So are Landlords finished?
Discussion
Terminator X said:
paul.deitch said:
Some landlords get a bad rap but a friend of mine rented a lovely house which I did some repairs on to some absolute fkers. Haven't paid the rent for 4 years. Finally got an eviction this month and is faced with a 40_50k clearance/ renovation bill to add on to the eviction legal costs.
The pictures inside the house are appalling.
She will never recover the costs.
Renting!...let them live on the street.
No no no it's the scummy landlords!The pictures inside the house are appalling.
She will never recover the costs.
Renting!...let them live on the street.
TX.
It is frustrating that we don’t seem to have a fair and efficient legal system that can protect tenants from scummy landlords but also landlords from scummy tenants.
It’s the same 2 factors at play, and has been for eons:
Not enough housing supply, period. That’s the cause of consternation which manifests with ridiculous policies.
Tax the ‘Rich’ and be seen to ensure none of said ‘Rich’ are receiving any form of favourable treatment.
The pitch fork brigade have made wealth a social offence. It’s not something the country en-mass strive towards, so the higher earners mustn’t have nice things, either.
As noted - it’s amplifying the problem as landlords close the operation, exacerbating the supply point.
The sooner we realise that we need people to provide housing to others, the better. Oh, and we need more houses. Boatloads.
Not enough housing supply, period. That’s the cause of consternation which manifests with ridiculous policies.
Tax the ‘Rich’ and be seen to ensure none of said ‘Rich’ are receiving any form of favourable treatment.
The pitch fork brigade have made wealth a social offence. It’s not something the country en-mass strive towards, so the higher earners mustn’t have nice things, either.
As noted - it’s amplifying the problem as landlords close the operation, exacerbating the supply point.
The sooner we realise that we need people to provide housing to others, the better. Oh, and we need more houses. Boatloads.
So what happens to the house / flat when the landlord sells it?
It doesn't just disappear - someone will buy it. Maybe another landlord? Or maybe someone leaving the private rented sector. Change in housing stock = 0.
I have limited experience, but my personal anecdote comes from one door away.
The bungalow next to me is rented - elderly couple died, their son in his 50s inherited, and now rents to a young teacher with a child.
He gets early retirement/extra holidays, she pays over half her salary in rent and has to rely on her parents to do childcare. My mortgage is about half her rent (and my house is a 4 bed), because I had the good sense to be born 15 years before her and get on the property ladder.
These canny investors hey, what would we do without them?
There have always been small section of wealthy people. I don't begrudge people maximising their utility.
But the cost its having on society is getting too big, where people not old enough to have grabbed a rung of the property ladder (or not inherited wealth) are seeing the ladder get pulled up behind the last generation. It's pretty toxic, and in a way that people sitting pretty with property won't understand.
As an economic graduate though, I should highlight the difference between market "failure" (where a market can't work) and a market just doing normal market things given the imbalance between supply and demand. The solutions are different.
Finally, being the normal middle class ph lense, this thread is completely ignoring the problem of the slum landlord strata that exists everywhere.
This is tenants who can't really operate in the "mainstream" private sector so have to turn to the margins / bottom feeders. Beds in sheds, unlicenced hmo etc.
That is a hard solution too, as frankly those people simply can't afford to exist in a 1st world economy, but are here and bed to live.
And finally final, the whole EPC thing is a problem waiting to go pop. At the risk of attracting turbo bloke's million page quotes, society hasn't really twigged the cost of tackling net zero/ the global climate crisis etc yet. It's comfortably in the "someone else's problem" column for most climate protesters, but is moving towards the "oh s
t it's me" column when it comes to costs, or specifically, tenants having to pay the cost of rebuilding inadequate housing stock in their rent.
It doesn't just disappear - someone will buy it. Maybe another landlord? Or maybe someone leaving the private rented sector. Change in housing stock = 0.
I have limited experience, but my personal anecdote comes from one door away.
The bungalow next to me is rented - elderly couple died, their son in his 50s inherited, and now rents to a young teacher with a child.
He gets early retirement/extra holidays, she pays over half her salary in rent and has to rely on her parents to do childcare. My mortgage is about half her rent (and my house is a 4 bed), because I had the good sense to be born 15 years before her and get on the property ladder.
These canny investors hey, what would we do without them?
There have always been small section of wealthy people. I don't begrudge people maximising their utility.
But the cost its having on society is getting too big, where people not old enough to have grabbed a rung of the property ladder (or not inherited wealth) are seeing the ladder get pulled up behind the last generation. It's pretty toxic, and in a way that people sitting pretty with property won't understand.
