The Worst of Private Renting

[LuluBlakey1]

Here is one type of landlord. The worst, although there are many like him.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/15/i-was-afraid-of-him-renting-from-one-of-londons-worst-landlords?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This is one of the reasons the private rental market needs serious reform . That he has got this far before being locked up us disgraceful. 120 properties with God knows how many exploited, scared tenants living in these conditions. The number of attempts to prosecute him that actually were successful yet failed to stop him is shocking.

1. Why is there no standard for rentals that is enforced?
2. Why is there no regulation of rents?
3. Why us anyone allowed to rent out property if it is in this state?
4. Why was he not banned and imprisoned before now?
5. Why are all of his properties not being seized and handed to local councils to re-furbish and rent out? Or to a social enterprise company to do the same- not for profit?

Further tales of the private rental market and how landlords treat tenants.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/14/renters-tales-of-eviction-woe-in-england?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Tenants are adults; sometimes with children, sometimes with pets, sometimes with vulnerabilities, sometimes with a vulnerable family member, sometimes elderly, sometimes disabled. They deserve a decent home, at a decent monthly rent, with security of tenancy.

Why can't tenants have that? It seems like the private rental market is almost unregulated.

I don't understand why there is not a rent scale based on size and condition of property and number of bedrooms and living rooms.

Some data
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/13/five-charts-explain-state-uk-rental-sector?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Makes grim reading.

The truth us this government, like with many other areas that should be regulated and taken back under the 'public service' banner simply does not want to regulate - because landlords are mainly Tory voters and they don't want to upset them, also because they are happy to see Tory voters and donors making a lot of money off the back of people who can't afford to buy their own properties.

They don't want to take them back as a 'public service' because they don't want the responsibility. High quality public services mean higher taxes. The Tory party wants fewer state responsibilities so they can lower taxes and allow their pals to make a fortune from running these services. It's why they are running down the NHS and we only have to look at Adult Social Care, Energy and Water to see how successful it is- private ownership of anything means lowest possible investment and quality, highest possible prices and thr biggest profits stripped out for owners.

That first one is truly shocking. Did I read correctly that some of the properties weren't even his own, but ones that he rented and then illegally subdivided into HMOs and subletted? This is the second time I've read about something like this happening in the last few weeks.

Some 30 per cent of MPs also have a stake in btl Perfectly acceptable in the UK to make money from buying or letting property whoever you are This is the system here elsewhere in Europe NHS more important but
not here

There are standards but enforcement is the issue.

In order to maintain standards, someone has to police them, and while councils have enforcement officers, they are horribly busy and they have to adhere to the laws, inspect, give time for improvements to be made, and then go to court if they are not. The courts are busy too.

Plus with 600,000 overseas students a year plus several hundred thousand new arrivals, there will always be a housing shortage.

There is also the problem that some tenants will accept poor conditions and say nothing because they don't want to pay for the improvements through increased rent, so bad landlords will always get away with it while we have too many people/too little housing.

It isn't an easy problem.

The reason for lack of staff to enforce standards- if they exist- is down to the Tory government cutting hundreds of millions of £££s from council budgets so that all kinds of services are failing all over the country.

Why should tenants pay for improvements. They pay rent already. Landlords made significant profits- according to today's news the average profit is £800 a month on a property. Why should tenants pay more rent to maintain a property in decent condition?

Here's today's article. It's about landlord profits and how landlords without mortgages are still increasing rents

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/16/cashing-in-the-mortgage-free-landlords-who-are-raising-the-rent-anyway?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

It might be legal but there are all kinds of moral issues around it and the way the whole system is unmanaged and unregulated in the UK.

It's pretty disgusting morally to be happy to have mortgages paid on properties you own by people who can not get a mortgage to own a property themselves. There's something very exploitative about that. They pay iff your mortgage for you, have no security of tenancy, no security of fair rent or decent living standard in the property. Then you can sell the property for market value and keep all the money.

