DH hoarding properties.

[Feefee00]

Me and my DH want to upsize we have one 3 bed semi and a 2 bed house rental. DH wants to keep both properties and buy another to upsize too. He's said he wants to keep both for DDs future. The 2 bed is paid off worth about 150k the 3 bed semi one is 250k with 75 percent paid off. AIBU to think DD doesn't need 2 houses ? We aren't planning on anymore DC so wouldn't need a spare one. We could use the equity from one property and savings to have a very low mortgage on a bigger one. Part of me feels it's morally wrong to be keeping hold of houses.

Do you both pay into pensions ?

Or are your properties instead or as well as pensions ?

Do you have all your eggs in one basket ?

It's not as dire everywhere.
There are lots of houses for sale as vacant possession within 1km of mine. A lot. Plenty for people to snap on with deposits anywhere between 8k to 18k needed if 10%.
Anything from 2 to 4 bed. It's not terrible with no housing stock for owner occupier everywhere...

So you're unhappy with the idea of DD being gifted so much, rather than with DH's financial arrangements and his property owning at the present time.

You need to talk about that with DH.

You say things didn't turn out well with your friend but if DH is from a culture which makes a point of setting children up well, can he show you other examples with good results?

If every homeowner in the UK owned two rental properties in addition to a home they live in, that would equate to two thirds of homes being 'investment' properties.

Yes, this particular thread is about one example of one person owning an additional two homes.

But every other person who does this is also 'only' one person, and it adds up to have a big impact.

What's the problem with investment properties that are then rented to people who want to live there?

Do you work ?

Are you for real? If you can afford it of course leave the properties and buy the third one. There are other ways to teach your child what money is worth and hard work but not leaving the property because she will be too spoiled is just unreasonable. Its a great investment and opportunity for your child. Plus you dont know what will happen in 5-10-20 years. Maybe one of you won’t be able to work and will need an extra money, maybe one of your investments won’t turn out as good. Its also your own security. you dont have to gift it to her tomorrow

Why are you worried about her getting too much now? Your best bet is to keep your options open. Housing is a relatively safe investment. Keep the second rental, and see where the world has taken all of you in 9-15 years.

I wouldn't sign it over when she was 18, I would let her decide where she wants to go. Once she's settled, I would sell it give her the cash or let her live in the house and sign it over at some point . Basically it's a good house perfectly fine for a family to start in it has 3 beds 2 bathrooms and a garage. I think gifting her the price of a 4 bed detached straight away would be setting her up to fail.

I'm young, I'm not thinking about hip replacements or care home fees just yet. I have some savings and my bigger property will be used to fund that anyway.

Yes I work full time.

I mean you could use that kind of thinking for many things. It's not actually useful.

Because the people who want to live there might prefer to be able to buy somewhere. People are priced out of buying because of landlords snapping up multiple properties, which results in increased prices for both rents and mortgages, and limits first time buyers' ability to get on the property ladder.

It's true that there will always be people who want/ need to rent, and there will always be a need for some rental property. But the current situation is completely imbalanced in the favour of landlords. The government should put a limit on how many 'buy to let' properties people are allowed to own.

Landlords are not doing people a favour by buying investment properties. They are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think/ say they are. It's about their own self interest and profiting

What a vague comment.

My comment is both useful and relevant when considering the 'morals' of buying investment properties, which is exactly what OP is asking about.

If house prices fall stay, stagnant and savings give a good return higher than inflation. I'd consider it , so I could give her the cash. I have some shares but that's quite volatile at the moment more so than houses which are quite safe. It's not so much about making lots of money it's the gamble of parking your money somewhere not being eroded by inflation or the market.

Over time stocks and shares out perform properly and cash. Get proper financial advices as there will be implications to his plans which you need to be aware off, now and in the future.

You do what you need to do - every individual will/ should do what is in the interests of their family.

My complaint is more about the government not reining in all the greedy landlords to be honest, and stopping people from owning 5,6,7+ properties.

