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.

All the LA or HA would have to do is buy the discounted house and then sell it at the higher market rate if they don’t need it.

I strongly suspect that cheap houses for social provision would be gladly accepted by LAs and HAs though. How do you think these providers already maintain their houses?

It really is pathetic.

I sleep very well, knowing I’m looking after my family.

I'm talking about the extra houses. Would all these extra LA funded houses not any extra income to make these purchases? As in from the tax payer?

Well no, not really because if people are goung to rent, then they at least deserve to rent an actual home not just pay to be a placeholder for you that could be kicked out at any time.

Some of us are opposed to the BTL and multiple ownership blight without insulting LLs.

But if you can’t see why some others have reason to be so opposed and to express themselves in strong terms I think you are very short-sighted and unaware of the wider realities of the business you’ve decided to take part in.

They'd buy it with capital funds, and pay for the repairs and maintenance using rental income. It could be done through a management organisation or housing association. It could be really useful for providing temporary accommodation.

(I'm familiar with LA funding but not all the rules around capital purchases etc. Also government funding is pushing towards LAs using private sector accommodation for a lot of homelessness-related work, so it might be harder to do. But in theory it could work well)

They charge rent.

If the economics worked out that more LA/HA housing couldn’t be sustained in any particular case, then they sell. If that depresses sale prices, good.

But it's nearly always the answer to this type of question.
A post about moving in with a new partner.... rent it out
A post about landlords... all scum.
The people responding to the first type of post don't seem to realise that would make them landlords.

So who would be eligible to rent from the LA then? Everyone? Given that they'd have lots of houses?

At the literal expense of another family.

Couldn't be me.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying In this scenario, would the ultimate goal be for tenants to save a deposit so they could buy their own property, or to stay in the secure tenancy longterm?

What would happen when say children grew up and the parents don’t really need a three-bedroom house anymore?

I’m not being goady, genuinely asking how the LA/HA housing would function.

Why would they have lots of houses? Licensed private LLs would be making (controlled) profits. Why would they sell en masse?

If you mean that such intervention would provoke a huge initial exodus of BTL LLs - and despite how welcome that would be in some ways - I do accept that re-structuring the market would have to be managed in phases and over time.

All good questions. To which there will be good answers.

RTB has had plenty of takers. I don’t see why private RTB wouldn’t. But even if it didn’t things would be better if tenants had strong security of occupation.

As things stand these issues of changing circumstance arise. They’re managed. But I agree we need to work out ever better policies.

I am quite certain that fewer BTL dabblers and ‘nest eggers’ and more properly regulated private or state sector providers would make finding the answers easier though.

Because if there is a cap on the rent then there will be more landlords selling up and it was suggested that these should be sold to the LA . I'm asking where is the LA getting the money from to buy the houses and how would that affect who was eligible to rent them

If there are rent controls and regulation across the board, there would be fewer benefits to renting from an LA. So they could be open to everyone.

I think you’ve shown very neatly why private LLs are in the business! Mega-profits or run away.

I don’t believe for a moment that profit from renting has to be as absurdly high as it is now (counting the rent surplus and asset appreciation together) to maintain business interest. It would just move to more professional, long-term private providers and away from Mr and Mrs Smith and their ‘Homes Under the Hammer’ ambitions for big returns.

I’ve said that houses that couldn’t be sold to a very limited category of buyers would be sold to LAs/HAs at a discount. If they have no need for them they can sell on at a higher price.

As a long term renter I think sadly, you're in the minority. IMHE and friends I’ve known landlords behave appallingly, illegally and I’ve only had 2 decent landlords both of whom begrudgingly let me decorate. So I think the reputation is absolutely justified

Of course they're in business for profit.
I have several friends who rent due to their work schedules. They are on medium term contracts.
I have a relative who is renting with his partner with a view to buying
I'm a landlord and the family in my house are new to the country and i think they have a couple more years before they could apply for a mortgage.
None of these are currently eligible for housing association.
Someone mentioned the right to buy scheme. These houses were bought at vastly reduced prices and many of these have been sold on, making huge profits. This also contributed to the lack of housing.
There's a bigger picture than just the landlords

I have no problem with people disagreeing with what I do and discussing it, we all think different things are wrong/immoral, but calling people scum, leeches, cancer etc is pathetic.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis

What would happen when say children grew up and the parents don’t really need a three-bedroom house anymore?

Except that it's more of a "natural process", this probably comes under a similar heading to what happens if someone wins the lottery and doesn't need the house any more because they can well afford to buy their own

Looking at the insistence on absolute security of tenure it may be that some don't feel there's any scenario whereby the house should be handed back for someone else, but whether that's fair or desirable is another matter

One of the posters that named called, has a company that does business with LLs, so while they are calling LLs names and saying that they should not exist, is happy to take money from them and work with LLs.

If they were as principled as they say they are they would not be taking the LLs money, as its come from those poor exploited tenants.

It does not make sense.

That’s ok.

I couldn’t call people leeches or tell someone online to fuck off.

In Scotland landlords already cannot “not renew” tenancies. Scotland still has the highest rental inflation in the whole of the UK and it does nothing to solve the real issue, which is one of supply and demand. The only way the housing crisis will be solved is when we build more houses. Everything else being discussed here is nothing but noise.