Buy to let unethical ?
Discussion
skwdenyer said:
Gold dust or idiots? All that investment of time and money for an AST? No security of tenure if you decide to sell up? No security of tenure if you don't pay your mortgage.
It would be great if we could wind back ASTs, restore security of tenure, and encourage tenants to treat properties as their own. But otherwise...
Mortgated AST BTLs (that provide less security to occupants than an owner-occupier's mortgage) are what created the bubble, along with allowing "no money down schemes" (I know someone with >1000 such properties "bought" during the "good times"), and permitting every nation on earth to compete against owner-occupiers to buy properties.
There was always a market for rentals, and a stock of them, under rules that actually met social objectives.
In answer to the OP, IMHO there's nothign immoral about doing what is legal; there may have been something immoral about making it legal in the first place...
To be fair, you don't really sound as if you know very much about what you're droning on about, but just out of interest, what do you think of this.......It would be great if we could wind back ASTs, restore security of tenure, and encourage tenants to treat properties as their own. But otherwise...
Mortgated AST BTLs (that provide less security to occupants than an owner-occupier's mortgage) are what created the bubble, along with allowing "no money down schemes" (I know someone with >1000 such properties "bought" during the "good times"), and permitting every nation on earth to compete against owner-occupiers to buy properties.
There was always a market for rentals, and a stock of them, under rules that actually met social objectives.
In answer to the OP, IMHO there's nothign immoral about doing what is legal; there may have been something immoral about making it legal in the first place...
https://homesforgood.org.uk
ETA: Susan (who is the force majeure behind homesforgood) buys 4 or 5 properties a month to add to her roster.
Edited by drainbrain on Tuesday 26th September 16:58
drainbrain said:
skwdenyer said:
Gold dust or idiots? All that investment of time and money for an AST? No security of tenure if you decide to sell up? No security of tenure if you don't pay your mortgage.
It would be great if we could wind back ASTs, restore security of tenure, and encourage tenants to treat properties as their own. But otherwise...
Mortgated AST BTLs (that provide less security to occupants than an owner-occupier's mortgage) are what created the bubble, along with allowing "no money down schemes" (I know someone with >1000 such properties "bought" during the "good times"), and permitting every nation on earth to compete against owner-occupiers to buy properties.
There was always a market for rentals, and a stock of them, under rules that actually met social objectives.
In answer to the OP, IMHO there's nothign immoral about doing what is legal; there may have been something immoral about making it legal in the first place...
To be fair, you don't really sound as if you know very much about what you're droning on about, but just out of interest, what do you think of this.......It would be great if we could wind back ASTs, restore security of tenure, and encourage tenants to treat properties as their own. But otherwise...
Mortgated AST BTLs (that provide less security to occupants than an owner-occupier's mortgage) are what created the bubble, along with allowing "no money down schemes" (I know someone with >1000 such properties "bought" during the "good times"), and permitting every nation on earth to compete against owner-occupiers to buy properties.
There was always a market for rentals, and a stock of them, under rules that actually met social objectives.
In answer to the OP, IMHO there's nothign immoral about doing what is legal; there may have been something immoral about making it legal in the first place...
https://homesforgood.org.uk
ETA: Susan (who is the force majeure behind homesforgood) buys 4 or 5 properties a month to add to her roster.
My point about tenure is of course not something that will be welcome to many existing landlords. BTL properties have become fairly liquid investments, when in the past they were anything but - properties sold with sitting tenants (who had security of tenure), often at a discount to the market price for those with vacant possession, at a price reflecting the rental yield and risks. Just like commercial properties, in fact, and specifically like those with a lease "inside the Act."
In my view, it is in society's interests that people should be able to put down roots, to know that - if they keep paying their mortgage or their rent - that they remain in their homes. That they can invest in their communities. That they can contribute to social cohesion.
ASTs do not achieve that. No tenant is any more than a few months from being asked to leave. The only way to achieve security is to buy, which is not necessarily attainable. Does it really benefit society to have an underclass (in effect) of people who simply don't have the right to stay in their home despite paying their rent on time?
And, yes, I do see it from another side. I have commercial property that I let out; some on multi-year leases, some on more flexible licences. Of course there's a benefit to being able to hike rents to more closely track a rising market. Isn't that lovely for me? Isn't that a great asset class?
