To not agree with how some people make their money, specifically landlords and letting agents?

[RealNavyEagle]

I’m not saying every landlord or agent is evil, before anyone jumps in. But I do think there’s something deeply uncomfortable about profiting from people’s basic need for shelter, especially when that profit often comes with minimal accountability and maximum power over tenants’ lives. Rent increases “because the market allows it,” poor maintenance, opaque fees and agents acting as unchallengeable gatekeepers… it doesn’t always sit right with me as a way to earn a living.

AIBU to feel uneasy about this being a normal, socially accepted income stream?

A landlord bought DH's and my first home together. We were not particularly keen on selling to a landlord (who expressed would likely be turning it into a HMO) but after getting death threats from 1 of our neighbours and having moved in temporarily with DH's parents for our own safety, we needed to accept it so could move to new area in time for DD1 to start primary.
Turned out it became a horrible place to be with many parties and dodgy dealings, we felt really bad for our lovely neighbours on one side, but the horrible ones on the other side - well, Karma is a wonderful thing.

The point is I can promise you now I won’t sell to a landlord.
It’s not exactly principle based when it’s so easily avoidable is it?

You need to look up social housing. It’s mainly provided by non profit private organisations.

the government would have to give a shit to change the law. After that, it would be done for them

I mentioned this to a PP who said the same- have you looked at a water companies accounts to see where they make their profit?

You show little understanding of LL's. Most LL buy the rental property on an interest only basis so the tenant paying rent doesn't mean the LL owns more of the property each year. In 2025 93k LL sold off property. The result prices of remaining rental properties went up not down. OP does not understand basic supply and demand.

Yep, I agree. Intentional landlords usually buy on interest only or cash buyer but many selling up as not profitable. Accidental landlords (those who had no intention of being a landlord when bought property but change in circumstances meant they needed to rent it out) are still renting, but will sell when able which doesn't create stable long term rentals. And fewer total properties, pushes up prices due to supply and demand. It's not great for renters or decent landlords at the moment.

When we rented in Essex it was great. We lived in a 2 bed flat for 8 yrs. Quick repairs. It was furnished. We got our full deposit back as we looked after the place. London was a different kettle of fish. Abysmal. One place for 1 yr. Damp and leaks with associated mould everywhere. Clothes, shoes, bags ruined. Second place for 18 months poor fixtures, dodgy agents overseas landlord. Very grateful to get on the ladder in 2019. Renting in London was expensive and hideous..there was a distinctive snottiness to the agents and landlords like they are doing you a favour. Nope. No thanks.

You both show little understanding of the purposeful market interference that is being suggested as a solution.

it does not matter what is happening now or the result of today’s supply and demand. The whole suggestion is to interfere with that rather than allow it to happen.

As a LL. myself, I agree 100% with deploring rent increases, just because they can - or because ‘the market allows it’.

I know of properties close to ours, which were bought ages ago for relative peanuts, where rents during the past couple of years have soared into the stratosphere. The only possible reason for such increases is sheer greed.

I mean, sure, if you're talking in an idealistic abstract way, but in the real world, land ownership has been one of the core elements of Western (and many other) civilisation(s) for millennia. The specific systems evolve through history but there's generally an element of landlord and tenant and any sense of it being a regulated social good is pretty recent and not all that widespread esp in UK, although there's the safety net of benefits to cover rent which is imperfect but a big difference compared to most of human existence. You can question the idea, muse on the evils of capitalism, and seek out a housing co-op to experience the pro's and cons, but whether landlords create harm or not, they're here to stay.

Then please enlighten me as to how this would work in practice? And how it would stop slum landlords? How long you think it would take this so called 'interference' to happen. And what would happen in the transition period to this new system?
How would it work for those who need to move frequently for work? Because if you are talking about social housing - those with an uncertain immigration cannot access public housing provision, and those who need to move frequently cannot sit on wait lists for social housing.

”Because if you are talking about social housing - those with an uncertain immigration cannot access public housing provision, and those who need to move frequently cannot sit on wait lists for social housing.”

why could you not change that as part of the reform and create a provision? Seems one of the less difficult things you’d be faced with 😂

there is no reason people can’t move frequently. You are basing this on your knowledge of social housing being in short supply. If all rental stock was social housing we would have the same amount of rented stock available we have now. No reason people couldn’t move exactly as they do now.

How would you make all rental stock social housing? Is the government going to purchase all current rental properties at their current value, and if yes, how would it afford to do this? If it's at a lower value than market, people would just sell to a private buyer, so would have to be market prices. And there would be less total rental available, so supply and demand issues would remain.

How about properties which are only being let short term - such as owner renting it out whilst abroad for a year and then wanting it back on return? Landlords can already chose to let their property via social housing system and receive a fixed income for a set period, usually lower than market rate, in return for council being responsible for all maintenance. In reality few do, so it can't be that great.

In your utopia, would people be allocated a property based on their family size, or can they chose? How about location - could they chose that? Some areas would be in higher demand, would they cost more or would everyone pay same? Would rent link to income? What about non payers, what would you do with them?

could you consider that ideas (which aren’t even new, creative or radical in this case) don’t need to pass the test of “every issue bushmillbabe on mumsnet who knows bugger all about housing can think up”?

I know it’s human nature to revert to throwing blockers at solutions you don’t understand or agree with but it’s a bit pointless really, isn’t it?

There are simple solutions to anything you’ve thrown up, in fact I reckon you could find them yourself with a bit of time on ChatGPT.

I don’t need to post an implementation plan in the hope of satisfying you (which you won’t be, and any response will of course, only lead to you posting more perceived blockers)

It is useful to remember that tax is levied on any profit made, by whatever means. You would have to make the calculation of what the potential loss in tax revenue would be if no one ever made any profit from renting out property.

Its possible that things have changed since Covid and a move to more WFH, but a lot of freelance contractors, doctors, academics and similar often need to spend time living and working from home and they need accommodation.

DH was a contractor in IT for nearly 20 years. If a contract was a few months only he would stay in B and Bs, if it was 6 months or more he preferred to find somewhere to rent. A situation where all rented accommodation is for social housing then people like that would be excluded, which may cause problems on the ability of companies to recruit the right staff and to operate efficiently.

A very sensible and level headed response. Agree 100%.

Making money from being a landlord and failing to maintain the property or chucking tenants out to get a higher rent is an awful way to behave, but I can't see that being an honest and responsible private landlord is immoral. People need to rent homes and frankly the service they get from some of local councils and housing associations is appalling, not to mention that not enough homes are available. I think that driving private landlords out of business is not going to help people who need somewhere to live.
As to the economics of it, landlords who can buy without a mortgage have the chance to make good money, though repairs and insurance etc can make a big dent in it; for example a new roof can use up a couple of year's rental income. Those who are subject to mortgage interest changes can easily end up making a loss at certain times.

Except she doesn’t know bugger all. She’s raised some very important points. Several of us have. Unfortunately, you simply resort to accusing us of lack of knowledge, or claiming there are “simple solutions” that are not in any way simple in reality.

Actually, most of the points have already been answered within the thread. The purchase of rental properties, for example.

I know you won’t go back and read the thread but if you do feel free to remind me where I said there were simple solutions. Obviously market interference would be transformational.

eta - I can see where you got “simple solutions” from- these afe related to the simplistic examples of blockers thrown into this thread by non experts. The end to end transformation would of course not be simple.

Why would he be excluded? Anyone would be able to rent not for profit properties

So where exactly do you think people should live? You don’t think it should be treated as investment so are you suggesting, for example, I buy a house put down the 25% deposit, pay to make it habitable and conform to all the regulations and requirements as a landlord and give it to someone for only the cost of the mortgage payments and no more, all while shouldering the bills for maintenance and breakages? For no other reason except for social good?

No, a not for profit operator owns and manages it instead.

My post was in response to the op I haven’t read your comments on non profits

All OP has said is that she is uncomfortable with profit made by landlords and letterings agents, she didn’t say anything about ending the rental system so there were no properties for people to live in

But surely if she’s uncomfortable with the system as it is, she has an alternative in mind? If people shouldn’t be questioning her on this, what is the point of the thread?