Why are people so against private landlords?

[StopRainingNow]

I don't get it (and I'm not a landlord), no one shouts at Tesco that it is disgusting that they make money off selling something (food) to people on UC, when people need food TO literallysurvive/ live. But if someone has a business renting houses to people who need them, they are the devil. It makes no sense to me.

To make it worse, Tesco are also making profits by not paying a living wage to employees who then have to claim UC to top up their salaries and so benefit from profit from employees and customers.

Why do private landlords get such a hard time? They are providing a service to people that need it - AIBU?

Plenty of tesco employees aren't on UC. Anyone without children or with a partner in a higher paid job and not privately renting wouldn't be on UC.
It's pay is in line with all other unskilled retail work.

I've been a private tenant, a council tenant, and a home owner. I've had varying experience of private rented accommodation, one was a deathtrap which the landlord did minimal for, while my last one (temporary while we were relocating) was managed OK. The property was well maintained by both the landlord, the letting agents and ourselves and was affordable. The council accommodation was (literally) a shithole. We had a leak from upstairs bathroom, which we thought was overflow from the bath. We kept putting in complaint after complaint but not much happened. Just before we moved out to buy, I was ill with a stomach bug. We were then informed it wasn't coming from the bath but was raw sewage from the toilet. We were offered compo....£20, which was bad even for 1995! As we were busy moving on we couldnt be arsed challenging it, just counted ourself lucky we were able to buy and move.

IMO we will always need private landlords, especially with so few council properties, but yes I agree council tenancies are needed as they're affordable and have secure tenancies. However they're not always better maintained ime. And because a lot are poorly maintained is part of the reason theres a stigma to them...that and the fact that the best ones are always sold off leaving the poorly maintained sink estates the only ones left.

Whatever side of the coin you’re on will fuel your divide . There are very good landlords like myself , there are some awful landlords . There are some fabulous tenants and there are some dreadful tenants. People just see the rent payment and think it’s all profit . This couldn’t be further from the reality .
costs - mortgage
Insurance
Service charges if property is leasehold
Licensing scheme costs to local council
Gas safety certificate
Electrical safety certificate
Carbon monoxide and fire alarms
Fire safety doors
Any repair / breakage needed
EPC certification and remedial work
Accountants costs
Capital gains tax on selling
Any other random costs and probably more I’ve forhotton.
We take on all this risk , have to keep the property more legislatively updated than our own homes and can be demanded of a big repair on demand eg 2 months ago the boiler broke so I had to replace it at s as cost of £3.k .
Its not pure profit that’s for sure

Ah, the old ‘woe is me’ line.

I have no interest in controlling others, but I do subscribe to self-determination and a belief that we are neither born equal, nor do we all take our opportunities. Many make poor life choices etc.

As to BTL, I no longer have any skin in the game - it’s a shitty investment compared to equities and fixed income, but for those still in it, they face fiscal risk, regulatory risk, operational risk, credit risk - I could go on. So, when LL’s look for a meaningful return, I don’t blame them.

That’s what you fail to understand.

"Why are people so against private landlords?"

How long have you got?

How do you feel about funds investing in residential property?

Most of my attitude comes from HUTH (which Mumsnet also hates).

What I see there is many investors buying uninhabitle properties (eg derelict or fire-damaged), doing them up at great cost, and then renting them out for 5% ROI. You can get this with pensions/ISA/bank. What the landlord has to deal with, in addition, is risk. Crappy tenants damaging the property, excessive costs between tenants, etc.

I've been a tenant, and my children have been tenants. I've also been a landlord and tenant at the same time when we were living abroad.

I think the unmentionable here on Mumsnet is the demand for more properties. It's not just to do with immigration. There is a huge demand for extra housing due to the breakdown of the family. Single parent families mean that the whole family unit needs two houses, and often those two houses have to have spare rooms to accommodate contact.

Of course it is, it's not a favour, they aren't a housing charity.

Don't you know how business is run?

It's stupid to be against landlords, people already can't afford to rent because there aren't enough landlords and people have been banned from renting out granny flats and annexes.

The population is increasing, housing stock isn't. More landlords would mean more homes for more people.

A rented home provides for three of four famies over a decade, an owned property provides for just one family.

@Chiseltip

"people already can't afford to rent " - yeah, because of the prices landlords are charging. How can the prices of rental properties be a problem without the people charging those prices be to blame? Landlords set those unaffordable rents.

If a rental provides a home for 4 families over a decade, then that's four lots of kids forced to move school and parents forced to fork out for the cost of moving. Can you enlighten me as to where the positive in that is?

As for more landlords meaning more homes, landlords don't actually build houses, which seems to be conveniently overlooked by everyone defending them.

There’s so much wrong with your post but let me start by asking you a simple question - what return for a LL would you consider acceptable?

Those families move of their own accord, for work, schools or because they have bought a home.

Rent is hig because mortgages are high, add the cost of insurance, loss of tax breaks, non paying tenants, you'll soon understand why rent is so high.

But if the government hadn't banned the casual landlord, there would be a lot more competition in the market and cheaper rents. Back in the day you had a choice of a dodge, possibly damp, converted garage or granny flat, in a less prosperous area, but it was cheap and it was an address. If all you wanted to start your life on your own was a postal address, cheap rent and a place to store your stuff, it was available. Now, it's only "proper" "approved" places that are for rent. These are expensive and the only people to lose out with all the new housing laws are tenants.

Who in their righ mind thought that restricting the number of rental properties would be good for tenants!

