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.

Yea exactly. I had to pass a credit check to rent my house!! in fact another couple beat me to it and the only reason I got my house is because they failed the credit checks so I got a chance because I was next in line So it's not true to say renters can't buy because they have bad credit. It's the prices of houses that's the issue and the massive deposits. I was told 20k just for a little two bed terrace with a courtyard garden

This is exactly what we do, yet some posters think LLs are rolling in money.

They do not understand all the other costs.

With respect, that’s sophistry. You have a mortgaged second property. The rent and your other income is in practical terms indivisible. You charge rent at a rate that reflects your need to pay the mortgage as part of your outgoings. The tax treatment of the streams of revenue is neither here nor there.

I entirely accept you and others on this thread do this perfectly lawfully and I’m sure you’re an excellent LL. But as a matter of social policy I would outlaw these arrangements.

Here’s a timely piece on the damage done by multiple property ownership and rental, albeit AirBnB (the worst of all):

(DM, to help balance out the Guardian links…)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13322875/Ramsgate-AirBnB-invasion-900-homes-holiday-lets.html

They do understand it, they choose to ignore it for the sake of rhetoric.

Why do you care what they think OP?

We own multiple properties that we rent out, I don’t care if others think that makes me unethical.

I’m interested in why you seem to be invested in changing peoples minds.

I am not trying to change people views.

It is the fact that on MN if people are a LL they are slum landlords taking advantage of people. If all the small LL sold up there would be a lot of society homeless.

This thread just sums it up perfectly.

If you’re not very well funded why do you think you should be able to take on the considerable responsibility of providing housing to someone?

As I stated in a previous post.

We can afford the properties and cover all the mortgage payments without any tenants in situ.

I have also said that I would never issue someone a section 21.

We have contractors that are a phone call away, solicitors that can deal with any issues.

You do want to change their opinion then. You want them to think that they’re not all bad and often provide a necessary service.

I agree with you, obviously as I know I’m a good landlord, but I don’t care for peoples opinions. Why do you? Just accept that not everyone will agree on everything.

OK, but you are then “rolling in money”!

I have no problem with that, BTW, I’m in favour of wealth creation. My objection is to that creation being by the offer of housing to others on an essentially unregulated, socially harmful basis.

But we’ll differ on that.

@SENMum1985, you are being ridiculous. Close to me within 3 miles there are 50 separate 2 bedroom houses for less than £250k. There are 84 3 bedroom houses for £250k or less. So 134 houses available. Some have been on the market for months. Plenty of time for anyone wanting to buy their one and only home to get on and do so. But they don't because of the reasons I've suggested no deposit or not earning enough to get through the bank stress test.Nothong to do with LL's who in 2023 sold more houses than they bought. So actually more houses available for FTB. The houses sit empty or someone buys them.

Well said 👏

Sounds like you’re advocating only the “rich”, however you choose to define that, being permitted to be landlords. Not a view I’ve heard before!

Taking someone's else's property would be theft.

My and your term of rolling in money must be different to be rolling in money.

An empty house is not housing anyone, but some posters would rather that they sat empty and families were in temp accommodation.

That’s clearly not what I said.

LLs who can’t fix the roof or the mould or the windows or re-wire or change the appliances etc etc shouldn’t be letting.

Cash reserves would be part of proper regulation. That’s about standards, not wealth. I’d expect private LLs to be properly run companies TBH.

@Applescruffle, you must be aware a bank will only lend 4 times joint earnings to anyone for a mortgage. The stress test is how much people earn X the multiplier. The banks look closely at outgoings and how much is actually disposable income too. I don't make the rules the banks and building societies do. Even if a person wanted to buy a house for £200k they would also need £2500 solicitors fees at least plus even a tiny 5 percent deposit they would need £10k. Then there's the arrangement fee for the mortgage of anywhere from £1-2k. You are looking at the minimum of £15k including removal fees.

Most btl LL pay interest only so renters are not buying the house for the LL. This is a constantly banded about myth.

The government can legislate for property ownership, transfer and taxation. That’s not theft. It’s governing.

(A1P1 of the Convention would be most unlikely to matter: intervention in real property ownership would be in the public interest and would in any event be a change in the right to disposition, not confiscation.)

Your post is a bit tone-deaf, OP. You might be a good landlord, but there are so many people who would like the security if ownership but landlords like you are distorting the market. Indeed, many people are paying more in rent than they would for a mortgage on the same property. Do you really need all these houses? Buy-to-let is a generally exploitative practice. What is your primary reason for doing what you do? To provide affordable housing or to make money and be financially stable? Think about it.

I think you will find private LLs with only a few properties will be the ones that fix, and maintain the property. The LLs with tens and tens of properties are not going to be bothered as if one property is falling to pieces they have another 50, so it does not matter.

Even if that’s true, we all know that’s renters being used as cash cows to allow capital gain on sale. Another reason why tenancies with BTL LLs are so precarious.

Maybe so. But that’s why stringent regulation is needed across the board.