So are Landlords finished?
Discussion
Biggy Stardust said:
Rivenink said:
We need to regulate and set stringent standards of upkeep on homes for let.
You say that as if such standards don't exist. I have news for you- in most respects they're higher than for owner-occupiers.
thole. Leaseholders, including owners and tenents, do not have these rights. They are utterly reliant on the landlord choosing to do things. And unless they are forced, landlords will not willingly do it, if they can collect their profits regardless of how s
t their property is. Olivera said:
Biggy Stardust said:
3- how does a large number of LLs cause a problem? It's the opposite of an oligopoly and allows the market to function better. How many is excessive & what would be a better system? (One which works & is possible, just to narrow the range of answers you might produce.)
I see you've completely ignored reasons 1 and 2.But on 3 - an excess of BTL investors (typically with more capital than a FTB) stokes demand and squeezes out FTBers that could otherwise afford to buy, forcing them to now rent. This isn't an even remotely contentious point, it's established fact. Hence the government and treasury have pulled various levers to dampen BTL demand.
As for 3, thinking LLs wish to outbid FTBs is foolish; why spend more than necessary? I bought cheap places that needed work, doing the work that FTBs didn't seem to want to do. I suspect I'm not unique in this.
So if we get rid of all the btl landlords, where will those that cant get a mortgage live?
Or those wishing to rent to save for a deposit, or those that don't need or want to rent?
All of my tenants have been in those groups.
Landlords provide an invaluable service.
They offer homes for people to live in.
They are not the cause of the problem.
There are not enough homes.
That is the problem.
By pushing landlords out you are just reshaping the problem.
Or those wishing to rent to save for a deposit, or those that don't need or want to rent?
All of my tenants have been in those groups.
Landlords provide an invaluable service.
They offer homes for people to live in.
They are not the cause of the problem.
There are not enough homes.
That is the problem.
By pushing landlords out you are just reshaping the problem.
Biggy Stardust said:
Olivera said:
Biggy Stardust said:
3- how does a large number of LLs cause a problem? It's the opposite of an oligopoly and allows the market to function better. How many is excessive & what would be a better system? (One which works & is possible, just to narrow the range of answers you might produce.)
I see you've completely ignored reasons 1 and 2.But on 3 - an excess of BTL investors (typically with more capital than a FTB) stokes demand and squeezes out FTBers that could otherwise afford to buy, forcing them to now rent. This isn't an even remotely contentious point, it's established fact. Hence the government and treasury have pulled various levers to dampen BTL demand.
As for 3, thinking LLs wish to outbid FTBs is foolish; why spend more than necessary? I bought cheap places that needed work, doing the work that FTBs didn't seem to want to do. I suspect I'm not unique in this.
The problems are 1 and 2.
700,000 net immigration per annum and we don’t even build enough houses - 200,000 - to house newcomers, never mind fix the existing shortage.
philv said:
So if we get rid of all the btl landlords, where will those that cant get a mortgage live?
Or those wishing to rent to save for a deposit, or those that don't need or want to rent?
All of my tenants have been in those groups.
Landlords provide an invaluable service.
They offer homes for people to live in.
They are not the cause of the problem.
There are not enough homes.
That is the problem.
By pushing landlords out you are just reshaping the problem.
“ Saving for a £ deposit whilst renting “ seriously ??
Or those wishing to rent to save for a deposit, or those that don't need or want to rent?
All of my tenants have been in those groups.
Landlords provide an invaluable service.
They offer homes for people to live in.
They are not the cause of the problem.
There are not enough homes.
That is the problem.
By pushing landlords out you are just reshaping the problem.
“ Saving for a £ deposit whilst renting “ seriously ??
Killboy said:
But thats the thing with "investments", it’s about weathering the storms and managing risks. Right now may not be a great time to be a landlord, but there are times when it has been. If you have an interest only BTL mortgage too you cant really complain either. The only thing protecting a large amount of these "businessmen" is the lack of supply and the high cost of getting on the market for first time buyers.