But, you know what, I'd be happy if the "outside the Act" provisions were dropped tomorrow. Because I think it would be better for society if they were. Just as I think it would be better for society if ASTs were scrapped, and residential tenants could stay as long as they paid their rent (and complied with other lease requirements). Because I'd rather live in a more permanent community, rather than one so transient (mostly due to rising rents - good tenants have to leave because their rents go up and up as ASTs are renewed).
I have no doubt that such a change would collapse the value of some BTLs quite a lot. I have no doubt that it would be upsetting to some investors. Those belonging to "investors" who didn't even invest any actual cash - who just signed-up for off-plan deals, their only barrier to entry being their credit rating - would attract little sympathy from me. For the remainder, yes, there would be some pain.
In a wider sense, we have a problem in this country that BTL has been a sure-fire winner for a great many people, so there's little appetite to instead invest in businesses carrying risk and employing people. If we are to have an enterprise culture in the UK, I believe we need to rebalance risk:reward - reward should come with risk. There has been so little risk in BTL, it has just helped to create some really odd distortions.
Anyhow, I'm obviously droning on. I'm well aware my views on this topic aren't widely-held or wildly popular
skwdenyer said:
In a wider sense, we have a problem in this country that BTL has been a sure-fire winner for a great many people, so there's little appetite to instead invest in businesses carrying risk and employing people .
Addressing one of the central confusions of your understanding of BTL, assuming it's not something you could say with the certainty of having been at the coal face, how many people do you THINK generate employment from the operation of a 1000 unit residential property portfolio?Hazard a guess.
superlightr said:
but that's the thing - no one wants to live there. So despite there being empty properties they are not in the 'right' location. Whereas in lovely SE where its all roses and sunshine there is a highdemand.I used to work offshore with a guy from the North East. He paid £27,000 for his terraced house, three years ago. Same place would be £100,000 in my west mids county town......
skwdenyer said:
In my view, it is in society's interests
When society pays for it, society can have whatever it wants. It's not getting its way on my tab.skwdenyer said:
I have no doubt that such a change would collapse the value of some BTLs quite a lot.
So I can lose out for your ideals? No thanks.skwdenyer said:
there's little appetite to instead invest in businesses carrying risk and employing people.
So BTL has no risk? Get real.As for not employing people, I've employed electricians, plumbers, plasterers, brickies, labourers, roofers, IFAs, man-with-vans and many others. You either know little or think little.
skwdenyer said:
I'm well aware my views on this topic aren't widely-held or wildly popular
Maybe they're incorrect? I rent in a small eastern coastal town that was in great decline ( not Yarmouth ) and is now slowly on its way up. My landlord has a few properties that he lets out. He has no mortgage on my property and the rent in low enough that I have been here nigh on three years . Rent is low enough that even counting commuting costs to Norwich ( 30 miles), car tax and insurance, there is no financial point in moving . Rent has not gone up in the whole time I have been here. A two bedroom terrace here is around £100K. I live in a 70Sq meter 2 bed edwardian mansion flat with 14 foot ceilings, large patio and a back door onto a blue flag beach for less than I would pay in mortgage payments ( rent is £400pm), especially if interest rates rise.
"Housing benefit has skewed the housing market". Perhaps that only applies in the bigger towns and cities, here there is no lack of housing to either buy or rent- 30 miles from a city that is, if not booming, at least doing well. 20 minute walk to the broads, good bus services, regular trains to Norwich and Ipswich. Nothing wrong with BTL landlords in general but like anything else you might have to go through a few before you find a good one.
Finally, even as politically I would be considered by some to be far, far left, housing is a right, housing in a specific place is not. There is no divine right to living in a particular town, neighbourhood, etc.
) and is now slowly on its way up. My landlord has a few properties that he lets out. He has no mortgage on my property and the rent in low enough that I have been here nigh on three years . Rent is low enough that even counting commuting costs to Norwich ( 30 miles), car tax and insurance, there is no financial point in moving . Rent has not gone up in the whole time I have been here. A two bedroom terrace here is around £100K. I live in a 70Sq meter 2 bed edwardian mansion flat with 14 foot ceilings, large patio and a back door onto a blue flag beach for less than I would pay in mortgage payments ( rent is £400pm), especially if interest rates rise."Housing benefit has skewed the housing market". Perhaps that only applies in the bigger towns and cities, here there is no lack of housing to either buy or rent- 30 miles from a city that is, if not booming, at least doing well. 20 minute walk to the broads, good bus services, regular trains to Norwich and Ipswich. Nothing wrong with BTL landlords in general but like anything else you might have to go through a few before you find a good one.
