To think landlords who own multiple properties are part of the housing crisis?

[ByArtfulOliveDuck]

Is it unreasonable to say that having a portfolio of rental homes is unethical in a housing shortage?

@FullDisclosure

👏👏👏

Two things.

People are up in arms about large corporations buying up housing stock for letting, but surely this is a better option than having man more small-scale landlords with a handful of properties each. With larger corporations comes buying power, consistency and better access to large-scale maintenance and repair services, as well as more likely stability for tenants. It's how renting works so well in many parts of central Europe - where letting is the full-time job of a large organisation, you have a dedicated team of people looking after the housing stock (similar to Housing Associations), often lower prices and the likelihood of losing your rental place because a landlord wants to sell up is far lower, so people can stay in places for longer. Large corporations are also far more likely to comply with the laws around letting, because they are more easily investigated.

England (I cannot speak for the rest of Britain) has a remarkable issue with too many rogue landlords, who skirt around regulations, do not maintain properties in a way that makes them fit for living in, and do not appear to want tenants in for too long, often to increase rental prices beyond what they are allowed to charge annually. Renting here is not a good option for people with school-age children, who may end up having to move schools several times as families are yet again asked to leave their home on a S21 (or now under the pretence of selling up, which no one will be able to enforce). Renters in this country are also not allowed to make a house their own. When you have to ask about every nail you want to put into walls to hang up a picture, when the last time your place was painted (always magnolia - to this day I hate magnolia) was over 10 years ago and yet your landlord says no, you cannot freshen up paint, when you cannot secure furniture to walls because you are not allowed to drill a hole and add in a wall plug, then you think twice about renting.

The other issue is that being able to rent does not equate with being able to buy. Someone paying £1200 on rent per month, compared to a £1000 per month mortgage, will still have difficulty getting a mortgage if the £1200 are at the upper limit of what they can afford - banks and building societies wisely take into account that interest rates fluctuate (I was stress tested to 14%) and also that annual maintenance and repair of houses will end up costing far more than the extra £200pcm someone may be able to save. This is not yet taking into account that many people in this country have bad credit ratings and large debts even without mortgages and so would pose a far higher risk for lenders in the first place.

People becoming landlords as such are not the problem here; rental condidtions for tenants are and the government's sledgehammer approach to weed out rogue landlords is having the opposite effect - good landlords trying to comply with regulations are finding it increasingly difficult, while rogue landlords carry on ignoring the law. Meanwhile, the increase in large corporations acting as landlords can only be a good thing. People would not feel the need to buy if they had more rights on things like decorating, and more stability of long-term lettings.

My nephew is at university in Bristol (uwe not Bristol uni). He can't live in halls for the whole 3 years. He will have to rent a room in a house. I don't understand how people think there can be no landlords. Yes it needs to be controlled which it is now as a lot of them are selling up but there can't be no rental houses.
I had to live in a rental flat for 6 months with my children before I got my house that I now live in. I'm luckily I was able to buy a house as a single parent but it's a big struggle financially to maintain it. If I wasn't able to buy a house then where would me and my children live if there were no rental houses?
There isn't enough social housing so surely that is the issue.

Nobody ever mentions the elephant in the room - that demand massively outstrips supply, mainly because the population has increased so much in such a short period of time. There wasn't a big housing crisis in the 90s and it was quite easy to get good social housing (even in London). Reduce demand, supply increases and prices will drop. But the Government doesn't want that. Better that everyone suffers while a few get rich.

that demand massively outstrips supply, mainly because the population has increased so much in such a short period of time.

I read the converse, that we have a problem with the population growth having slowed down to a problematic low level because of housing issues, high rent and mortgages, low incomes deterring people from having children,

But rent isn't just a matter of covering the mortgage cost. A landlord can only offset the interest portion against tax, and if they are a 40% tax payer (which more and more people are due to fiscal drag), they can only get a 20% rebate on the tax paid. So effectively they are being taxed on turnover, not profits. That's why so many landlords are leaving the market.

Also included in the rent is the cost of insurance, routine maintenance of boilers, gutters, roof. Repairs to plumbing (sometimes due to tenant misuse), and in NI, rates as well which are usually at least 10% of the annual rent. Build into that a contingency for major repairs such as a new boiler, replacement appliances, new carpets and total redecoration every 5 years. Also a contingency needed for when tenants stop paying rent, legal fees required to evict, major repairs after a tenant has trashed the place. Also letting fees, marketing etc.

So is all that to be covered in the 10% above the cost of the mortgage?

In the 90s, like now, it was nigh-on impossible to get social housing in London. Families with 2+ children were waiting years to be offered a one bed flat, people with babies and toddlers were offered the upper floors of tower blocks, directly contravening councils’ own standards and regulations.
I’m not sure if your post is indirectly attempting to blame immigration. I imagine it is because the UK’s birth rate is falling.
The problem has been caused by decades of failure to invest in housing, the right to buy policy (in particular the legislation banning councils from using the proceeds to build new housing), the promotion of buy to let and the deregulation of the private rental system. More currently we’re seeing policies which aim to strengthen the rights of tenants (rightfully so) with no back-up plan to mitigate the knock-on effect of landlords evicting their tenants en masse as a result.

