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?

I have an agency advertised my houses and produce the contract as well as vet potential tenants. I always insist on meeting the selected tenant and I manage my properties myself. They have my number and can call if they have any issues. If a Landlord or an agency is managing the let they would need to be compliant with everything or they'd be fined.

How does any of that allow me to chose and target you and the agency because I know you’re a good landlord and they are a good agency?

I feel like that about Thames Water, why should something that we need to live and die very quickly without it, be metered. Queen Victoria and her husband thought everyone should pay a few pennies a year for clean running water and sewerage systems installed so we wouldn’t die of cholera!

Should we take exception at the corner shop owner, he or she sells food, another thing we need for survival, they open about 20hours a day, 365 days a year, drive nice cars and own half the street because they can afford to buy houses and rent them out, who has the better life though - in their opinion they do, but I wouldn’t want a shopkeepers life for love let alone money!

If we had to move to buy a property and start again, I would move and start again, because, I don’t want to pay someone else’s mortgage, but that’s me - a misery!

It's only a normal, socially accepted income stream if tenants bother to pay their rent, they can get away with squatting for months before the owner can get their property back, often deliberately damaged. It's a business, owning property, not yet another giveaway. Too many people are quick to demonise landlords, the bad ones need rooting out and so do the bad tenants.

The thing is, if you suggest any other system apart from completely rampant capitalism, people (who don't understand the meaning of words) start calling you a communist. At least one PP has already done this.

If I could wave a magic wand, there would be state-owned (owned by the people) providers of all basic needs. Social housing, utilities - including internet, which is increasingly essential for modern life -clothing, food, medicine and healthcare etc. produced in the UK where possible and with suppliers paid fairly. We could cut out the middleman and keep money in the pockets of ordinary people, rather than have uber wealthy international corporate entities inserting themselves unnecessarily in the middle and skimming off huge profits for themselves. A private market could easily exist alongside this model, with people having the freedom to choose to buy products or services that are faster, more convenient, luxury etc. as is the case now. It would encourage private companies to focus on quality and service, because they would no longer be able to hold people to ransom as they frequently do in our current system. Consumers would have real choice, rather than just the illusion of choice.

Using the example of landlords, I'm sure even with ample social housing there would be people who want to rent because it suits their lifestyle or finances, or because they want to live in a certain property. But landlords would no longer hold the balance of power and tenants would have the option to rent housing at a reasonable rate rather than one which is artificially inflated and necessitates giving money to people who are no different than ticket scalpers in essence.

The thing I find weird is people who know every little about the possibilities putting simple Obstacles in the way of radical ideas. Surely you’d stop and think “I don’t actually know too much about this, is my idea about why it can’t happen realistic?”

I wouldn’t respond to posts about say water supply screeching “yeah well Thames water wouldn’t let you do that would they” as I have very little idea about the art of the possible with water supply. I don’t understand why people do similar here

That's because it is simple. I have tenants who have rented my properties for years and years and there are no problems. If they report an issue I sent my maintenance person around or a gas safe if a gas issue or electrician if electric. All maintenance and repair cost are written off against my tax bill. It is in my interest to maintain my property well. Rents rise by inflation but I capped it when inflation soared at 7 percent. In over 20 years I have only issued 1 single section 21.

I’m confused as to what your contributions have to do with this thread?
What are you trying to demonstrate in relation to the question?

You could say that about any business that makes a profit. Or would it be alright to make a profit from extravagant goods and what is extravagant? It's surprising how much you actually have to charge over cost to make enough profit to make a business worth while.

That landlords are not ogres and provide a service, versus the OPs standpoint that landlords and letting agents are somehow making their money in an immoral way by charging for a roof over someone's head.

Eh?

By that notion, no one should sell food, thats profiting from peoples need to eat. No one should sell counselling or mental health care, thats profiting from peoples poor health... there should be no private physios, osteopaths, blah blah etc.