Lol yeah managing risk. I still don’t understand how any functioning adult can burn a carpet with an iron multiple times, just mad.It’s why all my BTL are now short term/ corporate let, the risk of AST is not reflected in the return.
So when you have rid us of all the hated landlords, what will happen with all the flats no one wants to buy but will happily live in? You know the Victorian conversions with odd layouts, the ones above a shop etc.
Edited by nikaiyo2 on Wednesday 24th April 21:57
Killboy said:
nikaiyo2 said:
I dont think anyone is suggesting that Landlords should be protected from anything other than perhaps more well meant but idiotic legislation.
The problem Elise98 was illustrating was that when one can earn 5% risk and hassle free why would anyone in their right mind choose to make 5.5% from an investment that is fraught with risk and attracts the hatred of so many, its the only place the justice system penalizes those who are stolen from.
But thats the thing with "investments", its about weathering the storms and managing risks. Right now may not be a great time to be a landlord, but there are times when it has been. If you have an interest only BTL mortgage too you cant really complain either. The only thing protecting a large amount of these "businessmen" is the lack of supply and the high cost of getting on the market for first time buyers.The problem Elise98 was illustrating was that when one can earn 5% risk and hassle free why would anyone in their right mind choose to make 5.5% from an investment that is fraught with risk and attracts the hatred of so many, its the only place the justice system penalizes those who are stolen from.
That storm is now starting to self correct by rising rents due to a lack of supply. They have gone mental I'm my area going up about 30% in the space of a few years.
Otispunkmeyer said:
98elise said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Astonishingly, the Green MP suggestion of a minimum EPC "C" rating, actually sounds quite sensible.
What happens if you're a tenant in a property that cannot easily be bought up to C?The cheapest area for renting in my town is mostly victorian 2 up 2 downs. Almost impossible to bring them up to a C without major work,which will not be recovered by the landlord.
Then you have flats. There you don't even have the right to make changes to the fabric of the building.
You've also go to factor in that adding insulation into the fabric of a building that wasn't designed for it, comes with its own problems.
As I said before I have reasonably modern properties with modern heating, double glazing, and loft insulation. They are D. To get to C the EPC suggests installing insulation in the floor, which is a concrete slab!
The government rolled back on their plans for EPC C as they could see what was going to happen.
On the face of it, a decent proposal but yeah the realities of doing it practically sound like a headache.
Maybe this raises the question of the existing housing stock not being fit for purpose when viewed exclusively through an energy efficiency lens. But that is as expected. Houses built 100 years ago were built with standards and technology of the time, they can't be expected to meet todays standards. I guess we'd be getting into a "knock it all down and start over" as the most practicable answer then! (and I am no fan of modern new build house design. They're awful. Give me mid-century modern with its massive heat releasing windows!).
To put that in context my brother has just moved into a new build. It has a modulating boiler, smart controls, tiny rads and of course thick insulation. It's EPC B.
maz8062 said:
Olivera said:
nickfrog said:
What's your source for this pearl of wisdom?
My source is the oft posted on PH simpleton statement of: 'I'm selling up my BTLs, that's X less rental properties available'. This is self evidently nonsense because:a) Some may be bought by other landlords, so they will remain as rentals
b) If they are sold to buyers then this will (somewhere along the chain) allow renters to transition to buyers. So there may be less rental stock, but there is an equal reduction in the number of renters.
What do you think has happened to the cost of rent from the time that my landlord put the flat up for sale til it was sold? Up 50% from £1250 to £1800 per month. I’m lucky that I no longer have to rent, but I can’t see how landlords selling up will help renters in the long run. It’ll simply create increased demand resulting in higher rents. Higher rents mean folk will have to pay a larger percentage of their income on rent. Not good.
Landlords are an easy target. Politicians don’t have to deal with the fall out with these policies, the homelessness, the clogged court system. But vowing to do something about those “unscrupulous landlords” is a vote winner for the clueless, the same clueless that will complain about the unintended consequences without having the gumption to realise it.
