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?

In my Utopia this is what the rental market would be. Entirely not for profit but I don’t think that’s likely / possible.

Really, absolute dives don't exist? Tell that to all the families living in 'beds in sheds'. I work with children with life limiting conditions, visiting children in their own homes, and I have seen some truly horrific places, often occupied by people with an uncertain immigration status, who won't make a fuss for fear of drawing attention to themselves with the authorities, or have no recourse to public funds, or because the 'dive' is all they can afford as the new rules and regulations have driven up rents even further with the fewer decent landlords left. Making something harder to do legally just pushes it underground and actually makes it worse.

Some of these places - the council has placed people in them but they are truly awful, much worse than anywhere I ever lived, and they are trying to raise really unwell children in them. Priority for social housing should be given to those with disabilities, lifelong tenancies should be reserved for those who have a specific housing need which isn't going to change, and for others it should be a short term leg up when struggling, there will never be enough for all who want it, so it has to be focused on those who need it.

About as irritating and pointless as how your comments are?

Absolute dives not only exist they seemingly make up the majority or properties available. Rental stock is shocking in the UK

It wasn’t even a golden age for me.
I was a student in the early 2000s with no savings and lots of debt.

Me too! They GAVE A MORTGAGE TO A STUDENT WITH A CALL CENTRE JOB!!! What a time to be alive 😭😭😭😭

Looks like it's a recurring theme with you, the inability to actually engage with the substance of a conversation.

My husband was a newly qualified plumber who bought a few tools with a small inheritance from his grandfather, and was in business as a sole trader for less than 6 months before applying for a mortgage at 21. This was before the 2008 crisis. He told the mortgage company he made £30k (which he didn't, it probably wasn't half of that) and they didn't even check 😱 Just said "yeah that sounds about right" and lent him what he asked for.

I don't understand your question. There were long term tenants in it when my mum died. And my mum had hundreds of thousands of pounds of care debt that had to be paid. I have no idea what you're suggesting I should have done.

I kept it tenanted because I had no choice. I couldn't sell it until I got the legal go-ahead. My mum's estate and debts were very complex.

Outstanding debt from an estate could have been paid for by the sale of the house, surely. Ultimately you kept the tenants in situ because you calculated it that it was financially beneficial to do so, whether or not you used that to service debt.

Really your mum's/your situation is further evidence of the fact the current system where everything is privatised for the profit of the elite just doesn't work for normal people. Your mum didn't rack up hundreds of thousands of debt because that's what it cost to provide her care. The vast majority of that was just profit for a private business owner. And then you charge tenants an inflated sum for the roof over their head, so you can pass some (Most? All?) of that profit onto the wealthy care home owner.

Outstanding debt from an estate could have been paid for by the sale of the house, surely. Ultimately you kept the tenants in situ because you calculated it that it was financially beneficial to do so, whether or not you used that to service debt.

The debt will be (partially) paid when the sale of the property goes through, hopefully soon.
But see above. I could not sell the property until the legal team managing the estate and the creditors claim, gave me permission to. I'd love to have put it up for sale on day one, but I couldn't.

Throwing the tenants out and leaving their home empty for 18 months would have been pretty shitty behaviour on my part, when there's so little rental property about.

And then you charge tenants an inflated sum for the roof over their head,

They were paying half the going rate. My mum hadn't put up the rent in 15 years.

Ultimately you kept the tenants in situ because you calculated it that it was financially beneficial to do so, whether or not you used that to service debt.

@Fargo79 it seems you haven't read my posts properly. The rent didn't service the debt in any way. Most of it went to the work I had to have done on the property when the tenants left.

This is what faro is saying- this capitalist system of housing is making victims of many people. You included. If it was never possible for your mum to rent her house out this situation wouldn’t have happened

When someone asked you why you didn't leave the property empty, you said because there was care debt to be paid. Hence my subsequent comment.

Regardless, none of this demonstrates anything other than the fact that privatised housing rentals, without ample social housing at cost for all who want it, is a poor system. You are also a victim of it, despite how niche your circumstances and choices (or your mum's choices) are.

When someone asked you why you didn't leave the property empty, you said because there was care debt to be paid

Ah. I see. As I said in that post, I didn't quite understand what was being asked. My response was to try and figure it out.

