Why so much hate for Landlords on MN?

[coulditbeme2323]

Who do LL's get so much hate on MN?

It seems so much more hate than there is any real life.

If a property is on the market who does it cost more to buy it?

1. A Landlord
2. Somebody who wants to live in it?

Social landlords use their profit to reinvest in housing.

so why do we need other landlords? Let them supply all rented housing stock.

How on earth can they do this? Private renting is a free market like any other and no supplier can unilaterally charge over the odds without customers shunning them and opting for more affordable properties that are charging the market rate. I suspect what you believe is that rents should be cheaper than they are which isn't the same as landlords charging over market rate.

I think people should be taught about how much it costs to build a house, how much it costs to borrow this money and the costs and risks associated with being a landlord.

You’ve just said you understand supply and demand so surely you can work this out

Tis the way of the left.

Five people. One property only available. Because all the others have been purchased by landlords.

Nah, better just to force smaller landlords out of the business. I hear that National Insurance on rental income is next.

Building social housing will reduce the private rental market.

That’s the point.

I became a LL through circumstance. I hate it but I can’t sell the property because the lease is short and I can’t afford to extend it. The mortgage I have on it is interest-only because that’s what I can afford at the moment.

I keep my rent low (given earlier posts, that won’t be believed by many, but there’s nowt I can do to prove it to you) and I pay to fix problems as and when they arise which they do quite often as it’s a Victorian building near the sea. There is no mould in my property and nothing is broken or dangerous. I act on problems immediately tenants make me aware of them. I make a very small profit on it which forms part of my income (I’m in low paid work). But I have had years where I’ve made huge losses. One year the bastard thing cost me £4k (extensive repairs to the building and no tenant for a few months).

But those who think all LLs are cunts won’t be persuaded otherwise. Hate away, I’ll still be over here poring over spreadsheets and government legislation and wondering how soon I can sell the wretched thing.

Are you serious? How do you think social landlords would ascertain the capital required to buy/build all the rental stock that we need? Do you understand that there are genuine financial constraints around raising that kind of money? You know gilts are currently running at over 5%?

Social Landlords have access to all kinds of not necessarily scalable advantages like discounted public land, lower interest rates on capital and grants. No matter what many of this forum insist, social housing is effectively subsidised. This is why no government will be able to achieve what you're suggesting.

They will be replaced with institutional landlords. Either way you won't get rid of landlords.

Slightly misleading statement.

I suspect, statements like that are unlikely to endear a landlord to MN. It doesn't' scream "balanced perspective".

Yes I’m serious. Idealistic but serious 😎

Not everyone wants to buy where they live. I have often lived in rented accomodation and never had an issue with any of my landlords. It is very common to need housing but not be settled enough to buy.

But it isn't serious if there is no practical mechanism to make it happen? How do you envisage that all landlords would become social landlords? Where does the money come from?

For me, it’s not so much that it’s a commodity because housing costs, everything costs. It’s the greed. Extraction of as much money as possible out of people, buying up all the cheap housing and charging inflated prices to rent it. Often with cheap fixtures and fittings. Leaving people with no choice but to pay inflated rents for shitty service.

Being very selective about who they allow to live there, leaving low income people or people with pets screwed (although this may will get a little better with the Renters’ Rights Act). There’s a reason they had to bring that in because too many landlords take the piss. No option to decorate or make a home your own.

We need more social housing options available. I do believe that will solve a lot of issues

See this is where I know you're not a serious person @coulditbeme2323 ....

Talk to me about all the alternatives a renter has if they don't like the rates private landlords are asking for.

But forget all that for a minute -

What I don't like about (many, not all) landlords who post on here, is how they use terms like "nest egg" and "there's nothing safer than bricks and mortar".

These folk always shout at me if I talk to them about a FTSE tracker or any kind of investment product because "they rip you off".

Instead, they'd rather rip others off a bit, but come across really clever at investing because they received a bit of a lucky draw a few decades ago and they now want to make others pay for it.

in short -

I wish people would use the energy and money they had in creating "property nest eggs", and actually start a business like I did. Or pay people a wage. Or take a financial risk by investing in growing companies.

But no, this is Britain - the "clever and normal" thing to do is become a landlord and then crow about how much "my house is making".

P.S Before anyone accuses me of sour grapes, I'm a homeowner in South West London/Surrey corridor, you do the maths etc.

Someone lent money to the majority of those private landlords didn’t they?

That seems to be Labour's master plan. Higher taxes, increased regulation and other policies are pushing decent smaller private landlords and homeowners out of the market.

A housing market dominated by large corporate landlords rather than individual owners - what could possibly go wrong?

And all of to fund welfare spending.

Because frequently they are benefiting from housing benefit - and those that have no alternative to claim housing benefit are blamed when actually it’s the ll’s gaining capital out of it. They’re the true benefits claimants

I don't think you understand how raising capital works. What's to stop you going out now and getting 100 mortgages and becoming a social landlord yourself? Similar constraints exist for social landlords.

I have been forced into being a much worse landlord by this government.
Property 1 - needed rewiring, normally would have asked tenants to temporarily vacate, done it all up and they move back in. New rules incoming meant I sold it while I could still serve s21.

Property 2- when I managed it, any problems dealt with immediately by trusted tradesmen. Incoming rules meant I was scared of not being compliant, so I put it on fully managed at a cost of £200 per month. Now any problems they get the agent to deal with and from what I can tell this is much more hassle. Also I never normally raise rents on existing tenants but will be taking the advice of the agent to do so this year, as it’s costing me so much more now.

Even if the mortgage is interest-only, there are costs that landlords pay that tenants don’t - repairs and decoration and safety certificates. So it is not just the cost of the mortgage that is covered by rent.

Also I do not understand why landlords should not make a profit. If people want not for profit housing then they should organise to lobby for it, and make sure it gets onto the political agenda in the form that they want.

Or even organise community housing - it’s often very successful, but you have to put in some serious time and effort.

The 2 houses I did own were via inheritance- never bought a buy to let.