Oh well…
andy43 said:
Vast majority of tenants I’ve met/housed will not or more likely cannot get a mortgage. Most fail their credit checks. I’ve only known three tenants in ten years buy their own homes. The concept of a house just moving to being owned instead of rented might work in your head, but in the real world there are families who need somewhere to live.
I’m about to advertise a 3 bed semi that I’ve spent a few months refurbing after my only sub-human tenants to date were evicted. It’s the only 3 bed available to rent in the entire postcode area. I’ve been advised that because of basic supply and demand the market rent is now 30% higher than it was two years ago. That’s what you get when you mess with the housing market. By all means bring in C Epc ratings, licences, no guarantors, but when there’s already hotels full of families it might not turn out very well.
Exactly and Labour fully support it. Can’t see the unintended consequences neither of them! I’m about to advertise a 3 bed semi that I’ve spent a few months refurbing after my only sub-human tenants to date were evicted. It’s the only 3 bed available to rent in the entire postcode area. I’ve been advised that because of basic supply and demand the market rent is now 30% higher than it was two years ago. That’s what you get when you mess with the housing market. By all means bring in C Epc ratings, licences, no guarantors, but when there’s already hotels full of families it might not turn out very well.
andy43 said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Olivera said:
Biggy Stardust said:
3- how does a large number of LLs cause a problem? It's the opposite of an oligopoly and allows the market to function better. How many is excessive & what would be a better system? (One which works & is possible, just to narrow the range of answers you might produce.)
I see you've completely ignored reasons 1 and 2.But on 3 - an excess of BTL investors (typically with more capital than a FTB) stokes demand and squeezes out FTBers that could otherwise afford to buy, forcing them to now rent. This isn't an even remotely contentious point, it's established fact. Hence the government and treasury have pulled various levers to dampen BTL demand.
As for 3, thinking LLs wish to outbid FTBs is foolish; why spend more than necessary? I bought cheap places that needed work, doing the work that FTBs didn't seem to want to do. I suspect I'm not unique in this.
The problems are 1 and 2.
700,000 net immigration per annum and we don’t even build enough houses - 200,000 - to house newcomers, never mind fix the existing shortage.
philv said:
So if we get rid of all the btl landlords, where will those that cant get a mortgage live?
Or those wishing to rent to save for a deposit, or those that don't need or want to rent?
All of my tenants have been in those groups.
Landlords provide an invaluable service.
They offer homes for people to live in.
They are not the cause of the problem.
There are not enough homes.
That is the problem.
By pushing landlords out you are just reshaping the problem.
That’s the councils problem and unless they are secretly building council houses they will be in hotels or on the streets. What other options are there? The banks aren’t suddenly going to say yeah you couldn’t get a mortgage 2 years ago renting but now you can’t rent we will suddenly give you a mortgage to buy. Or those wishing to rent to save for a deposit, or those that don't need or want to rent?
All of my tenants have been in those groups.
Landlords provide an invaluable service.
They offer homes for people to live in.
They are not the cause of the problem.
There are not enough homes.
That is the problem.
By pushing landlords out you are just reshaping the problem.
andy43 said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Olivera said:
Biggy Stardust said:
3- how does a large number of LLs cause a problem? It's the opposite of an oligopoly and allows the market to function better. How many is excessive & what would be a better system? (One which works & is possible, just to narrow the range of answers you might produce.)
I see you've completely ignored reasons 1 and 2.But on 3 - an excess of BTL investors (typically with more capital than a FTB) stokes demand and squeezes out FTBers that could otherwise afford to buy, forcing them to now rent. This isn't an even remotely contentious point, it's established fact. Hence the government and treasury have pulled various levers to dampen BTL demand.
As for 3, thinking LLs wish to outbid FTBs is foolish; why spend more than necessary? I bought cheap places that needed work, doing the work that FTBs didn't seem to want to do. I suspect I'm not unique in this.
The problems are 1 and 2.
700,000 net immigration per annum and we don’t even build enough houses - 200,000 - to house newcomers, never mind fix the existing shortage.
BUT
Less rentals in the market will have an impact and push up prices?
