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.

Yeah, I missed a trick there.

But there is a housing crisis don't you know you know.

I am being as ridiculous as some on this thread.

That’s not my argument. See my previous posts.

The problem is concentration of ownership and - sometimes related to that, sometimes not - regrettable abuse and housing insecurity.

There will always be people who need to rent. There will always be private landlords. It just needs to be done very differently.

I am all in favour of ownership. But one each, unless you’re a heavily regulated private LL.

That's a bloody expensive insurance!

Do you know how much rental properties actually cost?
The difference between rent and a mortgage is not worth it for most people just to have some sort of landlord service that may or may not be utterly shite, for something that might happen.
There actual insurance for that. Much more cost effective and much more likely to actually pay out. And that's saying something.
Christ, my landlord's been saying he'll fix our bathroom fan for four years. He mentions it awkwardly every time I bump into him in the street but we gave up long ago and sorted it ourselves. (He's still increased the rent each year though, of course) I'm certainly not happily paying hundreds of pounds a month for that "service" through some sort of informed choice.

Let's imagine a thing called 'social housing', decent stock, provided by government, at a reasonable price, where it's needed, with, I dunno, a life-time tenancy.

And then let's imagine that was available to those who needed or wanted it.

Communism indeed!

Or maybe just progressive policy that allowed the denizens of a country to achieve a reasonable standard of living, whilst allowing capitalism to continue unhindered. It may even benefit capitalism because the inhabitants of those properties may have more money to spend on leisure and lovely things. Imagine that!

I'm a landlord, and for completely selfish reasons. I moved abroad for work and want the option to move back into my old apartment if/when I move back to the UK. I do my best to be a good landlord but it'd be disingenuous to pretend I'm letting out my apartment out of the goodness of my heart.

I'm renting overseas and tenant rights here are much stronger. Landlords can only charge a fair rent, and anything they charge over that, tenants can challenge, even after they have moved out in case they're worried about being evicted in retaliation. Owners who are in my position (renting out their apartment while working/living elsewhere) are generally allowed to do that for 2-3 years, then they need to decide to either move back into the apartment they own or sell up. Not a bad rule imho.

The OP is hilarious. They just cannot see that buying homes as a long term investment is considered morally unacceptable to some people. They can keep trying to defend their own personal position as much as they like but they are showing their true colours when they admit that rent is impacted by “supply and demand” (yes that’s the whole point!) and that they’ve bought the houses as investments for their kids.

We need more social housing and homes available on Buying Schemes. Landlords tying up homes as long term investments is impacting that. The demand is extreme for shared ownership properties which shows there are not enough. A friend sold their 50% shared ownership in a pretty crappy 2 bed house within 12 hours and the estate agent only let people on their shared ownership waiting list view it! Landlords are tying up houses that could be used for these kinds of Buying Schemes. That is just not ethical in my opinion.

I’m currently paying my friends £1,150 a month rent so that she can afford to move out of her crappy rental as soon as a shared ownership comes up that she has a big enough deposit saved for. A mortgage will be a significantly lower bill each month for her than rent. How is that right?!

Landlords cannot deny that homes are scarce and that this scarcity increases prices. If the prices were not as high, more people would be able to afford to buy than rent. I bet that the vast vast majority of renters would prefer to buy a home than rent but they can’t afford to because the market has been impacted by the significant BTL market.

I could easily have as many “investment properties” as the OP but I certainly won’t be blocking any homes as a long term investment. Incredibly selfish thing to do in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with that at all, you own a single property that you're not using, and so are letting it out, thereby providing some dynamism in the market for tenants that need it.

You're also honest about your motivation and not pretending to offer a social service.

And as I previously mentioned, wherever it is your living seems to have a better handle on the idea of rental property. This is the kind of policy that needs to be seen in the UK to bring some sense back into the housing market. It won't happen though, much of the UK's 'wealth' is based on housing stock, it's basically a ponzi-sceme now and correction would be too painful.

Yes!! Exactly this is needed. Have you lobbied your local MP for this? Have they taken action? Hate towards private landlords (like in all walks of life 95% are good ones) is not solving the real problem which is lack of supply.

Yes I do know how much rent is and how much properties cost. I’m sorry you have a bad landlord.

Let's imagine a thing called 'social housing', decent stock, provided by government, at a reasonable price, where it's needed, with, I dunno, a life-time tenancy
And then let's imagine that was available to those who needed or wanted it

Yes, and then let's imagine selling off that much needed stock, sometimes for a pittance, to folk who once made a lot of noise about the need for it but were only too glad to grab the discounts for themselves

Strange how we hear so little about this, and strange too that - for all their moaning - Labour have done almost nothing to change it

Landlords already are regulated. The government could do more to tackle irresponsible ones.