Finally, even as politically I would be considered by some to be far, far left, housing is a right, housing in a specific place is not. There is no divine right to living in a particular town, neighbourhood, etc.
Rovinghawk said:
skwdenyer said:
In my view, it is in society's interests
When society pays for it, society can have whatever it wants. It's not getting its way on my tab.Rovinghawk said:
skwdenyer said:
I have no doubt that such a change would collapse the value of some BTLs quite a lot.
So I can lose out for your ideals? No thanks.Rovinghawk said:
skwdenyer said:
there's little appetite to instead invest in businesses carrying risk and employing people.
So BTL has no risk? Get real.There may be a risk that you don't make much / any profit, but there's little risk of completely losing your stake. Obviously there are exceptions to that rule (there will always be idiots), but there are vanishingly small numbers of other business investments where, with a modicum of intelligence and listening to advice, you stand to at worse get your original investment back if you bail out.
Rovinghawk said:
As for not employing people, I've employed electricians, plumbers, plasterers, brickies, labourers, roofers, IFAs, man-with-vans and many others. You either know little or think little.
I am struggling to imagine how many of those people would not have been employed in my version of the world. How many of those people are actually unique to the current BTL model (as opposed to property in general)?Rovinghawk said:
skwdenyer said:
I'm well aware my views on this topic aren't widely-held or wildly popular
Maybe they're incorrect?In this country, homes act as 2 things: stores of wealth for those who own them, and places to live. For the latter, IMHO, long-term security is critical to the wider interests of a successful society. For the former, current BTL investors create stores of wealth by (a) out-bidding potential owner-occupiers, and (b) taking renters' money and storing it for their own benefit.
I get why that is beneficial and attractive to those who are in BTL right now. I don't expect many of them to support my view, any more than I would (say) have expected firearms dealers to support ever-tighter gun regulation.
It isn't a universal feeling amongst BTL investors however; why else would the OP have asked the original question?
As the population ages, stores of wealth become more and more important. As a society we should - we must - find ways to encourage and help that to happen - not least because we don't have a plan B. That means we need to make it easier to buy - not by lowering barriers to entry in terms of credit, etc. (we've seen where that gets us), but instead by easing the competition from those who have different objectives. So, again IMHO, that means eliminating BTL in the current model, just as much as it means finding ways to restrict the inward flow of capital from overseas into the UK property market.
World's 5th largest economy or not (and that's really a lie - 9th or 15th are better measures), IMHO we can't have a situation where somebody trying to buy a home has to compete with 1% of China or Russia who want to use property as an asset class. For me, at least, the interests of the population at large usurp anything else.
In 2015, owner-occupiers spent on average 18% of their income on housing; private renters 35%. That surplus value (sorry to borrow a phrase from Marx) is simply creating stored wealth for landlords.
Germany - which is held up often as a paragon of private renting - maintains the security of tenure provisions we used to have until the 1980s/1990s - tenancies are indefinite, selling a property doesn't break the tenancy, and so on. Germany is not held up as a backward, under-invested, third-world country. German privately-owned rented housing is a much larger market thant the UK, so there's little-to-no evidence that it decreased the attractiveness of BTL as an asset class in that country (there will always be those who want an investment that is, literally, safe as houses).
Anyhow, I obviously stumbled into the wrong thread - I took the OP's question at face value, imagining that a conversation about the moral and social issues around BTL was what was expected. As stated, I let out property commercially (commercial not residential), so am not some sort of sandal-wearing lentil-munching marxist who views property as theft. Far from it. But I value what I hope would be a better qualify of society far more.
It's not that these opinions aren't 'liked' or 'not liked' but they are rooted in confusion plus observation of certain londoncentric activity.
Again, let me take one issue. This 'security of tenure' thing.
Imagine, if you will, a corporate entity set up to operate resi rentals or a professional btl'er on ANY scale - just a person who has bought to LET. Not to speculate on property price increases or even to consider property value as of any import to their business plan which is to let that property, be it 1 unit or 100000.
Even in the cartoon world of pistonheads there are such people. They bought property to let. Not to flip or to speculate on. To let.
