Rental market is utterly broken

[Biggy Stardust]

KTMsm said:

It's like the current situation where the Council won't rehome people until they are literally thrown out by court order, despite in many cases them having not paid rent for months

The rules ought to be fair to both parties

Councils actively encourage tenants to fight perfectly legal evictions, sometimes even providing solicitors to fight for them (unlawful use of council funds).

The LL has to be seen to behave perfectly & can still lose even when the tenants are seen to be absolute sts. And yet the baying mob demand more rights for tenants & are then amazed that fewer & fewer want to do BTL any more, resulting in shortages & rent rises.

[KTMsm]

ATG said:

It's still got nothing to do with building houses

There is no shortage of farm land in the UK

We have only built on a small percentage of our land and we only need a modest increase to provide the housing we need.

It does

It can't even support the current population so I suggest there is a shortage, admittedly it isn't being used properly, mostly due to years of EU membership and cheap imports

We would be better served re using what we have and relocating businesses, a few need to be in major cities but a huge percentage don't

However I'll play along - exactly how many people do we need to build houses for and how many acres will that need ?

And how many acres to set aside for the next 100 years ?

[anonymous-user]

KTMsm said:

ATG said:

It's still got nothing to do with building houses

There is no shortage of farm land in the UK

We have only built on a small percentage of our land and we only need a modest increase to provide the housing we need.

It does

It can't even support the current population so I suggest there is a shortage, admittedly it isn't being used properly, mostly due to years of EU membership and cheap imports

We would be better served re using what we have and relocating businesses, a few need to be in major cities but a huge percentage don't

However I'll play along - exactly how many people do we need to build houses for and how many acres will that need ?

And how many acres to set aside for the next 100 years ?

So we build on 1000s acres of farmland, no doubt increasing flooding and then have 1000s acres less land to grow food to feed people. We're then back to relying more on Imported food. This country simply cannot feed itself, even if push comes to shove like 1939.

As a side not the rental market is a nightmare from both sides. I rent out one flat, it was a derelict space above a shop, I added to the housing stock rather than taking a home from private ownership. I totally rebuilt the place, everything new, warm, clean and efficient. 1st tenant is down on rent by a month and has been consistently for 6 months, has ignored a damp patch that's appeared and dodged inspection visits for months so now I've plaster ro repair rather than repaint after fixing leak. Whilst down on rent has asked for permission to paint bedroom, is now probably miffed I've said no as feel the £50 of paint could go towards rent arrears. I'm a decent guy, haven't hassled her or the agent over late rent, just asked its made up over x months and provided a clean, warm and safe home at a sensible rent but am still asked for more

[Puzzles]

Only something like 9% of England is built on.

[hellorent]

LF5335 said:

You should always increase rents annually even if it’s a nominal £25pm. It just makes it known to the tenants that rent rises annually, rather than then getting used to it being static then injecting massively at any rise. It also helps to remove the need for larger increases.

Maybe that's the reason you don't have very good tenants.

[AdamV12V]

98elise said:

AdamV12V said:

If anyone is interested my brother and I are selling up our portfolio of BTL properties. We have one left which is on the market now, in Leeds, Hunslet area.

Its generating a gross yield of 14.7% on the latest rent increase. We are selling as we never intended to become landlords, properties were inherited and now be both would like the cash out for home renovation projects.

PM me for more details, if you are interested. I wont post the link here for obvious reasons.

Regards

If mine were 14% I'd be buying more, not selling! Are they older properties?

Its one property, split into 5 flats. Each flat had individual access and services, so not an HMO. I'm not sure of the age, Id say 1920's give or take a decade. Typical Leeds brick through-terrace property over 3 floors, front bay window etc... We had 3 others all single rent properties but all of these have sold now, ironically although they are lower prices, they had much lower yields. I actually expected this one to sell first as it was the powerhouse of the portfolio generating the majority of income and had the highest yield, but it also is a much bigger property than the others which were single rent back to back terrace houses.

Hunslet isn't a great area but it certainly is what it is in terms of income/turnover. 5 flats generate 5 rents, but we are selling it as a whole house as its one title. The gross yield is 14.7%, net income is obviously less than this as agents commission, repairs etc... but it makes money. We both want the capital out for own home extension / renovations rather than a long term income, which was never an investment choice - it was inherrited.

