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.

Well done mumsnet for deleting the personal attacks on landlords that I read. 👏

I've found on here that it's the tenants that usually get the unfair comments. There's always people saying that tenants don't look after the house properly because they don't own it. I've rented two houses, and my previous one when I left the landlord said it was in better condition when I left than when he rented it to me.

There's good and bad tenants, just as there are landlords. I'm really lucky to have had two lovely landlords.

You see it on here all the time....
I own my own house. My partner and i are thinking of living together. Shall we buy a place together? Response..... don't give up your house that you've worked for in case it all goes wrong. Rent your house out and buy with the partner
Are those kind of landlords OK?

That’s good to hear.

The bigger problem is imbalance. Everyone would condemn a tenant who misbehaved. But LLs regard it as a natural right to end a tenancy as they wish and do with the property as they wish. In the power relationship I’d say both are misconduct. LLs have a moral duty - and they should have a legal obligation - to house a tenant as long as the tenant wishes it.

This is just an example. There are many, many reasons why private LLs should be in the business professionally, under strong regulation and essentially as a solo, permanent trader. It’s not a business suited to ‘dabbling’, ‘for the kids’, ‘nest egg’, ’supplemental income’ or ‘accidental’ 🙄 LLs.

No. If you own a house you should live in it, sell it or become a properly regulated full-time LL.

If people (usually women) want bricks and mortar security, go on the deeds, get married or don’t move in elsewhere.

Full time landlord? Is that a job now?
Who says someone who rents their house out isn't a proper landlord? They still need all the safety certificates etc.

It should be a job. With extensive regulation.

Safety certificates are the very barest minimum. Of course nobody should rent out a dangerous property, ever.

I’m talking about landlords as a structurally regulated business. Licensing, cash holdings, fit and proper tests, restrictions on sale, rent caps and reviews, indefinite tenancies and so on.

And let me guess the landlords would have to pay for all this extra regulation? But they wouldn't be able to recoup any of that extra money that they have to pay out? Have i got that right?
Because if i have there would be even more landlords selling up and even fewer rental properties available. So where would they sell to? Housing associations? The government?

Systemically this isn't working, as discussed on the thread. It distorts the market and it makes tenants vulnerable to owners changing their mind and deciding to sell. There are individual landlords who are doing a good job, but the system doesn't provide good outcomes for society as a whole. In the same way, I wouldn't judge someone for using Right To Buy because it's the system we live in, but I think RTB as it stands is a terrible policy.

You also see a lot of threads on here where 'accidental' landlords aren't following all the rules.

What I think would be interesting is to have the ability to invest money in a savings scheme which tracks the housing market (and the way to do this would probably be a massive regulated company which owns properties and lets them out). So if you sold your house to move in with a partner, you could invest it in the scheme. You wouldn't lose out because your investment would still be growing in line with house prices, but you also wouldn't be clogging up the housing market with BTL landlords. It's not a fully thought through scheme and I'm sure there are issues with it, but as an idea I like it.

I agree landlords need to be regulated much more heavily.
However, many of those in power who make the rules are landlords and they don't want regulations impacting their profits!

Yes. LLs would fund the regulation, but I doubt it would be that expensive, particularly after set-up funded centrally.

Lots of trades and professions pay for their own regulation. Wherever there’s professional licensing there’s a regulatory income stream.

Of course there would be profit available, but only on rental income, not on capital growth, and rental income profit should be carefully controlled.

The basic premise is that a private LL should be forced to operate like a social housing provider but with a profit element. If that’s unattractive to private LLs you need to ask yourself why.

They would have to sell to whom ever is willing to buy at whatever price they can get. Hopefully this means they'll have to sell cheap and some first time buyers can have a chance of controlling their own destiny rather than living at the mercy of a landlord's whims.
Therr will of course be some capital gains liability in the event of selling and capital gains is the principal activity involved in being a landlord, any profit made from the rent monies is just icing on the cake.

Why wouldn't there be profit on capital growth? If the LL owned houses the value would increase and result in a profit, surely? (I'm thinking I've missed something in your idea rather than criticising your idea, to be clear)

@Arewe29 I saw upthread that you’re planning to give your rental properties to your children at some point in the future?