A tenant comes along. The tenant conducts the tenancy perfectly satisfactorily. WHY do you imagine the landlord would ask them or force them to leave? From your commercial experience (and I am also an owner of let commercial property albeit only a dozen or so units) aren't you rather keener to keep a decent tenant in perpetuity rather than run around trying to think up ways and means to end their tenancies? What makes you think residential landlords don't think the same way?
It's always a shame when a perfectly satisfactory tenancy ends. But it is always (and it's fair to say without exception) THEM and not the landlord, who ends the arrangement.
What makes you think their position is 'insecure'?
Again, let me take one issue. This 'security of tenure' thing.
Imagine, if you will, a corporate entity set up to operate resi rentals or a professional btl'er on ANY scale - just a person who has bought to LET. Not to speculate on property price increases or even to consider property value as of any import to their business plan which is to let that property, be it 1 unit or 100000.
Even in the cartoon world of pistonheads there are such people. They bought property to let. Not to flip or to speculate on. To let.
A tenant comes along. The tenant conducts the tenancy perfectly satisfactorily. WHY do you imagine the landlord would ask them or force them to leave? From your commercial experience (and I am also an owner of let commercial property albeit only a dozen or so units) aren't you rather keener to keep a decent tenant in perpetuity rather than run around trying to think up ways and means to end their tenancies? What makes you think residential landlords don't think the same way?
It's always a shame when a perfectly satisfactory tenancy ends. But it is always (and it's fair to say without exception) THEM and not the landlord, who ends the arrangement.
What makes you think their position is 'insecure'?
Edited by drainbrain on Tuesday 26th September 22:00
drainbrain said:
It's not that these opinions aren't 'liked' or 'not liked' but they are rooted in confusion plus observation of certain londoncentric activity.
Again, let me take one issue. This 'security of tenure' thing.
Imagine, if you will, a corporate entity set up to operate resi rentals or a professional btl'er on ANY scale - just a person who has bought to LET. Not to speculate on property price increases or even to consider property value as of any import to their business plan which is to let that property, be it 1 unit or 100000.
Even in the cartoon world of pistonheads there are such people. They bought property to let. Not to flip or to speculate on. To let.
A tenant comes along. The tenant conducts the tenancy perfectly satisfactorily. WHY do you imagine the landlord would ask them or force them to leave? From your commercial experience (and I am also an owner of let commercial property albeit only a dozen or so units) aren't you rather keener to keep a decent tenant in perpetuity rather than run around trying to think up ways and means to end their tenancies? What makes you think residential landlords don't think the same way?
It's always a shame when a perfectly satisfactory tenancy ends. But it is always (and it's fair to say without exception) THEM and not the landlord, who ends the arrangement.
What makes you think their position is 'insecure'?
This in spades, Corbyn and Co, and that hideous charity shelter need to understand that landlords will only issue eviction notices as a last resort for non paying or disruptive tenants, I.E they bloody deserve it and yet alI I hear is the above harping on about theae poor petals not receiving 10 year tenancies because the big bad landlords will boot them out on the street just because they wake up and fancy spending hundreds evicting just for the sAgain, let me take one issue. This 'security of tenure' thing.
Imagine, if you will, a corporate entity set up to operate resi rentals or a professional btl'er on ANY scale - just a person who has bought to LET. Not to speculate on property price increases or even to consider property value as of any import to their business plan which is to let that property, be it 1 unit or 100000.
Even in the cartoon world of pistonheads there are such people. They bought property to let. Not to flip or to speculate on. To let.
A tenant comes along. The tenant conducts the tenancy perfectly satisfactorily. WHY do you imagine the landlord would ask them or force them to leave? From your commercial experience (and I am also an owner of let commercial property albeit only a dozen or so units) aren't you rather keener to keep a decent tenant in perpetuity rather than run around trying to think up ways and means to end their tenancies? What makes you think residential landlords don't think the same way?
It's always a shame when a perfectly satisfactory tenancy ends. But it is always (and it's fair to say without exception) THEM and not the landlord, who ends the arrangement.
What makes you think their position is 'insecure'?
Edited by drainbrain on Tuesday 26th September 22:00
ts and giggles.I bet only a very small percentage (sub 5%) are for landlord selling up and moving back into the property. If there is no pressing need to get rid of a tenant then landlords are perfectly happy for them to stay as long as possible.
