To hate homes under the hammer

[Cappuccinowithonesugarplease]

I know most young families can't afford to buy houses outright, but I see all these more affordable homes go to greedy landlords just in it for the profit. Eugh it makes me sick! Would be so refreshing to see some of these homes go to people who won't just tosh them up cheaply to sell again or rent them out

Did you miss the bit where @Proparty said the property wouldn't sell as it was in poor condition in a less than desirable area? Would you prefer that the property was just left empty to rot, rather than rented at reasonable rates to someone who needed a home?

Did I? This was merely to comment that £4 for a coffee is a silly comparison. It's not a bigger "markup" than the profits of a landlord because 10p is not the baseline cost to make it.

Exactly, and the £60k cheap house and "£10k" reno cost is nowhere near the actual cost to get the auctioned home actually fit to live in.

It's like the car programs where they buy a vintage "insert any car brand here" for £10k and spend £5k on it and sell for £19k - £4k "profit" - except that they had 100 hours of "free" labour so it actually made a considerable loss (DH watches countless car shows).

I love it.. and hate it.

I record it all and watch it if I am poorly (which isn't uncommon for me)... mmmm a Homes Under the Hammer day means DP knows I am feeling really crap.

I have found a worse show though. I forget the name but two seemingly random people are put together to do up a property bought at auction by the presenter.

Then its flogged and they split the profit.

The last episode the lass involved... blagged a huge amount of the fittings and goods for free, by ringing companies and telling them she was on telly doing this show...

None of what she blagged for nowt was costed in, even though no one actually renovating a house would get this shit for free. I think it should have been, you can't flip houses by blagging stuff, she only got free stuff because it was on TV.

They still went over budget of course cos they always do.

I don't think I am making the point you think I am.

The poster implied that cafés are somehow "worse" at ripping people off than landlords and yet face no comeback for it. I am saying they're not. That's all.

Edit - the car example is far better!

I hear you, but I do think the coffee, or drinks in general, thing is relevant - it's well known that most hostelries don't make profit on food, it's all on drinks markup. I guess at the end of the day all businesses make a profit, it's literally what they are there for, but some people judge some businesses as immoral and think they shouldn't be allowed to make their profit.

The poster implied that cafés are somehow "worse" at ripping people off than landlords and yet face no comeback for it. I am saying they're not. That's all.

No, I didn’t.

I was making the point that people don’t generally think coffee shops are evil for having such a high mark up on the coffee they sell (as I don’t) yet people who buy houses to rent them out are considered “bad” for wanting to make a profit. Why? Who would want to do something for a living (especially something that usually involves long hours, high risk etc) for free?

My point was why are LL’s held to a different standard than any other business?

You came back and explained my own point 🤔

I love the show but it’s frustrating at times.

You know there are families desperate for a forever home but the guy who already owns multiple properties will get it.

One time there was a gorgeous bungalow with loads of character and the elderly couple who had recently died had lived there all of their lives and it had been in the family for generations.

The grandchildren decided to sell it and the person who bought it went it and ripped all of the old history out and knocked down walls etc to make 2 large, lifeless buildings for HMOs, simply for profit.

Another person who was bidding had lived across the road from it their entire life and wanted to live in it themselves but they didn’t get it.
It was heartbreaking.

Yes nearly allways terrace houses would be great if I had the same neighbours if a family could have bought the house next to us not a rental but people don't see terrace houses in my town as that stupid idea of forever home

Everything sells eventually - at the right price.

Again, you don’t get it.

For one, I seriously doubt a bungalow has that much character and history. Should we preserve everything more than say, 20 years old bc it has “history”? There would never be any progress would there? Think of all the employment that the building of new houses generates, much needed in the economy.

The children of the old couple chose to sell to the highest bidder. See my earlier point about it being completely up to the seller who they allow to buy their property - they could choose to sell for less to a young couple starting out for less. Would you?

HMO’s: the country NEEDS more HMO’s and less large properties housing one family or a couple on their own. There are not enough houses to go round. Why can’t people grasp this?

Another person who was bidding had lived across the road from it their entire life and wanted to live in it themselves but they didn’t get it.

Living across the road from a house your entire life doesn’t give you the right to buy it! Imagine if everyone had the right to buy a house cheaply bc they grew up there. No one would ever be able to move area!

and ripped all of the old history out and knocked down walls etc to make 2 large, lifeless buildings for HMOs, simply for profit.

Simply for profit? Why else would someone do it? Would you build a house and hand it over to someone for free?

And again, 2 houses are better than one bc people need to live somewhere and there aren’t enough to go round. It’s pretty simple. If the government built a fuck ton of new houses and there were plenty for sale/rent or if they made it a more viable option for people to build houses there wouldn’t be the housing crisis we currently have in this country.

People should be being encouraged to build more houses, not less. And the NIMBY mentality is selfish and short sighted.

Cheap paint job, even cheaper carpet through out, cheap kitchen..if you look closer you see some really shoddy work.

What type of property do you live in?

I live in a 5 bed house, we have 4 dcs at home.

You?

I know you think that’s some kind of gotcha but it really isn’t. No one expects a family of six to live in a one bed flat, but I anticipate that’s the point you are going to attempt to make next..

Is that not a "large property housing one family"?

Not read the full thread, but I love how they make it clear that the rent is per calendar month, because otherwise I’d just assume it’s per lunar month.

It’s right up there with Pans People’s literal interpretation of song lyrics on Top of the Pops! (showing my age!!)

You can criticise the principles, the shoddy workmanship, the grey... but criticising the intentionally terrible music choices is going too far!

The community in our old street got pretty much destroyed when transport links improved and the buy-to-let Hammer brigade moved in - never knew who was still living there any more and it really wrecked the place to live in - ended up with shit like cuckooing going on and all sorts of nonsense when it had previously been a cul-de-sac you never came down unless you needed to.

It's still the most tolerable of the BBC daytime TV fodder though - I would happily nuke Bargain Hunt from orbit given half the chance.

So what happens in the following circumstances....
-a divorcing couple need a house for one of them to move into while they sort out their finances? Up to a year or so?
-a family moving out of their home while they have major renovations done because they've bought an old house to do up as a forever family home? Say six months.
-a medical professional on a rotation for their job? Say 6 months to a year.
-a couple renting in an area before they decide to buy? Say six months.
Not one of those scenarios would qualify for social housing.
Where would they live?

Ye-es..

I said “the country NEEDS more HMO’s and less large properties housing one family or a couple on their own” so to knock down a bungalow and build two semis housing two families is probably quite sensible if that’s what the market suggests.

I didn’t say “we need to get rid of all large properties housing one family and build only HMO’s”, which I’m sure is where you’re leading.

We need more properties and apartments take up less space - a couple or a single person doesn’t need a large house. But if they can afford it and that’s what they want that’s up to them.

The grandchildren could have sold it to a family buying their first home or whatever.
No one forced them to sell it to the landlord.
They sold to the highest bidder.

Quite Cosyblankets

A FIFTH of rented properties in the UK are owned by private landlords. Imagine how many more social housing properties will be available! (1000s and 1000s and 1000s actually! Probably more than a million!

Sweet that you think when landlords sell their properties the government snap them up to be rented as social housing.

If people will rent it then its a desirable enough area to sell it as long as you a reasonable with the price.

It falls back to the... it substandard so therefore not good enough for a buyer but good enough to be a slum for a renter.

Totally agree