I would recommend you try and encourage your DH not to buy anymore, though.

Disagree. Nothing morally wrong with owning several properties as long as the tenants are treated fairly (I'm from a country where the majority live in rented and happily.)

However, from an investment point of view it sounds like abad idea to keep all your assets tied up in property. Better to diversify with other appreciating assets such as low-cost broad global index funds. If it's about your daughter's inheritance, just as easy to pass on those as brick and mortars. I'd pay for a couple of hours with an independent investment advisor if I were you to go through the details of your situation.

If these landlords did not buy the houses in the first place, there would be many more properties available, and they would be cheaper. People would not need to rent because buying would be more affordable

Firstly these properties aren’t on some secret list, they aren’t hidden away from FTBs or the general public wanting to buy a place to live in.
If people wanted to buy then they would buy. My experience showing properties is a FTB has a very fanciful idea of what they want compared to what they can afford.

They are looking at a property as a forever home. They don’t want to compromise.
Most want everything to be exactly how they would like it.
They don’t want to go down the studio/1 bed and move on up

It doesn't matter how good a landlord you are, you are still taking a property off the market to make a profit for yourself

But that property might or might not have been mortgageable. Or as I said above a FTB didn’t want it.

I had a flat that I found a FYB for 3 times
Each time it got within hours of signing the contract 3 separate FTBs pulled out.
I was waiting around for 9 months.
I then stuck £20,000 on the price and a BTL landlord came along the same day, bought it and signed and completed within the week.

That flat could have been sold to a ftb but the FTBs didn’t want it.

Again, not saying it's evil - the government allow it so it's fair enough. I don't think the government should allow it (at least, they shouldn't allow people to own 5, 6, 7+ properties that they don't need

But what if they do need it. Those properties provide an income.

A friend has a 2nd home in the South West
He gets berated by locals and people who vaguely know him that his 2nd home is used as a holiday let.

The issue is when the properties were built the local planners in their wisdom didn’t want them to be used as 1st homes.
So the next time you see houses in certain regions being used as holiday let’s and think they would be good houses for locals to live in. Just think that it might not be as straight forward as just selling to a local so they can live in it.

To me it's not morally wrong. You can moralise anything and that's my point. Vague or not. Guess I don't feel strongly about it because I don't think it's wrong.

Talk to your pension provider then because a lot of your pension is invested in housing for rental.
great.gov.uk actively encourage foreign companies to invest in the uk including housing.
Everyone conveniently forgets the huge property companies and picks on relatively small landlords.
Hypocrites when it suits you.

You already own more houses than you need to live in, so not sure there’s a moral leg to stand on saying three is too many but two is OK. Just have the one property and invest your wealth for your DC elsewhere – you’ll still be better off than most people.

Part of me feels it's morally wrong to be keeping hold of houses.

Why 'morally wrong'? OP get a grip!

I hope so the S&P seems quite volatile it's hard to time it especially the economic doom and gloom I do have shares but timing extra it is difficult . think I will chat to a financial advisor. Basically I don't want inflation to erode my savings.

It’s literally setting up a business for their dc.
In the absence of a socialist government which wasnot voted in then the OP is doing nothing wrong.

@Kennykenkencat
The system is completely broken if people need to own 5+ properties to get an income. There are many, many other ways to get an income that do not take home-ownership opportunities away from the next generation.

For properties that are not mortgageable/ not appealing for first time buyers, there could be something in place to allow these to be released as buy-to-let properties if they have been on the market for a certain period of time.

These are specifics you are talking about and I am not an expert in housing. What I am saying is that in general, the government could step in and do more on this. There could be more rules around this which would free up houses that are suitable for FTBs for FTBs.

No, properties are not on some 'secret list' or hidden away from FTB's, but the reality is that getting a mortgage and buying a house is more expensive than it would be if people were not buying up multiple properties and taking them off the market.

The government could do more.