So are Landlords finished?
Discussion
Xenoous said:
I do make money, I own my own home. I have a growing family and generally speaking, not doing too badly. Even so, I won't be purchasing a second home to rent out, because it's not right.
Go make as much money as you can, making it buying properties and hiking rent shouldn't be allowed.
Councils and housing associations provide a roof over people's heads for a considerably lesser sum per month than you would charge, so that comparison is dumb.
Hiking rent. It's comments like these that undermine anything else you might have to say.Go make as much money as you can, making it buying properties and hiking rent shouldn't be allowed.
Councils and housing associations provide a roof over people's heads for a considerably lesser sum per month than you would charge, so that comparison is dumb.
In my area, my rents were absolutely consistent with the housing association's, however they had a very limited supply of them and were totally disinterested in buying any more. In fact, on the odd occasion I'd see what was coming up for auction (the perfect place for a housing organisation to purchase something cheap), they sent no representation.
My tenants were all eastern European - really nice people who generally looked after the houses with a sense of pride that an owner would have. We would get calls from their friends a few times a year asking if we had any other houses to let because ours were amongst the nicest ones they'd seen.
I'm not in the business of exploiting people. Fair rent for a fair house. I wasn't actually upset that my rents gave no profit - as quoted above that is kind of the point. I would see my profits when the houses were sold. Putting money back into the houses meant consistent occupation, happy tenants (I work full time elsewhere so the few rental problems the better), and the houses could be sold without too much fuss.
I'm sure stereotypes form from real examples but not all LLs are Rachmans. It makes more business sense to keep your tenants happy.
Xenoous said:
Considering my parents still live in one, yes. I grew up in council and housing association housing. £800 odd for a 4 bed semi detached.
The equivalent house private would be at least double that. Cambridgeshire based.
Private housing costs more than the subsidised equivalent; who would have expected that?The equivalent house private would be at least double that. Cambridgeshire based.
cheesejunkie said:
Okay.,, tell me how that campaign to remove no fault evictions is going with Gove in charge.
Landlords are protected. They like a good whinge because they have influence. They’re not suffering half as much as their tenants. But yes some will imply all tenants are scum and they’re providing a service, the truth is very different.
You’re not saying all tenants are scum but you’re borderline cruising.
"No fault" evictions is a lazy & inaccurate term loved by the mediq & the uninformed- S21 requires a reason to be given for the eviction. The reason it has faltered is that the remaining option (S8) has an 18 month waiting list at court.Landlords are protected. They like a good whinge because they have influence. They’re not suffering half as much as their tenants. But yes some will imply all tenants are scum and they’re providing a service, the truth is very different.
You’re not saying all tenants are scum but you’re borderline cruising.
Protected? Explain all the turning of the screw & the government specifically saying they want to have a pop at private landlords.
I'm not saying all tenants are scummy- I'm saying that a significant percentage are.
Don’t worry, once private landlords are squeezed out by overbearing regulation combined with the only buisness model that is now taxed on turnover, rather than profit, your new landlords will most likely be someone like below.
You know, the people who decide if you can have a mortgage to get on the ladder, but are also in the market for the house you may want to buy…..
So what’s needed is to ban private landlords from owning more than 2. Brilliant plan.
You know, the people who decide if you can have a mortgage to get on the ladder, but are also in the market for the house you may want to buy…..
So what’s needed is to ban private landlords from owning more than 2. Brilliant plan.
Edited by ITP on Friday 26th April 10:05
ITP said:
Don’t worry, once private landlords are squeezed out by overbearing regulation combined with the only buisness model that is now taxed on turnover, rather than profit, your new landlords will most likely be someone like below.
You know, the people who decide if you can have a mortgage to get on the ladder, but are also in the market for the house you may want to buy…..
So what’s needed is to ban private landlords from owning more than 2. Brilliant plan.
Yup You know, the people who decide if you can have a mortgage to get on the ladder, but are also in the market for the house you may want to buy…..
So what’s needed is to ban private landlords from owning more than 2. Brilliant plan.
Edited by ITP on Friday 26th April 10:05
See my previous posts on what has happened in Ireland
Earthdweller said:
ITP said:
Don’t worry, once private landlords are squeezed out by overbearing regulation combined with the only buisness model that is now taxed on turnover, rather than profit, your new landlords will most likely be someone like below.
You know, the people who decide if you can have a mortgage to get on the ladder, but are also in the market for the house you may want to buy…..
So what’s needed is to ban private landlords from owning more than 2. Brilliant plan.
Yup You know, the people who decide if you can have a mortgage to get on the ladder, but are also in the market for the house you may want to buy…..
So what’s needed is to ban private landlords from owning more than 2. Brilliant plan.
Edited by ITP on Friday 26th April 10:05
See my previous posts on what has happened in Ireland
nickfrog said:
Xenoous said:
Enjoy your 5-10-15 houses.