I'll just quit my job helping people fix their dog behaviour problems because I am profiting from their errors and their dogs suffering shall I. That'll really improve the world.

Curious to know @RealNavyEagle what IS ok to profit from?

You could read the thread to find out?

The idea that a person can own land is laughable anyway. Land is here forever and you're only alive for, what, 80 years. Ludicrous. It's all a fiction.

Both things can exist at once- that people with genuine and moral practises can exist in an unfair system.

But it doesn’t revert to public ownership after you die so what’s your point?

Emori · Today 15:03
The idea that a person can own land is laughable anyway. Land is here forever and you're only alive for, what, 80 years. Ludicrous. It's all a fiction.

Who should own it?
You could say the same for buildings - they may not be here ‘forever’ but they can last a few hundred years. Should a person be allowed to own a building?

My point is that it's just a concept. Owning land is not a physical reality, not like owning objects. If I buy a loaf of bread I have it in my hand, I can eat it, burn it, give it to someone else, put it in the bin, it's mine. If I buy land, it's always there, before me, after me, regardless of me. That isn't ownership.

This makes no sense.

I bought land. If I don’t sell it before I die I leave it to my children.

there are families who have held the same land for centuries.

I’m standing on it. How is it not a physical reality?

I know there are some conspiracy theories spread by the “council tax isn’t legally due” types- is this why you’re referring to?

I agree with the OP because homes should be, first and foremost, homes for people to live in and not investment opportunities. So often, I have seen relatively wealthy people move house but not sell their old home, turning it instead into an extra 'pension pot' or an additional income stream. Every time this happens, and it is happening far too often, some professional couple are forced to continue to rent (paying thousands to people who are already wealthy) because fewer properties come up for sale and the market bubble makes home ownership unaffordable.

I think it is really sad that for young people today, owning a home is only a dream, and they are forced to live with parents well into their adult lives. Whilst I am sure it is different in the provinces, this is very much the case here in London.

Don't be silly , apparently houses should be given away to anyone that wants one and no landlord should be able to make a living out of their ( very expensive) investments 🤔

As a landlord who’s tenant decided not to pay rent last month I’m not sure what ‘maximum power’ you think I have. I’d have to wait at least another month of her not paying, then apply to the courts to evict her, then wait several months to actually get her out. Who has the power there? There’s no reason for her to stop paying rent - there are actually very few reasons legally and it would take a major breach on the landlords part. I attend to any repairs within 48 hours and she’s never been without water, heat etc.
You could say the same about food as shelter, and running water and power.
The lease contains the amount rent can increase and I only do it on renewal, usually in line with inflation. After all, my expenses in relation to the property go up every year too. I know a few other landlords and they do the same. They want their tenant to be happy, and treat the property with respect. Re

And who is going to buy that potential social housing property, and pay for it? And maintain it? And pay for someone to organise the repairs?
Maggie Thatcher deliberately got rid of many council houses as she possibly could, so central and local government were no longer responsible for any aspect of it. No successive governments have wanted to take on those responsibilities as it's simply too expensive and unwieldy. It's simplynot possible to offer social housing to everyone.
Local councils and housing associations don't seem to be able to maintain in good condition many of their own current properties, let alone take on more properties.
Governments have made it much harder for landlords in recent years, with mortgage relief, tax and legislation all being issues that make it more difficult for Landlords. The government hasn't sorted out the long wait for court dates should a landlord need to resort to legal action. Quite honestly, landlords are waking up to the fact that investing in a varied stocks and shares portfolio ISA's can be a better option.

Er… social housing landlords? Housing associations, other registered providers?

I thought I'd addressed that in my post? Council and housing associations don't seem to be making a good job of maintaining many of their existing properties - is this due to indifference, incompetence, or not having the money to do repairs and maintenance?
For them to buy additional properties they will need to charge market rates to cover the cost of the mortgage and other costs, as well as pay wages to people to organise it all and be compliant etc. I can't see that being financially viable unless they increase their hugely rents.

How do you feel about arms dealing/manufacturing?