I couldn't 'Leave it empty' because it wasn't empty in the first place. And I couldn't leave it empty when the tenants departed because it needed to be sold to finance the care debt.

Evicting the tenants immediately and leaving the property empty for 18 months while the lawyers were doing their thing, would have been pretty immoral, imo.

I asked because you didn’t explain any of that originally. You just said it was incredibly hard to be a landlord after your mum passed and you hated it. I simply asked why you did it then. You hadn’t mentioned sitting tenants or legal issues holding up the sale.

Interesting thread. I am a landlady. When I met my partner, I moved into his house and had to decide what to do with my little one bedroom mortgaged house. I rented it out with a lovely letting agency, who maintain it better than I could.

Every year Lloyds Bank sent me a letter saying 'you're letting out our mortgaged property. When will you be moving back? We need this info to grant you letting permission."

Eventually I spoke to a human and said "how can I know the answer to this question? If you know when my boyfriend will kick me out and I need to return to my backup property that I sensibly maintain, please let me know." I have now paid off my mortage. 😀

I believe my long term tenants are happy, This seems like a sensible approach for single women to take too. Maybe someone can also comment on why continentals are much happier renting than the English?

I believe my long term tenants are happy, This seems like a sensible approach for single women to take too

Well yes, there are of course a privileged few people who benefit financially from a for-profit rental system. That's why it exists. Your tenants are happy within the system in which they exist. I wonder if they'd still choose to rent your property if there were high quality, not-for-profit social housing options available to all, though? Or perhaps there's something very unique and/or luxurious about your property which would make it desirable for tenants to pay for even if the not-for-profit model existing alongside.

People can only complain about this if they would never sell to a landlord. I hear a lot about how they’re ruining things for first time buyers - but a first time buyer typically goes on to be a second time buyer. And they’re normally a lot less upset about BTL investors when they become their potential buyers rather than potential rivals.

I was once mistakenly shown flats in a development that did not allow investment buyers - you had to prove it was your own home. Because it was through Purple Bricks, the sellers were able to see my feedback and reply directly. Two different ones told me they were mounting a legal challenge to the covenant and offered to drop the price if I’d offer based on that challenge being successful. They were happy to get a cheap home because of it, but not so happy when they wanted to move on and found the pool of potential buyers reduced.

Because in many countries, rental property operates under the exact not for profit model I’ve described. It’s professional, arms length and profit isn’t built in at every stage. The tenants aren’t paying Mr smiths mortgage, they are renting a long term home that they have the right to make their own, much like our own social housing

This is such a weird flex. Most people only sell a few properties in their lifetime, and selling to a landlord wouldn’t even be a decision to make. It’s a pointless promise to make. I have never had a landlord view or offer on the houses I’ve sold, for example

😆😆😆

What nobody can apperently explain logically is the exponential rise in the costs of living, including securing accomodation whether bought and rented, versus the lack of growth in average incomes, which is pricing average people out of the possible illusion of security or progress.

There's a vague reference to markets and geo politics etc, but it doesn't realky adress to how we are where we are in overall economic terms.

Some LLs are accidental, or in a position of having two or three properties - if they are fair and above board they are not the problem per se, but when newbuilds are snapoed up for rental by huge conglomerates, often overseas, whose only motive is more and more money, and who don't even care whether their properties are occupied as they become tax deductable assets that accrue value purely by their existence, then it appears things get out of hand.

Economics apopear to operate on an almost occult level, and the uninitiated should just put up and shut up apparently, as our lowly household budget brains can't possibly grasp such lofty concepts.

It's the big discrepancy between what average people earn now, versus the costs of everything that is the problem, and housing is the most glaringly obvious example of this.

So you’ve never had a BTL investor view any of your properties. What’s your point? You’re one person out of millions of sellers. Both the properties I’ve sold in my life had BTL viewers; two out of three I’ve bought were from landlords.

Of course, my experience is no more universal than yours - but that’s rather the point, isn’t it? And loads of people sell, and want to sell, to investors. No chain; unlikely to be affordability issues with the mortgage; likely to be used to dealing with the legalities and motivated to move quickly… why wouldn’t you want to sell to them?