Why should rental properties be philanthropic but the sale of food, water, gas and electricity be profit making. There is a really clear double standard here.

People talk about housing being a human right but they don’t go and complain at the shareholders of Tescos or Sainsbury’s about the profits they are making on food.

Why is that? What is different about housing versus other basic needs?

Forgot to also add that the freeze on Local Housing Allowance has been catastrophic - and that the current government proposes to continue that freeze until at least 2026. The Secretary of State for Housing appears to have little knowledge or understanding of the basics of housing law and policy which is a true disappointment from what could have been a solid left wing government committed to the provision of affordable housing.

Who mentioned philanthropy?

Here too. When rent smart Wales came into effect so many sold up. It didn't reduce the price of housing. Our council is drowning in homeless families who are being placed over the border in England when there's no rooms to be had here. It's awful to be ripped from relatives, friends, school mates.

They're trying to persuade empty home owners to hand over their property to local councils with a grant to do them up. It's not working very well so far.

@ChallahPlaiter read the end of the penultimate paragraph of the quoted post.

“Landlords can't afford, then get out of rental. It should be philanthropy not profitable.”

I’ve also noticed that homeless teams are increasingly trying to find ways to decide they have no duty to families. I work in a service that’s occasionally affected by this and while I completely understand the pressures homelessness services face, it doesn’t help when trying to advise people. The Welsh government massively underestimated the effects that Rent Smart and the ending of no fault evictions would have on supply and subsequently cost of renting privately.

Apologies, I missed that.
I fundamentally disagree with that view then. Philanthropy is directly at odds with socialism and I believe that we need a system of social housing based on socialist principle, not on arbitrary charitable giving.

That’s the slick line they con you with - the only reason they’re building student accommodation is that it is cheaper, smaller square footage, higher rent. they’re doing the same near me where there is a massive massive shortage of family housing.

I'd agree with this, somebody in my mum's road has bought up several houses and set them up as Air bnbs. It causes so much noise and trouble and is taking good houses out of the housing market.

People who do this are causing big problems in my opinion. Pure greed.

Surely if the students live in those new flats then the houses previously rented to students will become available to non students.
There are loads of flats now built in Canterbury for students which has opened up more properties for others.

Wouldn’t it be simpler just to build housing for the people who actually needed it? The families the reason that is not done is that there is less profit in it

Nonsense. In my sister’s neighborhood (for example), several places which were previously HMOs have now gone to family housing, and this appears to be linked to the fact that so much student accommodation has been built in the center of her city in the past decade.

Cheap flats for young singles and couples are also great for the same reason - putting cheap flats on the rental market helps young people move out of their parents’ houses. Which needs to happen, because right now we have so many 20-35yos stuck in suburban houses with their parents. It’s rubbish for them and not the lifestyle young singles dream of, and they all need a car because of the locations they live in, and so you end up with parking chaos in streets where many ofthe houses have four or five cars per house.

Yes, food is a right, Food banks shouldn't be necessary rely on donations, so it could be said philanthropy provides for some. Shopping around also gives choice. That isn't an option for housing, social housing is like hens teeth and most are held to ransom by landlords.
Safe, secure accommodation should be available to all. At present, most accommodation is overpriced, be it house prices or private rentals. 'Affordable housing' is the biggest lie, unless a NLW'd person can afford to buy/rent without assistance, it's not affordable.
Tesco and others makes huge profits but doesn't pay staff properly. Vast numbers require state top up. People should be angry at big companies like tesco doing this.
Gas and Electric, there is an element that you can 'shop' around, but ultimately, it should be affordable to all and taken into control of the state if the private option is out of the reach of mere mortals and people die because of unaffordable prices.
In a 'rich' country accommodation, food and utilities should be available and affordable to all.

OF COURSE you're not being unreasonable but they'll never admit to being so selfish! Landlords are such a drain on society.

Absolutely! @woffley for PM!

@wastingtimeonhere, great post.

This deserves a thread of its oen though: "Tesco and others makes huge profits but doesn't pay staff properly. Vast numbers require state top up. People should be angry at big companies like tesco doing this."

Same among the teaching assistants at my school, slogging their guts out for MAT peanuts 8.30-16.00 every day, and needing to claim UC top ups. I find it absolutely gross that working full time does not necessarily pay enough to live on in the UK in 2024.

What about people on 6 or 12 month contracts in their job? Where would they live? They wouldn't be eligible for HA property.

Up to the last few years, the universities have expanded to fill up the available local accommodation, hence why the "family" homes havn't come back onto the market. Now there seems to be a stagnation and even decline in the number of people at universities, so there "may" be a relaxation in demand for cities with universities.

However, those cities that are popular for other reasons, i.e. tourism and history, etc., will probably just see landlords converting their student lets into Air BNBs, which is definitely becoming a trend.

If you're in a historic/tourist city WITH a popular university, you can basically forget about renting a flat to actually semi-permanently live in because they're all hoovered up by landlords for student or holiday lets.