So they’ll become homeowners-perhaps the cycle of evil landlords can end then. :-)

Of course you are stopping people buying houses. You are pushing up demand which is pushing up prices and consequently pushing up deposits for homes.

So you are in effect stopping someone at the more vulnerable end of the economic system from buying their one and only home, because of what can arguably be described as greed.

Renters cannot live where all the empty homes are. People usually have to live where the jobs are. And people buying their first house usually are not in a position to do up an empty or disused house.

There will be shifts in the housing market as landlords sell up and more people would be able to acquire first homes.

You’re right: I abridged the explanation so it wasn’t clear.

My proposal is that private LLs would only be able to sell to another licensed private LL or - under an expanded RTB, with discount - to the tenant. The idea is that heavily regulated rental stock remains as such unless sold to an existing tenant.

There might be capital gains, I suppose, in either scenario but they would be effectively part of a business sale rather than an ongoing incentive to sell up - and throw out a tenant - when the market suits, as now.

If a LL had to sell and no legally permitted buyer could be found, then discounted sale to a LA or HA.

I’m over seeing this on television too. I feel it is inappropriate and unethical and as a TV licence payer, I don’t want to view on television that people can let out X property for Y profit, now that like 40% of people are being forced to rent homes.

Too many people now are forced to rent out a home, and being forced to rent a home with an uneven power keel is a very miserable experience for a huge number of people.

Granted, in some circumstances people do need to rent - like coming out of university or starting a job in a new city.

But let’s face it. For many people nowadays, it’s an unpleasant and selfish industry. It’s forcing people into poverty and increasing people’s poverty as increasing numbers enter old age without a paid off mortgage and are forced to pay those market rents.

About LLs "pushing up the prices" ...

FWIW I only have one additional property and my disabled son's in that, but from observation the LLs with portfolios certainly don't pay over the odds; in fact they very often buy the cheapest places available, and then only if competition doesn't drive the price up

Obviously it could be said that fewer available properties mean prices will be higher, but let's not also forget the endless meddling and so-called "help to buy" schemes which also contribute to keeping prices artificially high

We currently rent out 5 properties. There will always be people that say it’s immoral.

My sibling lives in one of our houses and a very good friend in another, both happy and say they don’t want to buy.

One has long term tenants of 8 years. The other two have tenants who are leaving soon and we’re going to sell those houses to help our kids get on the property ladder. We all look after our own at the end of the day.

I understand your pov, but what about the people who will never be able to afford the deposit to buy or who don’t want to buy for whatever reason? I’m probably going to rent in a couple of years when I move areas and I’ll be really grateful to find someone who has a property I can rent.

As a former tenant too, I know that the majority of landlords I have had are poor. Even as a well heeled middle class professional, I have had to deal with people who didn’t pay for gas safety certificates, scummy individuals who wouldn’t fit hot water for taps or fix landing lights when you have small kids, landlords who have tried to implement a retrospective rent increase, landlords who have installed cords of blinds so that they are dangling into my baby’s cot, (really cheap blinds at that which have fallen apart within weeks), landlords who are constantly watching me and coming up with crazy accusations like you’re smoking in your home (er no I have asthma), landlords who have tried to charge me for another reference when I’m only moving into another one of their properties. I could go on indefinitely.

So I do feel like getting out my tiny violin and playing a sad song when I see the Daily Telegraph bemoaning the fact that profits are not what they were for the poor landlords, who are doing their best to cater for the ne-er do wells.

So say the LA buys these houses. Where does that money come from? Who pays for the upkeep and maintenance? Do the LA pay for that? Where does that money come from? Because in the scenario you describe, that would be a lot of houses to pay for and ultimately maintain.

As for the posters getting carried away and calling all landlords scum and leeches, I can only roll my eyes and think they’re pathetic.

We all look after our own at the end of the day.

So true. That’s why Rachmanite landlords intimidate, bully and rip off their tenants…so they can better their own and their family’s financial prospects. Or, less contentiously, why private LLs do not renew tenancies or sell up, at their own convenience, leaving people desperate.

You’re clearly not either of those. But I’m sure you see the problem.

Not just scum but also, Leeches Blood-sucking and Cancer.

Also how do we sleep at night.