That's what it's really about, isn't it?Then you have the view from some that being a landlord isn't a proper job. Cobblers. I personally know a couple of BTL landlords who borrow in order to buy neglected properties, then supervise the installation of new central heating, insulation and so on. They then let the properties at market rates to tenants who wouldn't get a mortgage. Every day they are running around sorting problems in the properties - as they should - all in return for a yield not much better than just putting cash on deposit. I'm not suggesting these guys should get an OBE, but they are doing a fine job and taking a modest profit in return, and there's nothing wrong with that.
"They should just work harder"
I am capable of agreeing with some of the points on this thread, not all landlords are w
kers, although many are taking advantage of a system that others can't afford to capital that they have not worked any harder for than their tenants.
But "they should all just work harder" is so far outside the reality of most's situations to be hilarious if it wasn't someone's honestly held view. Who's dripping bitterness with that comment?
I know some don't like my suggestion that it's not the hardest job in the world. But it's not. Taking rent is easy compared to real work but those doing it don't like to admit it.
I am capable of agreeing with some of the points on this thread, not all landlords are w
kers, although many are taking advantage of a system that others can't afford to capital that they have not worked any harder for than their tenants.But "they should all just work harder" is so far outside the reality of most's situations to be hilarious if it wasn't someone's honestly held view. Who's dripping bitterness with that comment?
I know some don't like my suggestion that it's not the hardest job in the world. But it's not. Taking rent is easy compared to real work but those doing it don't like to admit it.
Hants PHer said:
nickfrog said:
Xenoous said:
Enjoy your 5-10-15 houses.
That's what it's really about, isn't it?Then you have the view from some that being a landlord isn't a proper job. Cobblers. I personally know a couple of BTL landlords who borrow in order to buy neglected properties, then supervise the installation of new central heating, insulation and so on. They then let the properties at market rates to tenants who wouldn't get a mortgage. Every day they are running around sorting problems in the properties - as they should - all in return for a yield not much better than just putting cash on deposit. I'm not suggesting these guys should get an OBE, but they are doing a fine job and taking a modest profit in return, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Hants PHer said:
Indeed. The bitterness dripping from some posts on this thread is obvious. It's the politics of envy writ large: "Nobody should be allowed to own more than two properties" for example. Presumably, though, Xenoous and others are happy with folk investing in property owning pension funds? Because, as pointed out above, it's ruthless profit-driven investment funds that'll really drive rents up, not private landlords with a handful of properties.
Then you have the view from some that being a landlord isn't a proper job. Cobblers. I personally know a couple of BTL landlords who borrow in order to buy neglected properties, then supervise the installation of new central heating, insulation and so on. They then let the properties at market rates to tenants who wouldn't get a mortgage. Every day they are running around sorting problems in the properties - as they should - all in return for a yield not much better than just putting cash on deposit. I'm not suggesting these guys should get an OBE, but they are doing a fine job and taking a modest profit in return, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Those two things don't really make sense together. When I rented before I saw my landlord maybe 3 days a year. Of course there is a bit more time with the accounts, sometimes a bit more time between rentals tidying up and so on. But it's still nothing like a full time job. Then you have the view from some that being a landlord isn't a proper job. Cobblers. I personally know a couple of BTL landlords who borrow in order to buy neglected properties, then supervise the installation of new central heating, insulation and so on. They then let the properties at market rates to tenants who wouldn't get a mortgage. Every day they are running around sorting problems in the properties - as they should - all in return for a yield not much better than just putting cash on deposit. I'm not suggesting these guys should get an OBE, but they are doing a fine job and taking a modest profit in return, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Those renovating projects will have a bit of time at the start, then once it is built it will require very little time after once being rented out, unless you get a nightmare tenant. If they are doing it lots of times when they move onto a new project once the last is done then that doesn't match your story of "a handful of properties".
Honestly, I don't know why BTLers are complaining on this thread, or why they have been doing it for 20+ years. It seems like half the tenants trash the place, they get hate from everyone, they barely make any profit and they're working 365 days a year on their BTL meaning no free time. The government is doing them a great service by helping them out of that sort of lifestyle!
ITP said:
Don’t worry, once private landlords are squeezed out by overbearing regulation combined with the only buisness model that is now taxed on turnover, rather than profit, your new landlords will most likely be someone like below.
You know, the people who decide if you can have a mortgage to get on the ladder, but are also in the market for the house you may want to buy…..
So what’s needed is to ban private landlords from owning more than 2. Brilliant plan.
Can you point me in the direction of the business model which is taxed on turnover?You know, the people who decide if you can have a mortgage to get on the ladder, but are also in the market for the house you may want to buy…..
So what’s needed is to ban private landlords from owning more than 2. Brilliant plan.