The system of landlord owned property is almost unregulated- very few other European countries have such an unregulated system. Most have a 'fair rent' type system where rents and rent increases are regulated. Mist protect tenancies. Most have standards of maintenance which are checked. We seem to have nothing- landlords charge what they like, maintain properties if they wish and can evict tenants easily for no reason.

Are you serious when you say the NHS is not important here? The government have run it into the ground.

There is no properly enforced regulation of landlords in the UK. It's disgraceful. They are often crooks and greedy people only interested in money- not tenants.

OP, in the end, domestic rentals are a business, so every cost including maintenance and upgrades have to come out of rent.

The argument is whether the landlords can be forced to absorb that increase in costs, or, as happens now, the landlord evicts the tenant on the grounds that the building works are not something that can be done with a tenant in residence, and then the upgraded or repaired dwelling is re-let at a higher rent.

I'm not saying current rents are fair. I happen to think that maximum rents should be set by local council and square meterage, but until that happens, renovations will always push rents up.

Interesting article in today's Guardian about 5 ideas to solve the housing crisis. The last one, which is giving tenants a right to buy a private rental after 3 years of tenancy, at discounted rates, is really worth considering. It would allow tenants to reduce the mortgage before they got it by using their rent to do so. It would redistribute property in the country so there were fewer private rentals and therefore, ultimately, redistribute wealth.
Interesting to see the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Civitas both recommending it. It's radical but could be a real game changer

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/17/five-things-that-could-help-fix-britains-private-rented-sector?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

One thing that is already happening, is some landlords will only rent to foreign students. They can do this by only offering the rentals through overseas student recruitment agents.

The students' families can afford to pay far higher rates than home-grown tenants, and because they are only resident for a few years, they are easier to evict.

It's a complex problem.

He sounds truly shocking but he was fined over £180k so it a wasn't a case of nobody doing anything about him. Maybe they could force a sale but they can't just seize his property and give it to the council. That would be theft.

It is definitely complex but that has been the Tories' reason/excuse for not tackling any of the issues for the last 13 years, relaxing of further restrictions and allowing conditions and exploitation of many of the poorest tenants to worsen significantly.
Today's Guardian article shows a terrible picture for the most vulnerable at the hands of the worst type of landlord. There need to be firm laws to tackle this kind of profiteering.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/19/bedsit-britain-160000-people-in-england-crammed-into-unlicensed-housing?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

@caringcarer Fining him is pointless, he simply increases his rents. A prison sentence is better but his property could be legally seized as the profits of crime. It isn't theft. What he's doing is exploitative and illegal.

If you look at The Guardian article I posted about 5 ways to improve the situation in the private rental market, there are some quite radical ideas, including a very interesting one from the Joseph Rowntree foundation and Civitas that after 3 years of tenancy, a tenant should be given the right to buy the property at a reduced rate- rather like the old council house deal that Thatcher introduced. It's an excellent idea. The Tories won't consider it of course- private landlords won't like it and they are Tory voters- but it could be a real game-changer for the long-term in the housing market. It has so many positive features and outcomes.

It's completely unfair and something has to change private rents are astronomical, but salaries don't match house prices. My friend has a 50 year old in her house share as they couldn't afford to buy or rent a 1bed.
I do wonder what would it take for the Tories or labour to actually fix the housing market?

But @LuluBlakey1 , if I were a private landlord (I'm not), I would simply evict tenants after 2 years to protect my business. And we do need landlords. I couldn't buy while I was renting because I was in my probationary period at work and couldn't get a mortgage. So we don't want to hound private landlords out of business. Some of us need them.

My last landlord before I bought my house, issued me with an eviction notice because he wished to give the flat to his daughter to live in, which is a perfectly legitimate reason.

It went on the market about 6 weeks later. Whether that was her choice or had always been the plan I don't know. It would have been impossible to prove either way. I just don't see how forcing landlords to sell would work.

I'd definitely vote for rent controls though, set by district councils. And much much tighter restrictions on BTL mortgages.