There should be profit in it, but only from carefully controlled rent levels
And that's the issue as things stands. With taxes added on capital + increase in mortgages, adding to costs of regular maintenance, savings for refurbishment, potential non payment of rent, which sadly is becoming more common, a profit on rent is becoming rarer and rarer, hence so many rental properties having gone for sale.

That's what so many were calling for. They were adamant that with higher supply, costs of property would go down allowing more first time buyers to get on the ladder.

Well not only has this not happened but now, there is a huge shortage of decent rental properties available for the many who still can't get on the ladder but are seeing increase costs of renting.

Talk about backfiring! I don't make any monthly profit on my property, but my goal is to pay it off from my FT job income so that I can then get an income upon retirment. Then of course, there is always the risk that I don't make it until then!

Thank you, but my point is, noone, or rather an extremely small number of people who I can't help but think are really bad at economics, are choosing this as an option. It's way more than an actual insurance policy would cost and there's no reliability that your landlord will be a decent one that will actually fulfill their obligations.
People are renting because they have no choice. Not because they are concenred about what to do with their leakey taps.

I did mention 'right to buy' in one of my earlier posts as a contributory factor in the current situation.

But it over time has rocketed house prices, supply and demand and all that. If less were buying then the prices would be lower and so those renting would have a better chance of buying. Also at the level most can buy at the houses are snapped up by landlords who fix them up and rent them out so pricing these potential buyers out of the market and therefore have to rent. It's been a spiraling effect over the years. I was able to buy in my area and my mortgage is 550 quid, rent next door is 1300 a month. It's not that people can't buy it's that the system created won't allow it

What is your mortgage rate, and how much deposit did you put down, there are lots of factors in this.

My mortgage on my main house is 2k more a month than my neighbours, you cant compare this without factors coming into play.

I know you did, JeysusH, but I was referring to the little heard about it generally rather than on a personal basis - especially about the mismatch between tenants' expectations while on a waiting list and what over 2 million so far have been prepared to do once housed

And multiply that by ten for those who take the discount to buy the house, move in with family elsewhere and then themselves rent out what was once said to be so precious

Quite, I think right to buy needs to be abolished now and social housing should remain absolutely that.

Right to buy is absolutely ridiculous.

The rules at my local council are that if you want to sell your council house after you have bought it, you must offer it back to the council first. 8 times out of 10, they will buy it back from you, and they have to give you market rate for it, even though you bought it at a massively reduced rate.
So they sell you a house for 89k and five years later they buy it back again for £300k. These are exact figures from someone I know by the way
They are just giving away massive sums of money at this point.

There are problems with the mechanics of RTB but as a policy I don’t have a problem with the principle of it. And I’d extend it. Private renters should have a right to buy.

The people I’m most concerned about are those who want to buy eventually but are kept from doing so by disproportionate rental levels and well-heeled speculators buying up houses as investment, so distorting the sales market.

Social housing provision, in the sense of LA and HA housing, has an important place in the mix. It’s drawing a greater equivalence between profit-making private LLs and non-profits that I think would make the biggest difference.

There are millions renting privately many of whom want to be and should be allowed to be owners.

A massive house building programme is, IMO, pie in the sky for numerous reasons. I do agree, though, that we can build some more and make better use of land and vacant properties - including presently commercial property.

I’m talking about structural regulation, not just gas appliance safety and the like.

I envisage property rental being a proper, ‘in it indefinitely’ business, like all significant businesses. Private LLs should not normally be able to terminate tenancies or sell properties except to tenants or other regulated LLs, for example.

Build enough council houses for rent and affordable properties to buy, and then see how many people still prefer to rent from a private landlord. There's your answer.

They are just giving away massive sums of money at this point

They are indeed, Applescruffle, and this from organisations who constantly whine that they're short of it; see also corrupt deals where they're paying exhorbitant amounts to the contractors who "maintain" the remaining stock

Then there's the requirement for buyers to live in the property themselves for 5 years once it's bought before even thinking of letting it out ... if only that was imposed

Wr rented for 12 yrs and our experience was crap. Long term in Essex was OK. The last 4 yrs in London were appalling. We bought before we would have done. We wanted a better deposit but because it was so dire we bought what we could afford with the deposit we already had.

The landlords we had were in it for the money. The corners cut, poor fixtures, bodge jobs, leaks, structural holes (that let in vermin) etc etc means I personally have little respect for landlords and nothing will convince me otherwise.