To think we should ban private renting?

[honeyrosesandwich]

AIBU to think this is a great idea?

Imagine if private renting was banned. All rented houses were done under social housing / housing association. There are already over 4.5 million houses rented under social housing, so it's on a huge scale already.

It would mean rent would be affordable for everyone and effectively help the cost of living prices. I live in a housing association house and my 2 bed is £520 a month. My brother, who private rents, pays £1100 for a 2 bed in the same area.

Repairs for my house are done by the HA's own company. I just put in a request online for it.

People that want to stay in their privately rented home will be free to do so but they put a ban on any new tenancies. The owners will have the opportuntiy to sell the house to social housing or keep it for themselves, but not rent it out further. If sold, the tenant will be allowed to stay.

I've been thinking about this randomly today and haven't come up with any negatives so far. Is it bad to monopolise housing? Well, there are already certain housing associations which own hundreds of thousands of houses.

@PocketSandagree

You were the one that said SH tenants get "luxury" housing, and then went on with the usual stereotypes about SH tenants having gardens of junk etc.

I also do not understand how and why renting privately should be something to aspire to.

So who pays for the maintenance of these properties then?

You do realise landlords are tax payers too don't you?

@PocketSand “direct to landlords as profit”. Incorrect. You’re either not understanding the facts or deliberately telling porkies.

Which properties? Social housing is not for profit and rent has to cover maintenance etc. Private renting is a profit making investment and maintenance of the property is patchy and landlords have a nasty habit of trying to reclaim costs through future rent increases rather than using profit accrued. The fact that landlords also pay tax is irrelevant to the fact that they benefit from tax payments that they are not personally entitled to so that they can increase personal profit by charging high rent topped up by the state.

@ExpectMoreplease explain. You do understand that housing benefit/element is paid to the landlord rather than the tenant and that private sector landlords have no obligation to use state funds for maintenance but csn keep them as profit?

I am going to say no because where will you get the diversity. Of tastes, of quality, of everything - length of stay, terms etc.

If I need to rent for whatever reason I don’t want to be stuck with a crap housing association white ikea box. It’s probably not even Ikea, probably worse.

I understand completely.

It’s always best to learn through self study so I suggest you google:

landlord costs and profit

landlord risks

That's the rule here in the Netherlands.

@ExpectMorei never post without research. Over 80% report a profit after costs and risks. It’s an investment not a social service. But unfortunately it is one that is funded by state benefits paid to low:average workers forced to rent in the private sector.

You're really not making much sense.

Personally I only rent out to professionals (though due to the RRA you are no longer allowed to turn someone down just because they are on benefits).

However, of course private landlords are making a profit, just as corporate landlords such as Lloyds are making a profit. If I've got £250k for example and I leave it in a basic savings account, with current interest rates I can accrue about £1k per month in interest. More if I put it into stocks and shares. By contrast, using that money to buy a house to rent out in the short term doesn't give me even close to that return per month. Longer term I have to hope the house increases in value (provided the tenants haven't destroyed it in the meantime).

Maybe as landlords we should just put the money in some tax efficient stocks and shares instead.

Where is the money coming from to buy the properties from their current owners (landlords)?

I didn’t state they don’t make a profit. They should. My point is that it’s not pure profit as you originally stated….

youre obviously overlooking that a) those profits aren’t substantive and b) 20% don’t make a profit (if your stats are too be believed, I haven’t counter checked).

I’m speaking from an informed position btw: I’m a(n accidental) landlord. So my knowledge is 1st hand….

In fairness, when I was a child in the 60s many took in lodgers as a way to get by, particularly widows or single women. My father lodged when he came from Ireland, breakfast and dinner included.
It would solve the problem of loneliness, and lack of purpose, but there’s the trust issue nowadays.

I don't want to live with anyone. I don't even want to live with my DP.

My aunt takes in students. It’s 180 a week for one international student, that includes one meal, she always takes two students, they’re rarely there as they’re in college and visiting the different sites.
My aunt has 3/4 holidays a year.

They make a profit when the mortgage is cleared and they sell the property. It’s a longterm investment that doesn’t use self cash input to grow. It may take 20 years for a profit but it will come.

@EmeraldShamrock000l believe the profit is year on year from rental income and does not take into consideration profit of eventual sale of the asset.

The issue is that high rent increases benefit claims and means that the state (ie the tax payer) is subsidising profit to private landlords. Increasing cost of living to low and medium wage earners and increasing benefit bill.

Most BTL mortgages are interest only, not repayment, so the mortgage is only cleared by selling the property. However, most BTL mortgages require at least 25-30% deposit (it's usually risky to only have that amount of deposit though).

To use a repayment mortgage you'd never cover costs from rent in most cases, especially if you've only got a 25-30% stake in the property to start with.

I never realised this.
My Dsis is a landlord. I don’t ask her about the ins and outs but I know that the yearly tax bill on the properties is extortionate.
It’s not an easy business. One you have to put a lot of trust in, lending your home.

Haven't read the whole thread but banning private renting is ridiculous.

What I would do is ban buy to let so that government benefit money doesn't go towards paying mortgages and also ban houses of multiple occupation as there was a reason we did the slum clearances, many people and families forced to live in a single room is a bad idea.

Exactly! If only it was so simple.....cloud cuckoo land methinks...

I don’t disagree…. That is however different to what PP stated.

So the idea is that a landlord who owns one or two properties would be obliged to sell to housing associations or the state? Would they get market price for the property, or would they have to accept a certain price?

I agree that HA properties are affordable and a good fit for many people, but in a democracy, I think it's tricky when people are dictated to in this way. Longterm, it could be a good idea, but the small landlords would need to be fairly compensated, for example.

It both puzzles and intrigues me about the motives of whoever starts these kind of threads. Are they naive about how money is made through such as renting out a house, or are they very left wing verging on communist, or are they playing us all. Or are they in dire straits themselves and it seems like an answer to their problems.
After 20 pages of comment are we any further forward?