I’m a landlord it is highly regulated. Like anything there is always those who don’t abide by the rules.

It is a business based on exploitation of those unable to buy a property by charging them rents to pay iff the mortgage on a property you (generic landlord not you personally) then own outright- at which point you (any landlord) can then sell it for full market price, including any hike in value for the time you've owned it, or you continue renting it out and it's just money in the bank. You will say but that's what business is about, making money from providing a product/service. The difference is people have a choice about most of what they spend their money on- they don't have to buy a jumper, for example. However, a home is something they need and have no choice over. So they pay for it and you keep it.

It falls into the same class as Water companies, adult social care, provision for children in care - all businesses owned by people who strip profit out of people's need for basic human rights: a secure, safe, warm home, clean water, social care of a decent standard- not things they choose to need. That there are so many landlords who provide appalling standards in rentals, charge exploitative rents, own dozens or even hundreds of properties and make fortunes from them, evict tenants as it suits - it's morally reprehensible.

Most LL have an interest only mortgage so there is not a tenant paying off a mortgage for the LL. If I had a pound for every time I heard this drivel I'd be very rich.

Letting out a house is a service just like leasing a car. Even housing associations rent out their houses. But no doubt you think that's ok for them to do so but not LL's. Did you know some of the worst housing stock is let out by housing associations like the one where the young child died from inhaling the mould?

I let out 10 houses and many of my tenants have been with me for over 8 years. They started in a 2 bedroom house and after having 2 DC asked if I had a 3 bedroom house they could rent from me. Why would they want to stay with me? Why would they recommend me to their family and friends so I never have to advertise an empty property? I'll tell you, because I treat my tenants well. They pay me rent. I have a maintenance person who always prioritises my tenants because I use him for lots of jobs. I use a reliable gas safe person to service boilers and do gas certificates every year. If there is a problem with anything I don't it out. They pay me for a service and I provide it. That is not exploitation. They can leave at any time. There deposits are all protected and all receive the How to Rent booklet. I have been a LL for 18 years and only twice have I needed to dispute any of the deposit.

I have been invited to several ofy tenants weddings and even been asked to be a Godmother to one DC.

I make a profit because I run a business. If I didn't make a profit I'd sell the houses are more and more LL's are doing. Where would people who can't afford a deposit live then?

@caringcarer I think many HAs are dreadful and part of the problem. They are guilty of all of the low standards many private landlords are guilty of.

You say most landlords have interest only mortgages. Even if that were true, and I don't believe it is based on the landlords I know personally, if you have a mortgage for 20 years on a property that cost £200,000 to mortgage and you sell it at the end for £300,000 you've still made £100,000.

You may be a landlord who treats your tenants well - many are not. The system as it stands favours rogue, exploitative landlords, not tenants.

If banks were more flexible and house uilders kept their promises re:affordable housing, many more people currently renting could afford to buy. Councils should build more council housing - not buyable- and the government should fund that. The Joseph Rowntree suggestion I mentioned earlier is lso definitely worth consideration- it could be a great force for change in housing ownership.

@LuluBlakey1

I don’t agree. Money is maid from every necessity. Clothing is necessary. Heating, food.
I provide a decent home at a reasonable price, safe and well maintained. There is nothing wrong with that.

It always strikes me as odd that property seems to be the only area that some people think shouldn't run at a profit.
Why isn't there the same fuss about food or utilities, have people noticed the profits in those sectors?
I've done lots of renting and been a landlord when renting out our house made sense.
Compulsory purchase after three years at a discount is a unworkable idea on many levels. But I'm guessing it is just meant to get people talking about rental issues in general.

Banks make profits on people having mortgages. Why is it such an issue for landlords to make profit from renting?

Rogue landlords renting out places which are unfit to live in obviously needs clamping down on.

We rent out one of our properties. It’s a lovely house, we look after the property, and our tenants, who have been with us for 2 years are very happy. They don’t want to buy because at some point, they’re moving countries. Our previous tenants didn’t want to buy either.