To think that Landlords have a bad name.

[Arewe29]

NC for this.

Is it just me or are all landlords frowned upon a MN.

We own and rent out 3 properties all our properties are rented out to young families, just under market rate, we allow them to decorate their homes how they like, and if there is any issues or problems they just call us and we sort it out ASAP.

I know that there is some terrible landlords out there, that should be dealt with but there are thousands of other that are decent that follow all the laws and their tenants are very happy.

The trouble here is that many of the posters here lack nuance or the ability to see out of their very black and white, "all landlords are scum" perspectives. It's not as simple as that.

There are many valid reasons why some people may choose to rent over buying. Students, people who are new to the area and aren't sure if they're going to stay, people on temporary work contracts to a new area, people may be moving to be closer to an ailing relative and only need to be there for a short time, etc.

If you removed renting as an option-what would those people do?

Don't get me wrong-there is absolutely an issue with property investors buying up huge chunks of our housing stock and the issues that come from that are massive.

But it's not as simple as "all landlords are scum. They shouldn't be allowed," because that would remove the option of renting from the people who need it. There are people who can't buy a home due to poor credit history-should they be homeless then until their credit rating improves and they can buy?

Some of you don't think things through to their logical conclusions. If you think landlords shouldn't be allowed to exist-what is your solution to the people that need to rent-for whatever reason?

What we probably need to do is to remove the incentives for people, buying up huge chunks of property, build more affordable housing and social housing, and really tackle the bad landlords and hold them to account. But, like it or not, there will always be a need for landlords because not everyone's circumstances suit buying a home.

I think it is morally wrong to buy houses as investments. It inflates prices and means many young people are outpriced. I think many of the defensive landlords on this thread know this which is why they are so defensive attempting to justify the fact that they are making money from housing.

Rentals are becoming extortionate because landlords are profiteering. I have a friend paying £1,150 a month for a very small 3 bedroom house for herself and two DC. A house that the landlord (who lives 300 miles away) purchased for £130k in 2012. My friend has no choice other than to rent after her divorce because her £25k per annum salary does not allow her to pay that level of rent and also save for a deposit. The house hadn’t even been cleaned when she moved in. All of the double glazed windows are blown and it’s just not really well looked after. That landlord probably considers herself as a “good landlord” too after all she’s letting the paupers live in her property for a “market rent” and they can’t afford to live anywhere else 🙄

@Arewe29 so you're saying you decided to be a landlord for multiple properties to help others? To be their saviour?

It may help you to explain your reasons for buying and renting out 3 properties.

A compromise would be allowing people to be landlords but only if they actually own the property outright and cap what they can charge for rent. Let's see how many LL stick around then

You can't actually afford your 3 properties

Maybe because its true.

Take up your doubts with the LLs that are being unscrupulous, the ones that I said need dealing with in my OP.

This!! 👏👏

I agree there is a role for private provision. But it should be on a properly regulated, professional basis structurally.

There should be profit in it, but only from carefully controlled rent levels. Even the most saintly private LL now is (usually) gaining by the fact of ownership and the fact of rent profit.

And TBH, there really aren’t many saintly LLs.

This is without the scourge of personal hoarding: wealthy people who own more than one property for their and their family’s own use.

FWIW, I don’t think foreign owners make any real difference. It’s BTL (there’s no such thing as an accidental LL) that needs stamping on.

I wonder if there are statistics showing how many LLs let their properties at below market rent.

That said, there is data on how many people earn a six figure salary and they all seem to be on MN. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I have no problem with the concept of rented property, letting agents or landlords, per se, as they are necessary up to a point, but I do think the sheer number of them is definitely an issue.
I also laugh when a landlord claims any sort of altruism.

We can afford our properties, as I have stated I would never use a S21, to remove tenants.

A poster on here said that she rents a house that their landlord inherited so they own the house and they would be allowed to keep the property and rent it out never having paid a penny, can you see how disingenuous that would be, you do know that social housing would not happen with your idea.

Exactly

If you take London rents as an example, in the last 10 years they have raised 38% but inflation only went up 26% so they increased 12% higher than inflation

So it's all very well boasting about below market rent, but when the market is self inflated unless you are well below its still above inflation

I wouldn't have an issue with private landlords as opposed to social ones (as long as their property was in good condition) of their rent was controlled and they couldnt do 12% above inflation increases!

I agree with this - renting is useful for some people but the current system is exploitative. We need a housing policy which aims to ensure people are well-housed. At the moment policy is made by (and in the interests of) wealth rather than people.

Most people who own houses don't directly profit from increases in value. When they sell their house, generally they are spending any profit they make on a new house, also at an inflated price. The increase in value is a benefit only when they leave home ownership.

Ideally I'd prefer to see house prices fall so that they are reasonable in relation to income; however, that would leave a lot of people (including me) in huge negative equity, which is a real problem.

There is no such thing as a accidental LL, oh come on, people could have to work for a year in a different part of the country and rent their own property out while renting one near work, that makes them an accidental LL.

The practicalities of building more homes is another issue though, nothing to do with landlords. Changing who owns the houses doesn’t fix the supply problem.

Scotland already has rent controls. Rent inflation is higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

Then they are doing it wrong. So do it differently.

House prices have gone up by more in percentage term than that, you then have to factor in tax, and repairs.

The rental market has also become more difficult as LLs have sold up making less properties available, making rents more expensive, its all about supply and demand.

Or fix the supply problem. The problem is: private funding is needed to build more homes but the vitriol towards that is apparent from this thread.

You're embarrassing yourself with that comparison. No one needs three properties. It shouldn't be legal.

How is that an accident?

It seems like a choice.

The extremism on this thread is laughable.

Dont hate the players, hate the game. As long as policy exists that allows LL to keep buying and renting then they will. Better that those LL aren’t complete bastards. What if the properties that the OP bought were instead snapped up by an absolute bastard of a LL??

The government has already started to make it unattractive for LL with the changes in tax law. More are selling and there are fewer LL than before - why are these houses not being bought by existing tenants? Are you seriously saying that it’s a LL fault that some tenants can’t afford to buy? Is LL fault if a tenant has a bad credit rating? Are ALL tenants absolute down trodden saints? I don’t think so

But they still own only one property. And there’s no reason not to regulate such rentals much more highly than at present.

In any case, the sorts of changes I would like to see could easily take account of the few, genuine exceptions to the norm of investment landlordism. There are special tenancy situations - like estate workers - that fall outside the bulk of the BTL industry that’s doing so much harm.

Extremism, behave yourself!

People are angry, and rightly so.

And I, and other posters have spoken about policy and its effects. The end-point being that there have been successive governments that have done nothing to address the housing situation in this country other than create a climate whereby bottom-feeders such as yourself will exploit circumstance and bad-policy.

It's hardly extrmism to point that out.

And I imagine tenants aren't buying right now due to punitive interest rates and the fact they've had to pay inflated private rents thereby preventing them from saving the necessary deposit.

@Arewe29 no, you can afford the interest only mortgage repayments on those properties. You don't own them. You can't afford to buy 3 houses outright so why do you feel it's right to profit from something you don't own?

Discounted compulsory sales to tenants of BTL properties would sort out a decent chunk of the deposit problem. I really can’t see why RTB shouldn’t be expanded to the private rental sector. It might kill it very quickly of course, which is why a graduated approach would be needed. But we need to get BTL properties into the ownership of non-LL, single property owners.

In fairness, if you’re on the deeds you’re the owner. Owners are mortgagors not mortgagees. Lenders have to call in the debt, which entails taking ownership; they can’t exercise powers of ownership otherwise.