Why on earth does increased competition not drive up house prices, but it does push up rentals? This is very strange economics at play here... When there is no interest in those rundown places is it perhaps because the price is too high for FTBers compared to the price you were willing to pay as a LL was? If you didn't buy it the price would fall more until it gets to the point the market supporters, which would be cheaper than what you paid. So the house price is increased artificially by you buying. Then you need to make profit, including enough to cover risk of damage from a bad renter and paying tax. So you make the purchase price higher, reducing the number of properties available to rent - sorry, buy - and the person renting because they couldn't afford to buy also pays down your costs and profits.
There's a reason all the LL's completely ignored this post:
ATG said:
White-Noise said:
It's a serious problem. Landlords are moving out of the rental market increasingly due to the changes being made and its helping push rents up. Folks can't afford to rent let alone buy. A lot of people are not laughing on both sides.
It's shifting the key problem around, not making it worse. If you make BTL less attractive you are increasing the supply of property for FTBers. The key problem underlying the cost of rent and the cost of purchase is that there are too many people chasing too few homes. The solution is to make more homes available and that isn't something that BTLers generally do (i.e. they don't create new homes). The specific problem caused by too much BTL is that it drives the overall cost of homes up as BTLers are extracting rent from the system in what is effectively a credit arbitrage. BTLers can use their better credit rating to out-compete FTBers, so the would-be FTBers remains tennants and end up financing the mortgages that the lenders weren't prepared to extend to them directly. The BTLers effectively are just sitting in the middle being overpaid to provide credit guarantees to the lenders.ATG said:
andy43 said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Olivera said:
Biggy Stardust said:
3- how does a large number of LLs cause a problem? It's the opposite of an oligopoly and allows the market to function better. How many is excessive & what would be a better system? (One which works & is possible, just to narrow the range of answers you might produce.)
I see you've completely ignored reasons 1 and 2.But on 3 - an excess of BTL investors (typically with more capital than a FTB) stokes demand and squeezes out FTBers that could otherwise afford to buy, forcing them to now rent. This isn't an even remotely contentious point, it's established fact. Hence the government and treasury have pulled various levers to dampen BTL demand.
As for 3, thinking LLs wish to outbid FTBs is foolish; why spend more than necessary? I bought cheap places that needed work, doing the work that FTBs didn't seem to want to do. I suspect I'm not unique in this.
The problems are 1 and 2.
700,000 net immigration per annum and we don’t even build enough houses - 200,000 - to house newcomers, never mind fix the existing shortage.
I don't know any Landlord that would pay over the odds for a property. The last thing you want is to be buying a property with a lot of interest in iit. You want a simple offer > acceptance > exchange > complete. Mine were all bought on a single offer, and no way I over paid (they needed work).
When I bought my first one there were 3 identical properties for sale in the same street. If someone else was offering on the one I bought, I would have simply bought one of the others, or one of the 5 or 6 I was considering elsewhere.
Despite my earlier post I do find a lot of the stuff mentioned in the new suggested legislation stupid. I'd more focus on stuff to try and increase house building. Without looking into all the details (and possibly finding issues in them) I'd do stuff like tax empty properties with a higher tax to reduce the number being sat on empty. I'd put a tax that increases with time on land being sat on by developers which they are not building on but by owning are stopping others building there. Say after 1 year tax at value A, after 2 years value Ax2 and so on. That means if you buy to develop immediately it is fine, if you buy to just sit on it for ages you'll get a lot of expenses so it's not worth it.
98elise said:
Therefore every FTB that buys has outbid a BTL landlord?
I don't know any Landlord that would pay over the odds for a property. The last thing you want is to be buying a property with a lot of interest in iit. You want a simple offer > acceptance > exchange > complete. Mine were all bought on a single offer, and no way I over paid (they needed work).
When I bought my first one there were 3 identical properties for sale in the same street. If someone else was offering on the one I bought, I would have simply bought one of the others, or one of the 5 or 6 I was considering elsewhere.