Rovinghawk said:
skwdenyer said:
In my view, it is in society's interests
When society pays for it, society can have whatever it wants. It's not getting its way on my tab.skwdenyer said:
I have no doubt that such a change would collapse the value of some BTLs quite a lot.
So I can lose out for your ideals? No thanks.skwdenyer said:
there's little appetite to instead invest in businesses carrying risk and employing people.
So BTL has no risk? Get real.As for not employing people, I've employed electricians, plumbers, plasterers, brickies, labourers, roofers, IFAs, man-with-vans and many others. You either know little or think little.
skwdenyer said:
I'm well aware my views on this topic aren't widely-held or wildly popular
Maybe they're incorrect?The point about risk vs reward is particularly relevant. You don't have to have a particularly good business brain to be a landlord or even work that hard. You just need capital to reinvest and expand, whilst collecting the rent. You can pretend you are some astute business mogul but you come across like a bit of an arrogant, dispassionate t
t to be honest.Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 27th September 08:10
wormus said:
I have mixed feelings on this as I own a second home which I only use as a holiday destination. However, technically I guess I'm still depriving somebody of buying their own home.
I know some people with large portfolios of property who didn't do anything smart or work very hard: They simply starting buying about 15 years ago, rented and remortgaged every property again and again until they had loads of them.
At what point does it become unethical to build your fortune at the expense of others for no other reason than you joined the market at the right time?
I mean how dare they make a well timed investment, line em up and shoot them I sayI know some people with large portfolios of property who didn't do anything smart or work very hard: They simply starting buying about 15 years ago, rented and remortgaged every property again and again until they had loads of them.
At what point does it become unethical to build your fortune at the expense of others for no other reason than you joined the market at the right time?
speaking as one who saw the boom and didn't do anything about it
Does this really belong in " News, Politics & Economics" and not in the Lounge
drainbrain said:
A tenant comes along. The tenant conducts the tenancy perfectly satisfactorily. WHY do you imagine the landlord would ask them or force them to leave? From your commercial experience (and I am also an owner of let commercial property albeit only a dozen or so units) aren't you rather keener to keep a decent tenant in perpetuity rather than run around trying to think up ways and means to end their tenancies? What makes you think residential landlords don't think the same way?
What makes you think their position is 'insecure'?
The default position round here seems to be to sign tenants up with successive 6 month ASTs rather than considering longer-term arrangements. It surely isn't great for anyone apart from the letting agencies creaming off £100 or so for "preparing new contracts" each time.What makes you think their position is 'insecure'?
wormus said:
The point about risk vs reward is particularly relevant. You don't have to have a particularly good business brain to be a landlord or even work that hard. You just need capital to reinvest and expand, whilst collecting the rent.
I'd very much like to agree with you. However, this would mean that we'd both be wrong.wormus said:
You can pretend you are some astute business mogul but you come across like a bit of an arrogant, dispassionate tt to be honest.
Having considered a wide range of responses (some of them witty and erudite) I would reply as follows: ft to be honest.k off.speedy_thrills said:
If BoE ever head back towards a historic normal you'll likely see that trend reverse fairly rapidly.
In the short term I don't see rises to 5%. Much more realistic would be arise to 1-2% as the economy can't handle more than that.In the longer term (speaking for myself) the capital repayments will have reduced the debts down to levels better able to cope with IR rises. I would presume that many others have similar strategies.
speedy_thrills said:
BTL has been in a positive market cycle due to the very extended nature of low interest rates in the UK. If BoE ever head back towards a historic normal you'll likely see that trend reverse fairly rapidly.
T'ain't really so y'know. Portfolios have been built in all kinds of eras of different states of the economy and widely different interest rates. I very well remember discussing rates with other landlords busy building portfolios and concluding that if there was a fix available at single figures one should grab it.
The other thing not to underestimate is the number of landlords with low or no borrowing and with latest tax nonsense the number who've moved that way.
Remember also that many deal with bank corporate loans which are invariably Libor and not base-linked and that are commonly currently charged at around 5% (plus, of course, whopping intermittent renewal fees) and so are much more able to absorb the types of modest rate rise likely we're likely to encounter short - medium term.
The only way the 'trend will reverse' in terms of the size of the resi rental market is if demand drops. For instance I could certainly see Brexit creating a large demand drop due to returning economic migrants who aren't replaced with others.
But what is much more likely is a change away from individual landlords to a rental market far more in corporate hands. In Scotland one form of new legislation or another is arriving almost every week. The volume is already massive and the amount of admin and compliance now involved in rental has increased 5 x fold over the last decade or so. Much of it isn't yet 'hard enforced' even although all of it carries penalties for non-compliance. But it WILL be in days to come, until the small landlord and one man band DIY landlord are a thing of the past with management agencies taking over the operational role, especially it's massive admin/compliance burden.
This also suits the enforcement process as well. Because it's obviously easier to inspect the details of 1000 properties in one office as to have to visit 1000 different offices.
The certainty of this future is emphasised by how management agencies are being 'shaped' by legislation. From 2018 all professional letting/management agents will require to be accredited. For those interested (especially English landlords interested in what they'll be forced into 'tomorrow') here's how it goes:
http://www.arla.co.uk/lobbying/scotland-agent-regu...
And anyone who thinks that longterm there'll be a 2-tier system in the letting industry of unregulated individuals alongside regulated agencies is being a tad naive.
Kermit power said:
According to the ONS, there were 28.1 million residential properties in 2014.
According to the 2011 Census, there were 2.3 people per household.
Again according to the ONS, the population in 2015 was 65.1 million people.
Just off the back of a fag packet, this would, indeed, suggest that there is a shortfall of some 150,000 homes to house the population.
How is it, then, that there are whole swathes of places like Liverpool, to say nothing of entire ex-mining villages and the like which stand completely empty and boarded up?
Would it really be beyond the wit of councils to give them away on condition that the recipient renovates them and lets them as social housing? I'm sure there would be profit to be made for a Housing Association or similar doing that with some of the boarded up but seemingly perfectly structurally sound streets I used to walk past on the way to Uni?
or sell them cheaply and let local people do them upAccording to the 2011 Census, there were 2.3 people per household.
Again according to the ONS, the population in 2015 was 65.1 million people.
Just off the back of a fag packet, this would, indeed, suggest that there is a shortfall of some 150,000 homes to house the population.
How is it, then, that there are whole swathes of places like Liverpool, to say nothing of entire ex-mining villages and the like which stand completely empty and boarded up?
Would it really be beyond the wit of councils to give them away on condition that the recipient renovates them and lets them as social housing? I'm sure there would be profit to be made for a Housing Association or similar doing that with some of the boarded up but seemingly perfectly structurally sound streets I used to walk past on the way to Uni?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34...
chow pan toon said:
The default position round here seems to be to sign tenants up with successive 6 month ASTs rather than considering longer-term arrangements. It surely isn't great for anyone apart from the letting agencies creaming off £100 or so for "preparing new contracts" each time.
There is a world of difference between a landlord allowing a good tenant to stay, and a tenant having that right.Not just a functional distinction; an emotional distinction. It - consciously or otherwise - makes an enormous difference to the way people think and act - about themselves, their families, their communites, etc.
In any case, those "building a long-term portfolio" are not going to care either way, are they?
Council Tenants have had tenancies like that remain (and let's not forget that such security of tenure was the norm up until 20 or so years ago - and some tenants still have those sort of tenancies), and there is no sign of that changing (there are signs of an income cap applying however, but that's a different thing).
In my view, society is built upon a bedrock of rights and responsibilities; not on largesse, grace and favour. Tenants should not have to trust to luck that their landlord is one of the good ones. And, in any case, why should they join that lottery?
The *only* way to get security is to buy. By definition, that will tend to leave leaner pickings of tenants in the rental market.
Germany has 50% private rented accommodation. Germany has security of tenure. Germany has markedly greater social cohesion and scores well on a bunch of other metrics. Germany has a far bigger - and still profitable - BTL market.
I would tend to argue that, witht proper reform, the UK private rental sector could provide security as well as social benefits, and lead to a larger business for the landlords.
skwdenyer said:
There is a world of difference between a landlord allowing a good tenant to stay, and a tenant having that right.
Not just a functional distinction; an emotional distinction. It - consciously or otherwise - makes an enormous difference to the way people think and act - about themselves, their families, their communites, etc.
In any case, those "building a long-term portfolio" are not going to care either way, are they?