Edited by ITP on Friday 26th April 10:05
I'm struggling to see where the Government profit financially but increasing home ownership over renting.
Is it just a case of them seeing a potential cash cow (they way they did with shareholding Directors) and milking them for all they are worth until the cow dies, without a single though of the possible consequences?
Is it just a case of them seeing a potential cash cow (they way they did with shareholding Directors) and milking them for all they are worth until the cow dies, without a single though of the possible consequences?
Rufus Stone said:
I'm struggling to see where the Government profit financially but increasing home ownership over renting.
Is it just a case of them seeing a potential cash cow (they way they did with shareholding Directors) and milking them for all they are worth until the cow dies, without a single though of the possible consequences?
The government and the UK may not profit but the usual modus operandi of those in charge is to favour the interests of the very wealthy and by driving out the private landlord, to be replaced by corporate landlords, this will be accomplished. Is it just a case of them seeing a potential cash cow (they way they did with shareholding Directors) and milking them for all they are worth until the cow dies, without a single though of the possible consequences?
NRS said:
Those two things don't really make sense together. When I rented before I saw my landlord maybe 3 days a year. Of course there is a bit more time with the accounts, sometimes a bit more time between rentals tidying up and so on. But it's still nothing like a full time job.
Those renovating projects will have a bit of time at the start, then once it is built it will require very little time after once being rented out, unless you get a nightmare tenant. If they are doing it lots of times when they move onto a new project once the last is done then that doesn't match your story of "a handful of properties".
Well then we shall have to disagree. Your experience differs from mine. The two gentlemen that I know are constantly dealing with jobs such as leaking pipes, broken boilers, missing roof tiles.......you get the picture. Some tenants are a bit pathetic or unreasonable, like the ones who rang the landlord at 3 a.m. complaining that "We can hear noises in the loft, we think it's a mouse!" and demanded that he come out "right now, and kill it!"Those renovating projects will have a bit of time at the start, then once it is built it will require very little time after once being rented out, unless you get a nightmare tenant. If they are doing it lots of times when they move onto a new project once the last is done then that doesn't match your story of "a handful of properties".
One has six properties and the other nine, I think, all with PO and SO postcodes. They both inspect every property when a tenant leaves in order to prepare it for a new tenant. Sometimes all that's needed is a deep clean, other times it's more than that. Neither gentleman tends to get "nightmare tenants" which might be because each landlord visits regularly to check on things. That is partly what makes it a full time job for them.
Of course there are greedy, lazy landlords, just as there are awful tenants. But in between there are many, many decent BTL landlords who do not deserve the sneering contempt seen from some posters on this thread.
Hants PHer said:
NRS said:
Those two things don't really make sense together. When I rented before I saw my landlord maybe 3 days a year. Of course there is a bit more time with the accounts, sometimes a bit more time between rentals tidying up and so on. But it's still nothing like a full time job.
Those renovating projects will have a bit of time at the start, then once it is built it will require very little time after once being rented out, unless you get a nightmare tenant. If they are doing it lots of times when they move onto a new project once the last is done then that doesn't match your story of "a handful of properties".
Well then we shall have to disagree. Your experience differs from mine. The two gentlemen that I know are constantly dealing with jobs such as leaking pipes, broken boilers, missing roof tiles.......you get the picture. Some tenants are a bit pathetic or unreasonable, like the ones who rang the landlord at 3 a.m. complaining that "We can hear noises in the loft, we think it's a mouse!" and demanded that he come out "right now, and kill it!"Those renovating projects will have a bit of time at the start, then once it is built it will require very little time after once being rented out, unless you get a nightmare tenant. If they are doing it lots of times when they move onto a new project once the last is done then that doesn't match your story of "a handful of properties".
One has six properties and the other nine, I think, all with PO and SO postcodes. They both inspect every property when a tenant leaves in order to prepare it for a new tenant. Sometimes all that's needed is a deep clean, other times it's more than that. Neither gentleman tends to get "nightmare tenants" which might be because each landlord visits regularly to check on things. That is partly what makes it a full time job for them.
Of course there are greedy, lazy landlords, just as there are awful tenants. But in between there are many, many decent BTL landlords who do not deserve the sneering contempt seen from some posters on this thread.
SS427 Camaro said:
cheesejunkie said:
"They should just work harder"
I am capable of agreeing with some of the points on this thread, not all landlords are wkers, although many are taking advantage of a system that others can't afford to capital that they have not worked any harder for than their tenants.
But "they should all just work harder" is so far outside the reality of most's situations to be hilarious if it wasn't someone's honestly held view. Who's dripping bitterness with that comment?
I know some don't like my suggestion that it's not the hardest job in the world. But it's not. Taking rent is easy compared to real work but those doing it don't like to admit it.
Well said…….I am capable of agreeing with some of the points on this thread, not all landlords are w
kers, although many are taking advantage of a system that others can't afford to capital that they have not worked any harder for than their tenants.But "they should all just work harder" is so far outside the reality of most's situations to be hilarious if it wasn't someone's honestly held view. Who's dripping bitterness with that comment?
I know some don't like my suggestion that it's not the hardest job in the world. But it's not. Taking rent is easy compared to real work but those doing it don't like to admit it.
I have worked in lettings, once been an LL myself ( with my nutty ex wife ) with a lovely flat in east London and for 4 years, did £ well out of the rent, plus it’s value sky rocketed, but I had renovated the flat and it was imaculate, the first tenants a lovely couple kept it pristine. However the next tenant a girl, moaned from the day she moved in and never stopped, before legging it re going to Court for theft.
We then “ Stupidly “ sold it as my then wife wanted an “ Executive House “…
I knew a guy who had / has 52, yes 52 BTLs and I Was Once best pals with the guy who manages the 52 and is an LL himself of 13 properties. It was All about the ££££ to him.
I have also recently been a tenant whilst living with an ex in a damp ridden flat in Grays ( she was too frightened to chase the LL re the damp for the whole 6 years she had been there, because she thought he would boot her out. In the end I convinced her to to contact him and the damp got sorted - as far as I know )
He rang her one day to say “ I’m putting your rent up “ …..
He rocked up in his flash Merc sports complete with personal plate on it & dressed in Bling.
Edited by SS427 Camaro on Friday 26th April 12:21
On the other hand, sticking the money in the bank/shares/Fundsmith would be a damn sight less work.
No gas safe certs, no EICR checks, no damp, no mould, no lost keys, no wonky gates/tiles/tenants.
And I'd have more time to drive my flash Merc sports and hopefully afford an "Executive House". Win-win. You're selling it to me.
98elise said:
Would you say that was typical for let's on your area? I'm not suggesting every rental property is perfect, but it's nothing like it's being made out to be. As I've said it's easy to check what's available on rightmove.
Not sure what you mean by the last line?
I refurbish my properties before they're let. As a minimum that's full redecoration and new carpets. If it needs it I do the bathroom and kitchen.
Of the 4 I have left (I've sold 2) 3 had new kitchens, 2 had new bathrooms. 1 had new kitchen doors and worktops as the cupboards were sound, and the layout was fine.
Before....
After...
When a tenant leaves I will refurbish them again before being re-let (or sold).
This is satire, right?Not sure what you mean by the last line?
I refurbish my properties before they're let. As a minimum that's full redecoration and new carpets. If it needs it I do the bathroom and kitchen.
Of the 4 I have left (I've sold 2) 3 had new kitchens, 2 had new bathrooms. 1 had new kitchen doors and worktops as the cupboards were sound, and the layout was fine.
Before....
After...
When a tenant leaves I will refurbish them again before being re-let (or sold).
Edited by 98elise on Thursday 25th April 16:07
Mars said:
Hiking rent. It's comments like these that undermine anything else you might have to say.
In my area, my rents were absolutely consistent with the housing association's, however they had a very limited supply of them and were totally disinterested in buying any more. In fact, on the odd occasion I'd see what was coming up for auction (the perfect place for a housing organisation to purchase something cheap), they sent no representation.
My tenants were all eastern European - really nice people who generally looked after the houses with a sense of pride that an owner would have. We would get calls from their friends a few times a year asking if we had any other houses to let because ours were amongst the nicest ones they'd seen.
I'm not in the business of exploiting people. Fair rent for a fair house. I wasn't actually upset that my rents gave no profit - as quoted above that is kind of the point. I would see my profits when the houses were sold. Putting money back into the houses meant consistent occupation, happy tenants (I work full time elsewhere so the few rental problems the better), and the houses could be sold without too much fuss.
I'm sure stereotypes form from real examples but not all LLs are Rachmans. It makes more business sense to keep your tenants happy.
In my area, my rents were absolutely consistent with the housing association's, however they had a very limited supply of them and were totally disinterested in buying any more. In fact, on the odd occasion I'd see what was coming up for auction (the perfect place for a housing organisation to purchase something cheap), they sent no representation.
My tenants were all eastern European - really nice people who generally looked after the houses with a sense of pride that an owner would have. We would get calls from their friends a few times a year asking if we had any other houses to let because ours were amongst the nicest ones they'd seen.
I'm not in the business of exploiting people. Fair rent for a fair house. I wasn't actually upset that my rents gave no profit - as quoted above that is kind of the point. I would see my profits when the houses were sold. Putting money back into the houses meant consistent occupation, happy tenants (I work full time elsewhere so the few rental problems the better), and the houses could be sold without too much fuss.
I'm sure stereotypes form from real examples but not all LLs are Rachmans. It makes more business sense to keep your tenants happy.
Good old Uncle Peter…..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff