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.

Interest only these days is very very silly indeed.

Yes to all of this.

Basically, anyone who buys properties (eg; houses/flats/bungalows,) and collects them so they have a 'portfolio' of properties, is someone who deserves derision and scorn. I have no sympathy whatsoever when a landlord with multiple properties gets screwed over by a tenant, and loses 1000s of pounds in rent, and has to fork out 1000s of pounds in repairs.

A few people are accidental landlords, but they really are very few (about 1 in 10) compared to the amount of landlords who are collect multiple properties to make a fast buck.

Most just buy any old dump, do the most basic of safety checks to make it 'legal' and then charge astronomical rents. (Some don't even do the basic safety checks, and many places are riddled with mould and damp.)

Hardly surprising that landlords are deeply disliked. As a pp said, it's not just on Mumsnet either, it's a universal thing.

IMO, everyone who owns more than one property, should have ALL of their properties taken off them by the council, (except the one they live in) and they should receive what they paid for them. (Even if the house is worth £170K now and they bought it 30 years ago for £35K, they should only get that £35K, because the money they would have made on it in rent in that time could be close to a quarter of a million pounds.) And yes I know there would have been repairs and maintenance to said property, but they would have been VERY minimal, and the chances are that they have not spent more than a few thousand pounds on it since they bought it 30 years ago.

As I said, I don't feel sorry for these people who buy up multiple properties to make a profit from people who need a place to live (some who are quite vulnerable,) if the tenant leaves with a load of rent arrears. Cry me a river.

And no-one thinks they should be entitled to 'free, luxury homes' as one poster laughably suggested. People just want a secure tenancy, and reasonable rent. Private landlords do not offer this, because they just want the rent and that's it.

If you're VERY lucky you may get the odd repair done, but only if it's a health and safety issue. Most repairs and maintenance won't be done.

.

Why?

You sound very bitter.

im reading this thread shaking my head. Why don’t I like landlords? For the most part they’re entitled and whiny shits. They embrace neoliberalism (I’m just making money for myself) until it doesn’t benefit them personally (they want me to spend my profit on repairs?). They expect people to pay their mortgages (their pensions/assets) but don’t invest as much in the properties they rent out as they should then complain when their tenants have issues. Why should a tenant pay for your pension while you sit on your fat arse raking it in?

I believe everyone should have access to a home. It ought to be a human right. I believe if private landlords want to do this they have to provide the home as a habitable and safe place and be held to high standards. This currently doesn’t happen and the number of slumlords i read about daily are why people don’t like landlords. Linda and Dave renting out their old flat instead of selling because they’d lose money on it, is one thing, Tabitha and Mo with their portfolio of substandard properties are problematic and totally different. Someone thinking they’re making a quick buck with what ought to be a human right (housing) is problematic and complaining when you’re in a position of authority and hold someones life in their hands (the difference between houses and homeless) is an arse. Not recognising the responsibility you have as a landlord towards your tenants and only considering yourself doing some kind of public good while having your extra mortgages paid off is ego fuelling bullshit.

As for the insistence they only charge market rent, who do you think decides what the market rent is? It’s certainly not the tenants. Ten years ago a two bed flat in my city rented out for £420 and now you’ll struggle to get a single room in a decent hmo flat for that. A two bed flat now rents over £1400 + in a shitty area and probably covered in damp. People can’t afford
these prices. Housing shouldn’t be something you can only access if you can afford it, it should be available to all

Why should they not earn profit they’re not running a charity?

So you wouldn't be in a relationship with anybody who rented òut their home? Envy springs to mind here as well as being shallow. He's being leeched alright. Paying thousands in tax for this government to fritter away on funnily enough, leeches.

Exactly.

So do you.

In what way?

I don't make a loss I make a decent profit. It's a business and if it started making a loss id sell and invest money elsewhere. I offer a good house and it is very well maintained. If a washing machine breaks the tenant has a new one within 48 hours often the next day. I have a maintenance man in both areas I have properties who is self employed but I give them all my work in area and in return they prioritises my tenants and doesn't make them wait. All maintenance expenses are written off against tax so there are no excuses for a LL not maintaining their asset to a good level.

I'm not even close to envious 🤣

I just couldn't be in a relationship with that type of person who makes their money in that way.

Everyone pays taxes. I pay taxes. Tenants pay taxes. LLs aren't special or victimised because they pay taxes. Especially since it's taxes on money someone else is earning for them.

THIS! Anyone who has a portfolio of properties (as I said earlier) needs them all taking off them, and the council can give them what they paid for them, apart from the one they live in, and all the properties can be put in the local council's housing stock. It really is despicable, harvesting dozens of properties for a PORTFOLIO, so they can make money off often vulnerable people who need a home. Giving these people NO security of tenure, charging extortionate rents, doing as little as possible by way of repairs, ans as has been said, feeling like they can pop by when they want, doing nosey and intrusive 'inspections' and often treating the tenant like shit.

They can't do that at all, and nor do most LL want to.

Exactly. I wouldn't want anything to do with ANYone who thinks it's OK to profit from vulnerable and needy people who are in need of a home, taking extortionate rents off them and offering very little in return.

Anyone that rents through an agent follows the legal requirements. It's mandatory. Not the 'most basic safety checks'.

Are you aware that actually it is now virtually impossible not to give tenant deposits back? As opposed to 20 years ago when I lost every single rental deposit I put down. It was just an additional cost.

And if, as some on here think, opening a window to prevent damp levels rising is unreasonable, then at least some tenants are responsible for the mould developing in their homes. Not all of course. But I have experience of this with a friend. Refused to open a window, but complained about damp in that area of the room. It was condensation dampness.

Zov, you sound like you have only experienced bad LL's. There are many good LL out there. You belief a LL might only spend £1k on maintenance in 30 years is ridiculous. This year alone I have had a new boiler in 1 property, an old conservatory pulled down and replaced, 2 new washing machines, a new American fridge freezer, 1 tumble dryer as well as fixing a loose hand railmon stairs and chopping down a tree blocking light and replacing an old fence with a new one. This has cost close to £5k and I will still make a profit.

What is on offer is made very clear from the start.

‘Cost of supply’ isn’t how we price most things, and countries that tried to do away with price signals generally collapsed their economies.

For example how do you price your own labour? Have you refused raises that would do more than cover your living costs? Do you think salaries should be lowered if it can be shown that the recipients could live more frugally than they do?

Not sure if you mean me, but "loss" is the opposite to "profit" so it's the correct word. You are right though: if the value of the asset is going up (which it is), charging below market rent to retain an excellent tenant is neither here nor there as long as when re-mortgaging you can satisfy the lender that the rental income covers mortgage and council tax.

Anyone who doesn't maintain the condition of a valuable asset is an idiot anyway or thinking very short term because quite apart from the legal requirements to provide a safe and good condition home, who wants backlog maintenance?!

Boo hoo hoo.

Many people pay thousands in tax. So what? Taxes are a fact of life for everyone.
Most people however, have to pay tax on money they earned, not money earned by someone else and given to them monthly.
My heart bleeds for him 🙄🤣

It is not the role of private individuals to provide the "vulnerable and needy" with a home, unless they're family members I suppose, and even then there are limits!

Tenants pay their own council tax

Earnings are also for risk (which is partly why housing assets attract capital gains when sold). It is more risky to buy and rent a house out than to rent one, in the financial sense.