I don't think there should be a return because I don't think residential property should be a profit generating asset. I think it should be owned by the people who live in it, or by housing associations, governments or social enterprises.

Nobody is saying for-profit landlords shouldn't be allowed to get rid of their properties if they're not profitable. In fact, I think mortgage lending rules should be changed so that people in negative equity can hand a property back to the bank and not be pursued for any money still outstanding that the sale of the property doesn't cover. At present, though, the vast majority of landlords are not in negative equity, so could, in fact, sell their properties, and put the money in a genuine asset class that didn't have a living, breathing human being in it.

Edited as I didn't see your second response.

Funnily enough, you've made the argument for "renationalisation" of social housing.
We aren't all equally and we definitely don't make good choices but that doesn't mean we should fuck people over for profit or put them in shit housing.

Housing is just another thing that shouldn't be left to the market, if only because of the huge costs to the state in Housing Benefit and funding Housing Associations.

Private LLs should not be in charge of providing housing for the less well off and vulnerable, it should be reserved for people who choose renting for whatever reason.

BTW it would also boost growth, council housing would mean far cheaper rents, less money spent by the state and for everyone else, more money in their pockets, spent locally.

OK, breaking down your post - so the only property one can own is their main residence.

And who would absorb the losses on BTL property? The banks, the tax payer?
Let’s assume it’s the banks, that would penalise shareholders, and employees, and those who otherwise have a main residence - why, because these properties would be distressed, and would compel banks to re-mark their books.

Let’s assume it’s the tax payer - you see the obvious problem there, I assume.

Addressing your previous post - you blamed LL’s for rental values. You do realise that inputs include mortgage rates, and the tax treatment of income - which has got progressively worse, driving up rents, coupled with a lack of building and immigration, and ageing demographics, and people living alone etc.

Houses and blocks of flats are built solely for the rental market btw - have you seen Nine Elms in London, for example.

As to the other asset classes - you do realise that many pension funds invest in residential and commercial property?

LL’s are simply playing the hand they have been dealt - they did not invent the rules of the game.

We need landlords to provide accommodation for tenants who are looking for short-term lets. When some poor tenant ends up renting long-term or forever, that’s when it’s a problem. I feel really sorry for the young ones.

I’m a landlord. You can’t get a mortgage if the rent doesn’t cover the mortgage and some. The bank won’t give it to you. There’s also maintenance expenses. So people saying that rent should only cover the mortgage are saying private landlords should operate at a loss. Would you maintain something you need to pay into that is giving you zero benefit otherwise? I suppose you could think of it as direct charity donations. In which case i suggest you make £1000’s in donations yourselves or stop complaining about landlords existing. I’m currently loosing 1000’s due to the new tax rules and thinking of selling up. I don’t want to leave my very good tenants high and dry though as my rents are below market rate but i might have to. Or increase rents.

I think ‘renationalisation’ of housing, as you put it - it’s already happening, but not for the reasons you think.

Oddly you have not addressed the elephant in the room, but sought to blame private LL’s...

You're forgetting the almost inevitable capital gain on the property if you keep it more than a few years. The yearly "profit" on rental income isn't the only "profit" that landlords are expecting to make!

Yanbu. Private rentals are required.

Demonising landlords only effects tenants too: the renter's rights bill has resulted in a lot of landlords selling up, and reduced choice and increased rents for tenants.

@MyNameIsX

Most BTL landlords have a decent amount of equity. Many have no mortgage or a small mortgage. So it doesn't matter if they sell for less than the current value. Investments can go up as well as down, as the adverts say.

As for the value of other houses falling - it doesn't matter what the value of your house is if you live in it. Like I said, if you have to walk away from a house, and you have negative equity, I think banks should shoulder it, but the reality is it might end be taxpayers. That's still better than the huge costs of housing benefits at the moment. But I think most people would just stay put if their house fell in value.

I blamed landlords for rental prices. Underlying value isn't really a relevant concept in property, and what looks like value at the moment is shaped by the net present value of housing as an asset, not by its use value as housing.

Nine Elms is a huge development covering thousands of properties. I think it has pretty low occupancy rates as it's 99 per cent unaffordable - as a lot of build to rent is. It would clearly be preferable if that housing was rented not for a profit and better utilised.

UK pension fund exposure to residential property is probably in low single digits. And interestingly, most pension wealth is held by the top 1 per cent of wealthiest people anyway, so when we say "pensions", we sort of means "very rich people" and of course they are not short of ways to make themselves even richer.

You'll have to explain?

I never blamed LLs

& Council housing is not making a come back, HA are useless, cost to much to fund, don't get enough funding, don't buy affordable housing, so it stays empty, holding back builds...

You would need to be a landlord to fully understand.
Many just don’t recognise the outgoing

🤣🤣🤣🤣

1. Please can you share the source/s for your BTL LTV statement?
2. Of course the value of your main residence matters - it’s a M2M - one could technically be in breach of covenant if your mortgage exceeds your agreed LTV. As I say, good luck with nationalising losses on BTL - it would be political suicide.
3. Valuations are crucial, particularly in larger portfolios, and the pricing of debt.
4. Nine Elms was an example to debunk your previous assertion.
5. UK pension fund exposure is c. 9% but crucially it is growing, in line with Europe - another unintended consequence for those who want to see private money exit. Without saying too much, in my role, I have seen large scale private investors with 100 plus super high end properties approach us, and other funds. We have zero interest in buying, but let me tell you, we would not be accepting a 6-7% gross yield…. Rents will rise if this sector becomes ripe for institutional money incl BlackRock etc.

Immigration, my friend.