If you are serious and interested in buying then please PM.

I am only mentioning here as I post a fair bit on PH, far more so on the Homes/Gardens DIY threads these days than I do on the Aston forum, but I assure you everything is above board and we are genuine sellers for a genuine reason and the yield can be demonstrated and backed up with a conversation with our estate agent, who hasn't managed to muster up a buyer since we listed it a few months ago.

Regards

Edited by AdamV12V on Thursday 23 May 20:20

[LooneyTunes]

AdamV12V said:

Its one property, split into 5 flats...

The gross yield is 14.7%, net income is obviously less than this as agents commission, repairs etc...

our estate agent, who hasn't managed to muster up a buyer since we listed it a few months ago.

Sounds like you're being more realistic on price than a similar (but larger) equivalent near me that has been on the market for nearly two years (priced to generate a ~6% gross yield and not repriced since interest rates shot up ) but the market for these probably isn't going to be great with GE looming.

[JagLover]

Puzzles said:

Only something like 9% of England is built on.

Though England is one of the most densely populated developed countries in the world excluding the city states.

and some of us like having access to green space, and recognise the strategic importance of being able to grow our own food if need be, so the globalist dream of one densely packed mega city has limited appeal.

[LF5335]

hellorent said:

LF5335 said:

You should always increase rents annually even if it’s a nominal £25pm. It just makes it known to the tenants that rent rises annually, rather than then getting used to it being static then injecting massively at any rise. It also helps to remove the need for larger increases.

Maybe that's the reason you don't have very good tenants.

Yes, I’m sure that Bank of England thinks exactly the same that’s why interest rates have never increased ever.

[DonkeyApple]

KTMsm said:

In the same way as we should have our own steel manufacturing and energy etc

I'm not saying we have to live on it, but there should be enough, that we could, if we needed to

You only have to look at recent events to see that even in a "united europe" as soon as there is a real issue, countries put their own interests first

Because otherwise we are at risk of being screwed over as we have been and still are !

Which type of steel should we be self sufficient in or how many of the types required should we be? And what form of legislation do we use to force U.K. consumers to pay a higher price every single day just incase every raw material factory outside of the U.K. decides to stop selling?

It's a serious question. Same goes for all raw materials. Why has steel been singled out? Well, we know why, because it's another 'coal', an overly politicised object that is used by a section of society to try and prove that they are being deliberately oppressed by people they don't like.

Frankly, if the word 'British' had never been put in front of half of these industries then far fewer people would have been triggered. It's why the Swedish scammers put that word in front of their battery scam and also why they picked the North of England as their primary pool of pensioners to rinse out.

Self sufficiency is generally a flawed argument by those with a siege mentality. Do what you like over the borders and if someone gets uppity then retreat behind the walls. What's actually important is to be exporting what your trade partners need so as to have an intelligent quid pro quo or mutually assured loss of revenue.

A policy of growing enough potatoes and smelting enough iron ore so that you can have arguments with foreigners has never been proven to be sensible in the history books. A really good example for jingoists to wrap their head around is how Britain would have got the US troops needed for the land invasion of mainland Europe if LendLease hadn't fuelled and created the US manufacturing output required. Or consider, just for an instant, why the British steel industry was wound down 30 years ago as the types of steel the U.K. required domestically changed rapidly, overseas factories became substantially cheaper and we sought to open trade paths around the wider world. Why would having spent the last 30 years forcing U.K. consumers to pay huge premiums for their goods while U.K. Plc incurred lower amounts of foreign currency ever have been a sane idea?

The fact that this blue collar argument to die young and make loss making raw materials and products versus living longer but making sandwiches is seemingly being tied into the belief that population growth, ie immigrants are the reason why there are too few affordable properties in the SE but plenty out in the regions along with nearly 500k empty homes at any one time is a bit depressing and part of why the issue hasn't been tackled over the last 20 years as those who could have done so have instead pandered to the loud mouths and their blame culture. It's the same with the 'it's all the fault of a few people who have holiday homes'.

It's about balance and logic. Right now it looks like the three decade failure of local authorities to maintain suitable growth in the supply of affordable homes has finally been brought to boiling point by a recent modest change. To blame that recent change is silly as everyone knows and can see it is merely highlighting thirty years of constant failure.

Ultimately, we all know you can't have such low calibre people in charge of such large sums of money. Any more than you can allow local people to dictate what is ultimately a matter of absolute national importance. The parochial children have failed and the only solution is for adults to step in and take over and for them to start delivering the most basic, affordable properties where it is needed to halt the pressure at the bottom end of the private market. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem higher up with mobility etc as there clearly is but by far the greatest problem and the easier one to fix is the size of the group right at the bottom being pushed into that next market up due to the failure of there being suitable housing for them. If you fix the problem of the absolute poorest you alleviate the pressures on the economically mobile.

[Earthdweller]

KTMsm said:

It does

It can't even support the current population so I suggest there is a shortage, admittedly it isn't being used properly, mostly due to years of EU membership and cheap imports

We would be better served re using what we have and relocating businesses, a few need to be in major cities but a huge percentage don't

However I'll play along - exactly how many people do we need to build houses for and how many acres will that need ?

And how many acres to set aside for the next 100 years ?

Net inward legal migration last year was 690k .. basically the population of Manchester

In the last three years net inward legal migration was 1.9 million

So that’s 1.9 million people extra people looking for somewhere to live in just three years

[Burrow01]

Earthdweller said:

KTMsm said:

It does

It can't even support the current population so I suggest there is a shortage, admittedly it isn't being used properly, mostly due to years of EU membership and cheap imports

We would be better served re using what we have and relocating businesses, a few need to be in major cities but a huge percentage don't

However I'll play along - exactly how many people do we need to build houses for and how many acres will that need ?

And how many acres to set aside for the next 100 years ?

Net inward legal migration last year was 690k .. basically the population of Manchester

In the last three years net inward legal migration was 1.9 million

So that’s 1.9 million people extra people looking for somewhere to live in just three years

Given that 40% of that total are students, and the majority of the remainder are low paid care workers, what is your suggested solution to the increased requirement for low cost housing for them.

[davek_964]

I slept on it - my tenants will be notified today that the rent is going up.

[DonkeyApple]

Earthdweller said:

Net inward legal migration last year was 690k .. basically the population of Manchester

In the last three years net inward legal migration was 1.9 million

So that’s 1.9 million people extra people looking for somewhere to live in just three years

This is the chart you want: https://www.statista.com/statistics/946736/net-mig...

It shows that big squeeze at the bottom of the rental market which in turn has shown up the thirty years of local and national policy failure.

It also shows other interesting things such as the halt of British emigration and the switch to negative of EU citizens.

[BrickCounter]

DonkeyApple said:

Which type of steel should we be self sufficient in or how many of the types required should we be? And what form of legislation do we use to force U.K. consumers to pay a higher price every single day just incase every raw material factory outside of the U.K. decides to stop selling?

It's a serious question. Same goes for all raw materials. Why has steel been singled out? Well, we know why, because it's another 'coal', an overly politicised object that is used by a section of society to try and prove that they are being deliberately oppressed by people they don't like.

Frankly, if the word 'British' had never been put in front of half of these industries then far fewer people would have been triggered. It's why the Swedish scammers put that word in front of their battery scam and also why they picked the North of England as their primary pool of pensioners to rinse out.

Self sufficiency is generally a flawed argument by those with a siege mentality. Do what you like over the borders and if someone gets uppity then retreat behind the walls. What's actually important is to be exporting what your trade partners need so as to have an intelligent quid pro quo or mutually assured loss of revenue.

A policy of growing enough potatoes and smelting enough iron ore so that you can have arguments with foreigners has never been proven to be sensible in the history books. A really good example for jingoists to wrap their head around is how Britain would have got the US troops needed for the land invasion of mainland Europe if LendLease hadn't fuelled and created the US manufacturing output required. Or consider, just for an instant, why the British steel industry was wound down 30 years ago as the types of steel the U.K. required domestically changed rapidly, overseas factories became substantially cheaper and we sought to open trade paths around the wider world. Why would having spent the last 30 years forcing U.K. consumers to pay huge premiums for their goods while U.K. Plc incurred lower amounts of foreign currency ever have been a sane idea?

The fact that this blue collar argument to die young and make loss making raw materials and products versus living longer but making sandwiches is seemingly being tied into the belief that population growth, ie immigrants are the reason why there are too few affordable properties in the SE but plenty out in the regions along with nearly 500k empty homes at any one time is a bit depressing and part of why the issue hasn't been tackled over the last 20 years as those who could have done so have instead pandered to the loud mouths and their blame culture. It's the same with the 'it's all the fault of a few people who have holiday homes'.

It's about balance and logic. Right now it looks like the three decade failure of local authorities to maintain suitable growth in the supply of affordable homes has finally been brought to boiling point by a recent modest change. To blame that recent change is silly as everyone knows and can see it is merely highlighting thirty years of constant failure.

Ultimately, we all know you can't have such low calibre people in charge of such large sums of money. Any more than you can allow local people to dictate what is ultimately a matter of absolute national importance. The parochial children have failed and the only solution is for adults to step in and take over and for them to start delivering the most basic, affordable properties where it is needed to halt the pressure at the bottom end of the private market. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem higher up with mobility etc as there clearly is but by far the greatest problem and the easier one to fix is the size of the group right at the bottom being pushed into that next market up due to the failure of there being suitable housing for them. If you fix the problem of the absolute poorest you alleviate the pressures on the economically mobile.

To give credit to Donkey Apple that’s a really interesting post. Certainly thought provoking, and not judgemental to any side.

As a small landlord, I do agree though that the rental market is completely ludicrous. I’m not sure how we fix it though.

[davek_964]

Rental market is broken - rental agencies are even more broken.

Despite emailing me in Feb suggesting that I increase the rent by 5% on the one year anniversary in April (which I declined) - my request now to increase the rent was met with utter confusion. I may as well have asked them to make the sky turn green.

[LF5335]

davek_964 said:

Rental market is broken - rental agencies are even more broken.

Despite emailing me in Feb suggesting that I increase the rent by 5% on the one year anniversary in April (which I declined) - my request now to increase the rent was met with utter confusion. I may as well have asked them to make the sky turn green.

Because it’s a strange time to increase rents. Annually on the anniversary with a few months notice of your intention is the norm, rather a panicky “OMGZ there’s an election date set. Aaaarrrggghhhhh Labour”.

[Puzzles]

JagLover said:

Puzzles said:

Only something like 9% of England is built on.

Though England is one of the most densely populated developed countries in the world excluding the city states.

and some of us like having access to green space, and recognise the strategic importance of being able to grow our own food if need be, so the globalist dream of one densely packed mega city has limited appeal.

Yes green spaces are important, but I want quality green spaces.

I'm not sure going from 9% to say 11% is going to make a noticeable difference to that, plus we are crying out for homes.

[davek_964]

LF5335 said:

davek_964 said:

Rental market is broken - rental agencies are even more broken.

Despite emailing me in Feb suggesting that I increase the rent by 5% on the one year anniversary in April (which I declined) - my request now to increase the rent was met with utter confusion. I may as well have asked them to make the sky turn green.

Because it’s a strange time to increase rents. Annually on the anniversary with a few months notice of your intention is the norm, rather a panicky “OMGZ there’s an election date set. Aaaarrrggghhhhh Labour”.

Perhaps.

On the other hand, the tenancy agreement clearly states that it can be increased on the anniversary, or - if the landlord decides - any time after that.

It's hardly rocket science - it's plain in black and white.

[ThingsBehindTheSun]

davek_964 said:

Rental market is broken - rental agencies are even more broken.

Mine are fking useless. After my tenants had been there for a year they didn't want to sign another contract so my agent suggested just going over to the periodic monthly agreement. They have been there nearly seven years now, this makes getting rent increases a nightmare as usually you would just increase it a few percent each year. Letting them go to the periodic agreement was the worst advice from the agent ever.

It also means re-mortgaging is difficult as the new mortgage company want to see the signed lease. As soon as they see it was signed seven years ago they want all sorts of written guarantees from the tenants/agent/landlord which are impossible to get as the agent never replies to any emails or phone calls.

Add on top of that they never do the property inspections despite it being in the contract that I signed.

There were a few times that the rent has been late, the agent didn't even bother letting me know. It was only after I hounded them with emails and calls for days did they finally decide to chase the tenants.

The only reason I don't kick off more is that I rarely get any hassle from the tenants. It seems like we are in an unwritten agreement that in return for under market rent they will not cause a fuss.

If/when they move out it will be new agent, market rent and signed tenancy agreement with increases each year.

If it wasn't for the capital gains to pay I would seriously think about selling it.