No one is saying you pay over the odds as such. But if you never bid the price would have gone lower, and if there was not other BTL people in the market that price would fall until the FTB with the highest budget for that properly could win it. You were more competition for the houses you bought meaning the price was higher. I don't get why all the LLs on here are acutely aware of that more competition drivers up prices in the rental prices, yet believe that it does not apply to their buying houses! I don't know any Landlord that would pay over the odds for a property. The last thing you want is to be buying a property with a lot of interest in iit. You want a simple offer > acceptance > exchange > complete. Mine were all bought on a single offer, and no way I over paid (they needed work).
When I bought my first one there were 3 identical properties for sale in the same street. If someone else was offering on the one I bought, I would have simply bought one of the others, or one of the 5 or 6 I was considering elsewhere.
Hundred of new builds round my way in nice areas that are unsold. Build stages are even being scaled back as they havent sold enough.
3 mile radius on Rightmove shows about 75 houses for sale.
Housing shortage? Affordability maybe but houses are never going to be cheap dispite how many fields get houses crammed into them.
BTL isn't worth the stress these days. Most people I know have offloaded them now.
3 mile radius on Rightmove shows about 75 houses for sale.
Housing shortage? Affordability maybe but houses are never going to be cheap dispite how many fields get houses crammed into them.
BTL isn't worth the stress these days. Most people I know have offloaded them now.
The Renters Reform Bill will be the next thing to reduce supply and push rents up.
Restricting the use of Section 21 sounds makes a great headline (grr landlords!) but doesn’t stack up in reality.
The majority of Section 21's are issued because a tenant is causing issues, not because the landlord is out for some sort of revenge.
If a tenant stops paying the rent then you can go down the Section 8 route however its a minefield for the Landlord, takes forever, and is easily manipulated by the tenant. You can't even start for two months (which is easily manipulated to three). That's why landlords will issue a section 21 in parallel, because its simply a notice to get the property back. If the Section 8 gets strung out, the Section 21 cuts in.
On another forum I read there was a Landlord saying he was going through Section 8 for non payment of rent, but the tenant was now claiming that payments had been made in cash. The judge sided with the tenant!
The one and only Section 8 (+Section 21) I had to do cost me about £10k all in. Without the Section 21 it would have been much more.
Restricting the use of Section 21 sounds makes a great headline (grr landlords!) but doesn’t stack up in reality.
The majority of Section 21's are issued because a tenant is causing issues, not because the landlord is out for some sort of revenge.
If a tenant stops paying the rent then you can go down the Section 8 route however its a minefield for the Landlord, takes forever, and is easily manipulated by the tenant. You can't even start for two months (which is easily manipulated to three). That's why landlords will issue a section 21 in parallel, because its simply a notice to get the property back. If the Section 8 gets strung out, the Section 21 cuts in.
On another forum I read there was a Landlord saying he was going through Section 8 for non payment of rent, but the tenant was now claiming that payments had been made in cash. The judge sided with the tenant!
The one and only Section 8 (+Section 21) I had to do cost me about £10k all in. Without the Section 21 it would have been much more.
nikaiyo2 said:
So when you have his rid of all the hated landlords, what will happen with all the flats no one wants to by but will happily live in? You know the Victorian conversions with odd layouts, the ones above a shop etc.
The price is reflected by that, they are cheap and become as affordable for people to buy and get on the ladder? After they magically more attractive because landlords are such a positive thing for renters?
philv said:
So if we get rid of all the btl landlords, where will those that cant get a mortgage live?
Or those wishing to rent to save for a deposit, or those that don't need or want to rent?
All of my tenants have been in those groups.
Landlords provide an invaluable service.
They offer homes for people to live in.
They are not the cause of the problem.
There are not enough homes.
That is the problem.
By pushing landlords out you are just reshaping the problem.
Or those wishing to rent to save for a deposit, or those that don't need or want to rent?
All of my tenants have been in those groups.
Landlords provide an invaluable service.
They offer homes for people to live in.
They are not the cause of the problem.
There are not enough homes.
That is the problem.
By pushing landlords out you are just reshaping the problem.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff