are being snapped up by large property companies and BANKS. Banks are the biggest purchasers of properties in the last few years. If you think you get a raw deal from LLs, just wait until you have to rent from a bank or a property company. There will be no leeway with rent prices, and I’m pretty sure you won’t be getting repairs and maintenance done as regularly. You will be fighting with them for them to do anything. And also prices won’t come down because another bank will just swoop in and buy an available property. Blackstone bank purchased the most homes last year.

I'm so desperate for safe longterm home, I'd take falling apart bad condition social housing. Want proper good condition but lived years in falling apart bad condition private rent so no different but big difference is would be safe from domestic violence and also safe from constant forever fear of being homeless. That fear makes feel sick and suicidal as much as fear of violence.

@nosafeguardingadults

I'm not blaming landlords for domestic violence murders and don't think you every one of you is bad person. Wish you would take benefits though and was secure tenancies no constant risk of homeless. Also hope none of you who don't take benefits tell victims to leave. Cos we can't leave if nowhere safe to go longterm. Blame for the murders is not enough social housing and lawbreaking councils who don't give safe permanent rehousing to victims who are vulnerable.

I would happily offer a home to someone on benefits for a lifetime/as long as they wanted it. If the council/ DWP would act as guarantors for damage/rent arrears

Very triggering retraumatising for PTSD private renting on benefits. Landlord feels like an abuser cos have to let them do whatever they want including breaking law cos homeless otherwise. No security no safety.

@LardyDee

Yesterday I estimated that at best, you lot are covering a third of the bill through taxes. And that was very obviously generous.

And it was pointed out to you that there was no reason to expect landlords to pay for the accommodation of those who can't accommodate themselves. This is your own nonsense!

I wasn’t the one who started on the tax take. I was replying to the ridiculous assertions of the landlords who claimed they were benevolently granting the treasury income, and you well know that. And I demolished their assertions that it was in any way reasonably proportional to the money spent on housing people, thanks to the parasites using the housing market for speculation.

Nothappyatwork Think good idea what you want. Understand you need protection.

@Lunar27 before Thatcher introduced right to buy there was plenty of social housing, administered by councils and specifically for people whose incomes would never allow them to buy. Rents were affordable and people could make real homes, they could stay as long as they liked as long as they paid the rent, they could decorate, it was worth buying their choice of carpet.

Now there’s barely any. Most former council housing has been bought up by landlords. We need to build loads of it and remove right to buy so it remains social housing. Because there will always be people who don’t earn enough to buy a house - and everyone deserves a secure home that they can’t be thrown out of at a landlord’s whim.

@Fretfulmum

Continual government changes for second home owners is driving out landlords with 1 or 2 properties (probably most LLs on this thread) and they are selling up. The properties are being snapped up by large property companies and BANKS. Banks are the biggest purchasers of properties in the last few years. If you think you get a raw deal from LLs, just wait until you have to rent from a bank or a property company. There will be no leeway with rent prices, and I’m pretty sure you won’t be getting repairs and maintenance done as regularly. You will be fighting with them for them to do anything. And also prices won’t come down because another bank will just swoop in and buy an available property. Blackstone bank purchased the most homes last year.

This is indeed the way things are going. And thanks to the useful idiots speculating on shelter with borrowed money - private equity is about to clean up.

Step 1) make residential real estate a leveraged asset class (I.e. offer buy to let mortgages)

Step 2) pump up the price of housing with low interest rates and easy credit, and use the media to champion it (homes under the hammer)

Step 3) ensure that you price out generations

Step 4) turn the screw on the economy such that no one has any disposable income

Step 5) as people fall into rental and mortgage arrears - with neither mortgage owner occupiers or Buy to Let mortgage holders able to make up the shortfall to cover the debt, in swoops corporations.

“You do it to yourself, you do, and that’s what really hurts”

It is such a beautiful plan,

I kind of think the population deserves it for being so bloody short sighted - the years spent living high on the hog as shelter prices exploded upwards, using houses as ATMs etc will now turn around, the really really wealthy get even more of a guaranteed monthly revenue stream whilst the population is at their mercy and we’ll see people shellshocked, wondering how the hell it happened.

And yet it was so blindingly obvious.

For sure, we may have a couple of generations left where the houses stay in the hands of the owner occupier - where the house was owned outright and it gets inherited as such. It’ll take a while to extract those out of normal people’s hands. But extract it they will, by hook or by crook.

All it’ll take is valuations to exceed IHT limits. Inheritors will need to mortgage to keep it to pay the bill. Once it’s mortgaged, step 1 complete, make it more and more difficult to service that debt and bingo - another nice man arrives from a wealthy fund and makes a lovely offer you can’t refuse.

@Blossomtoes

I must live in utopia (Bucks) as our town has over 30% of all houses as social housing (104,000 total and 34,000 of these are social).

It's interesting as some people have opposing arguments here about fairness, when families of 5 on benefits have been handed executive 4 bed houses, which cost more than working people with good jobs can buy. But I appreciate this is unusual for the UK and that even poor families need homes.

The point is, it's being done and is possible but requires a level of effort that no government is capable of putting in country wide.

I say this as a landlord but social housing should never be allowed to be purchased by anyone but a live in owner. This was a monumental cock up.

I must live in utopia (Bucks) as our town has over 30% of all houses as social housing (104,000 total and 34,000 of these are social)

You must indeed. Not only Utopia but an extra special corner of it. Where is this paradise?

@Ballcactus

Do landlords have to move every 6-12 months and move their children schools, pay the cost of moving every year, never mind the stress.

Renting is utter bollocks, and those commenting otherwise clearly are not currently renting.

Most landlords dont want to change tenants, let alone every 6-12 months.

Milton Keynes

Although many would not consider it anything remotely like paradise

I think MK’s a bit of a special case. How is it that all the social housing isn’t disappearing with right to buy? There’s very little left here.

Rental prices are ridiculous. Prices should be capped.

@xyzandabc

The mortgage payer will also be paying stamp duty, conveyancing fees, survey fees, buildings insurance, all maintenance on the property and all the hassle that goes with arranging these things So if it needs a new boiler, windows, or a new roof, that gets added to the £450. So yes renting is more expensive but the difference between your £800 and £450 example becomes less when you factor in the above .

Nope.

Essentially a mortgage and all the upkeep is a massive piggy bank, and it’s benefitting you!

🐷

Agreed. My house is a HA property, I pay £458 per month.

My neighbour is privately renting hers and hers is £1390 per month, for practically the same house.

It's so wrong.

@Blossomtoes

Yeah, I said it was unusual and MK is definitely unusual!

To be honest I'm not sure. Some of it may well have been sold off but many of my neighbours are renting. I think they generally got it right though as the original requirement was for at least 30% of all estates to be social with a mix of others (so no 100% executive areas). Therefore I'm mixed with a range of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed properties as well as apartments. It works well and I'm glad I'm not stuck with one demographic.

All new estates should have a formula though so we increase social housing with expansion. Not sure what to do about existing housing though as it's a bit too late for councils to buy back stock.

@Blossomtoes

I think MK’s a bit of a special case. How is it that all the social housing isn’t disappearing with right to buy? There’s very little left here.

It was a New Town?

@BambinaJAS, did I say I have a problem with changing colour of the blinds? Don't twist my words for the sake of winning arguments, I am not here for that.

I mentioned that only to explain that noone would make that request if they plan to move to another place in response to your imagination that she might want to move to a bigger, family home.

I am not obsessed, you lack critical reasoning, and are unable to understand the context of what is said.

I don't need to know your family income, you are not the only one with 150K plus income and to be honest, it is not that much in a big city like London if you want decent living standards.

We bought our home just a few years in a very expensive market in London after being gazumped and wasting money on legal and other costs twice. Also, never wanted to be a landlord but we couldn't sell the place after 2 years as we would have lost so much money. So should we have sold our place at a significant loss or left it vacant while we were paying high rent in another expensive city?
I only posted here as a poster said there are no accidental landlords and all are bad.

Not all landlords have a portfolio of rental properties to earn profits, not all landlords got money or properties in inheritance.

I don't know about North, so won't comment on that but in London/ South East if you purchased a place in the last 4-5 years, you did not get that unfair advantage of low prices years ago.

I know how frustrating and depressing it is to not able to own your own place as we lived for a very long time in small, overpriced rental flats with bare minimum maintenance. We have worked very hard to save the money and understand that many despite working extremely hard are not able to.

I am not British. Drop that chip on your shoulder, and stop assuming and arguing.

You have a lot of time on your hands to argue with a lot of posters, so keep twisting what is written so you have more stuff to argue against.

Loads of landlords don't take benefits and also benefits often lots less than rent. This is real reason why domestic violence victims don't leave & get murdered or suicide or ongoing abuse and injuries cos no safe rehousing. If was social housing would be safe & less domestic violence murders.

It’s true that lost of landlords won’t take tenants on benefits, but at the same time on this thread landlords are accused of making all their profits because of people on benefits. Which is it, because both can’t be the overwhelming problem.

It’s worth thinking about why landlords don’t want to take tenants on benefits. For some it will be because their mortgage or insurance won’t agree to it or would be more expensive, some don’t have that restriction but would choose not to anyway. The reason for both landlords and mortgage or insurance companies are that statistically, tenants on benefits are more likely to default on their rent, are more likely to leave the property damaged and are more likely to need to be formally evicted instead of leaving when their contract is up.

Blame other housing benefit claimants for landlords reluctance to rent to them, because their reluctance is not unfounded. It is unfair on good tenants that need to claim benefits because they are tarred with the same brush as the bad ones, but until the government offers proper protection to landlords this situation will continue.