Council Tenants have had tenancies like that remain (and let's not forget that such security of tenure was the norm up until 20 or so years ago - and some tenants still have those sort of tenancies), and there is no sign of that changing (there are signs of an income cap applying however, but that's a different thing).
In my view, society is built upon a bedrock of rights and responsibilities; not on largesse, grace and favour. Tenants should not have to trust to luck that their landlord is one of the good ones. And, in any case, why should they join that lottery?
The *only* way to get security is to buy. By definition, that will tend to leave leaner pickings of tenants in the rental market.
Germany has 50% private rented accommodation. Germany has security of tenure. Germany has markedly greater social cohesion and scores well on a bunch of other metrics. Germany has a far bigger - and still profitable - BTL market.
I would tend to argue that, witht proper reform, the UK private rental sector could provide security as well as social benefits, and lead to a larger business for the landlords.
so say you go and live and work in Germany (cos its so good!) you don't want to sell your house in the UK just yet as thats a bit permanent and heck even you have to admit you may not actually like it in the Fatherland so you decide you want to rent your house out. All good so far.Not just a functional distinction; an emotional distinction. It - consciously or otherwise - makes an enormous difference to the way people think and act - about themselves, their families, their communites, etc.
In any case, those "building a long-term portfolio" are not going to care either way, are they?
Council Tenants have had tenancies like that remain (and let's not forget that such security of tenure was the norm up until 20 or so years ago - and some tenants still have those sort of tenancies), and there is no sign of that changing (there are signs of an income cap applying however, but that's a different thing).
In my view, society is built upon a bedrock of rights and responsibilities; not on largesse, grace and favour. Tenants should not have to trust to luck that their landlord is one of the good ones. And, in any case, why should they join that lottery?
The *only* way to get security is to buy. By definition, that will tend to leave leaner pickings of tenants in the rental market.
Germany has 50% private rented accommodation. Germany has security of tenure. Germany has markedly greater social cohesion and scores well on a bunch of other metrics. Germany has a far bigger - and still profitable - BTL market.
I would tend to argue that, witht proper reform, the UK private rental sector could provide security as well as social benefits, and lead to a larger business for the landlords.
At present you could let it for say 1 year and then come back if you don't like their taste of their sausages. All good so far.
If tho you have protected tenants in the new Skwdenyer government of the UK with say 5 years min terms for tenants? 10 Years min terms - would you rent your home out? What if you want to come back after 1 year? Still good for you?
So with that option you decide to still go to Germany to savour their pickles but you leave your home empty. no income, no tax paid no other person housed. how is that better?
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 27th September 14:12
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 27th September 14:13
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 27th September 14:13
superlightr said:
so say you go and live and work in Germany (cos its so good!) you don't want to sell your house in the UK just yet as thats a bit permanent and heck even you have to admit you may not actually like it in the Fatherland so you decide you want to rent your house out. All good so far.
At present you could let it for say 1 year and then come back if you don't like their taste of their sausages. All good so far.
If tho you have protected tenants in the new Skwdenyer government of the UK with say 5 years min terms for tenants? 10 Years min terms - would you rent your home out? What if you want to come back after 1 year? Still good for you?
So with that option you decide to still go to Germany to savour their pickles but you leave your home empty. no income, no tax paid no other person housed. how is that better?
With respect, the situation you describe was dealt with long ago. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915 provided that a landlord could end a tenancy if the property was reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation - which covers your case. Subsequent legislation maintained that exception.At present you could let it for say 1 year and then come back if you don't like their taste of their sausages. All good so far.
If tho you have protected tenants in the new Skwdenyer government of the UK with say 5 years min terms for tenants? 10 Years min terms - would you rent your home out? What if you want to come back after 1 year? Still good for you?
So with that option you decide to still go to Germany to savour their pickles but you leave your home empty. no income, no tax paid no other person housed. how is that better?
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 27th September 14:12
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 27th September 14:13
Edited by superlightr on Wednesday 27th September 14:13
Even today, that is a ground for possession in some circumstances - 1 BTL landlord I know (who owns >1000 individual flats in his own name) makes every tenant sign a paper acknowleding that the property was once the principal residence of the landlord and, therefore, might be subject to such a claim...
So, no, nothing I'm proposing would catch the expat worker looking to preserve a foothold in the UK property market - provided that they made the tenant aware of that possibility at the outset of course.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff