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?

So do you expect landlords to operate without making a profit. What's the incentive for them? If all landlords pulled out of the market where would the people who can't buy live?

Council housing isn't viable.

What's your solution?

I agree with you OP but this is MN which is famously pro LL and always trots out the ‘but where would people live’ argument.

Houses are homes and not a retirement or investment opportunity. Try buying a house without being outbid by property investors and LLs in areas where people want to be close to work.

Do you rent or own op?

If own, have you ever rented?

So all housing should be free then because the banks profit off a mortgage?

Do you really want to live in a society where working people live in vans because they can’t afford a purpose built property? What a terrible place to live

Social housing. Non profit.

You should be focusing on the government who regulate private renting and enforce the legislation. All those issues can be dealt with by proper regulation and enforcement and still permit landlords to get a return on their capital investment, as they should be able to.
It's a political decision to alow private renting to be as it is. Mostly to make it attractive to enter the sector as an amateur landlord to try and meet the gaps created by a complete failure of successive governments to properly invest in affordable and social housing or for institutional investorsto get capital returns above general market rates. Added to under investment of enforcement of private rented housing standards and tenancy rights.
It's a perfectly acceptable way to earn money but it requires regulation that recognises that providing homes is a different business to running a garage, for example. Which of course, is specifically regulated to ensure our safety as are most businesses. So you can regulate any business if there is the will to do it.

A tenant chooses the area/house they apply to rent just like they choose Tesco or Lidl. If they don't like a house then don't apply to live there. It's that simple. No one forces a tenant to live in a property. They apply to live in a property and if they change their mind they can give notice and leave.

Do you think social housing just magically appears because people want it?!
As a long term renter I find these arguments so frustrating. Let me break it down:
Social housing barely exists anymore.
Noone in power has any appetite to restore it, and if they did it wouldn't appear overnight, it would take decades to increase the stock to a viable amount.
Sorry, but bloody wealthy homeowners lecturing on this subject is at best amusing and at worst insulting.

They chose a house. If through a letting agent they will have no idea who the landlord is. If not through the letting agent they may meet the landlord but will have no idea what the landlord is like to deal with. Your idea is ridiculous

Why is it anyways landlords that get picked out? I never see threads complaining about farmers selling me essential food like potatoes at profit. And your example of not having a choice doesn’t make sense, there’s always more than one rental to choose from, just like groceries, if you don’t like one landlord or their prices then you’re free to choose something else. Also, not that facts seem to be of any interest in threads like this, but my income after tax from my rental is about £500-£1,000 per year (mortgage free property); the rest is service charge, ground rent, maintenance, a repairs pot for bigger things (eg a new boiler costs thousands and i need to be prepared to provide one for my tenants at a moments’ notice) and tax. I estimate that I work about 5 days per year for my rental to find tenants, help tenants, arrange repairs and boiler checks etc so that’s £100 - £200 per day, not much more than I’d get for other work. Being a landlord isn’t the goldmine people like to make out of it.

I agree. If the tenants are happy I don't see a problem.

Ok, if you’re insulted I’ll explain fully.

the housing exists already

it can be taken over by social housing providers

this is already happening for landlords who don’t wish to comply with recent legislation

when social housing providers make surplus they invest into building new housing. This is how almost all social housing is built now.

There are millions of social housing units in the uk and thousands (but nowhere near enough) built every year.

more properties changing social rent= more surplus for social housing providers= more social housing built.

you don’t need to be insulted, you just need to consider that you don’t know much about how social housing works, but you could learn if you find it interesting or relevant

At what point on this chart did you achieve this?

Where is the money coming from to pay for all this social housing? Councils don't have money to pay for it.

With private landlord you will get those with a large portfolio who manage their assets as a business. You will also get someone who is renting their own flat but living with a partner, just getting a little bit in. If an agency is used then their will ensure rent is collected and that the tenant can call if something serious needs doing.
If all private landlords sold up due the the hassle or had a Damascene conversion hedge funds etc would step in, like the have done with vets and dentists. That's going well isn't it?

As an aside, why do landlords and letting agents insist on regular property checkup? To ensure their assets are being looked after and are safe. Why do housing associations and the council not do this? Don't care?

The housing already exists

I remember a thread a while back where a poster was saying another poster who was a landlord and was selling their property, should sell the house to the tenant at a vastly reduced price because the landlord could afford it. As if they’re some sort of charity and it’s their responsibility to subside other people’s lives because they dared to ever be a landlord. When people said they were being ridiculous, their answer was ‘it wouldn’t hurt them to help’. A really weird mindset. You can’t reason with people like that.

For all the miss representation nowadays, LL's can only follow the market rate, as do almost all other businesses.

Who's going to build the social housing? The government and local councils can't afford it.

And that’s the issue. The government have the ability to interfere in the market and reduce prices for citizens- to make decent housing a basic right- and pretty much chose not to.
This debate is about whether they should, not confirming the status quo which I’m sure we are all aware of

Answered above

Simplistic in the extreme!

Some people chose to live in a van because they prioritise other things. I haven’t chosen that and I have children so wouldn’t. But before I had children it’s something I genuinely considered for a few years - so I could live well on less and travel.

Im not suggesting people should live in a van if they don’t want to. I’m just suggesting there are creative options.

No you’re suggesting it if they can’t afford a house. That’s not a choice.