As an economic graduate though, I should highlight the difference between market "failure" (where a market can't work) and a market just doing normal market things given the imbalance between supply and demand. The solutions are different.
Finally, being the normal middle class ph lense, this thread is completely ignoring the problem of the slum landlord strata that exists everywhere.
This is tenants who can't really operate in the "mainstream" private sector so have to turn to the margins / bottom feeders. Beds in sheds, unlicenced hmo etc.
That is a hard solution too, as frankly those people simply can't afford to exist in a 1st world economy, but are here and bed to live.
And finally final, the whole EPC thing is a problem waiting to go pop. At the risk of attracting turbo bloke's million page quotes, society hasn't really twigged the cost of tackling net zero/ the global climate crisis etc yet. It's comfortably in the "someone else's problem" column for most climate protesters, but is moving towards the "oh s
t it's me" column when it comes to costs, or specifically, tenants having to pay the cost of rebuilding inadequate housing stock in their rent.Royal Jelly said:
It’s the same 2 factors at play, and has been for eons:
Not enough housing supply, period. That’s the cause of consternation which manifests with ridiculous policies.
Tax the ‘Rich’ and be seen to ensure none of said ‘Rich’ are receiving any form of favourable treatment.
The pitch fork brigade have made wealth a social offence. It’s not something the country en-mass strive towards, so the higher earners mustn’t have nice things, either.
As noted - it’s amplifying the problem as landlords close the operation, exacerbating the supply point.
The sooner we realise that we need people to provide housing to others, the better. Oh, and we need more houses. Boatloads.
The current system doesn't ensure that they are taxing "the rich" as corporate landlords are exempted from the inability to recover interest costs in full. The truly rich would be most likely to be using such structures, whether that be overseas residents owning property via a company, or old wealth who own a rental portfolio via a company as that is easiest from a family ownership perspective. Not enough housing supply, period. That’s the cause of consternation which manifests with ridiculous policies.
Tax the ‘Rich’ and be seen to ensure none of said ‘Rich’ are receiving any form of favourable treatment.
The pitch fork brigade have made wealth a social offence. It’s not something the country en-mass strive towards, so the higher earners mustn’t have nice things, either.
As noted - it’s amplifying the problem as landlords close the operation, exacerbating the supply point.
The sooner we realise that we need people to provide housing to others, the better. Oh, and we need more houses. Boatloads.
Those being hit, predominantly, tend to be the middle class, who became landlords when returns elsewhere grew so dismal.
philv said:
I am selling one of my properties.
Tenant is therefore having to move out to a smaller place and 25% increased rent.
I know of another person selling as he needs to to aford the 20% vat on private education.
I know of another person selling 2 blocks of appartments.
cant see here ending well at all.
You only have to look at Ireland to see what state meddling causes Tenant is therefore having to move out to a smaller place and 25% increased rent.
I know of another person selling as he needs to to aford the 20% vat on private education.
I know of another person selling 2 blocks of appartments.
cant see here ending well at all.
Mass exodus of private landlords, cuckoo funds coming in and buying up huge amounts of property including entire new build estates and then renting them out at extortionate rates depriving both private buyers as well as pricing renters out of the market
It’s led not only to a massive shortage of rental properties available ( 1400 this week in the entire state ) but also a shortage of houses to buy and crucially despite the Gov introducing rent control zones and the like, a massive rise in the cost of renting what is available
Beware of unintended consequences of meddling I think
Ian Geary said:
So what happens to the house / flat when the landlord sells it?
It doesn't just disappear - someone will buy it. Maybe another landlord? Or maybe someone leaving the private rented sector. Change in housing stock = 0.
I think this bit is quite often ignored. Landlords leaving the market don't reduce the overall availability of housing. The reason rents are so high is the same reason that house prices are so high - supply isn't enough to meet demand.It doesn't just disappear - someone will buy it. Maybe another landlord? Or maybe someone leaving the private rented sector. Change in housing stock = 0.
FWIW Landlords leaving the market has (IME) increased profits for those still in the market. It's relatively easy to get net profits of about 5% per annum not including capital growth.
98elise said:
. You can get 5% returns on cash these days!
This is the crux of it. 5% return guaranteed, no worries about tenants smashing the place up, disappearing without paying or worse, staying without paying.Unless you own the property outright, it seems like a massive PITA for no advantage.
Earthdweller said:
You only have to look at Ireland to see what state meddling causes
Mass exodus of private landlords, cuckoo funds coming in and buying up huge amounts of property including entire new build estates and then renting them out at extortionate rates depriving both private buyers as well as pricing renters out of the market
It’s led not only to a massive shortage of rental properties available ( 1400 this week in the entire state ) but also a shortage of houses to buy and crucially despite the Gov introducing rent control zones and the like, a massive rise in the cost of renting what is available
Beware of unintended consequences of meddling I think
I mentioned this earlier but it fell on the deaf ears of those who have a deep-seated hatred of landlords. It's nice to have someone confirm my comments, though.Mass exodus of private landlords, cuckoo funds coming in and buying up huge amounts of property including entire new build estates and then renting them out at extortionate rates depriving both private buyers as well as pricing renters out of the market
It’s led not only to a massive shortage of rental properties available ( 1400 this week in the entire state ) but also a shortage of houses to buy and crucially despite the Gov introducing rent control zones and the like, a massive rise in the cost of renting what is available
Beware of unintended consequences of meddling I think
JagLover said:
Royal Jelly said:
It’s the same 2 factors at play, and has been for eons:
Not enough housing supply, period. That’s the cause of consternation which manifests with ridiculous policies.
Tax the ‘Rich’ and be seen to ensure none of said ‘Rich’ are receiving any form of favourable treatment.
The pitch fork brigade have made wealth a social offence. It’s not something the country en-mass strive towards, so the higher earners mustn’t have nice things, either.
As noted - it’s amplifying the problem as landlords close the operation, exacerbating the supply point.
The sooner we realise that we need people to provide housing to others, the better. Oh, and we need more houses. Boatloads.
The current system doesn't ensure that they are taxing "the rich" as corporate landlords are exempted from the inability to recover interest costs in full. The truly rich would be most likely to be using such structures, whether that be overseas residents owning property via a company, or old wealth who own a rental portfolio via a company as that is easiest from a family ownership perspective. Not enough housing supply, period. That’s the cause of consternation which manifests with ridiculous policies.
Tax the ‘Rich’ and be seen to ensure none of said ‘Rich’ are receiving any form of favourable treatment.
The pitch fork brigade have made wealth a social offence. It’s not something the country en-mass strive towards, so the higher earners mustn’t have nice things, either.
As noted - it’s amplifying the problem as landlords close the operation, exacerbating the supply point.
The sooner we realise that we need people to provide housing to others, the better. Oh, and we need more houses. Boatloads.
Those being hit, predominantly, tend to be the middle class, who became landlords when returns elsewhere grew so dismal.
markh1973 said:
Corporate landlords aren't exempted from the inability to recover interest costs in full - they simply have their own version of the rules.
A quick google search identifies no rules. There are tax problems in switching from an individual ownership to corporate ownership, but not aware of any limitations in claiming interest for companies?
Killboy said:
98elise said:
IO mortgages ,(which most BTL are) do not pay off your property.
Average yields are 4-5% before expenses and tax.
Sounds like a savvy business model then.Average yields are 4-5% before expenses and tax.
I used to work for one of the largest corporate landlords in the country. The debt they held was huge, but it didn't matter.
philv said:
I am selling one of my properties.
Tenant is therefore having to move out to a smaller place and 25% increased rent.
I know of another person selling as he needs to to aford the 20% vat on private education.
I know of another person selling 2 blocks of appartments.
cant see here ending well at all.
Ah Jesus, please pass the tissues. Tenant is therefore having to move out to a smaller place and 25% increased rent.
I know of another person selling as he needs to to aford the 20% vat on private education.
I know of another person selling 2 blocks of appartments.
cant see here ending well at all.
Ian Geary said:
So what happens to the house / flat when the landlord sells it?
It doesn't just disappear - someone will buy it. Maybe another landlord? Or maybe someone leaving the private rented sector. Change in housing stock = 0.
As a landlord I totally agree, however you now have one less available to rent, so more people chasing every rental property. If you try to rent a property these days you have almost no hope. There are 25 people chasing each rental. If you want to buy you can walk into an estate agent and look at a wall of property. It doesn't just disappear - someone will buy it. Maybe another landlord? Or maybe someone leaving the private rented sector. Change in housing stock = 0.
The problem as ever is there are not enough properties (where people want to live) full stop, and the population is growing ever faster. Buying a property is out of reach for a lot of people, so they need to rent. Forcing landlords out the rental market isn't going to make that easier.
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 24th April 11:38
MrBig said:
98elise said:
. You can get 5% returns on cash these days!
This is the crux of it. 5% return guaranteed, no worries about tenants smashing the place up, disappearing without paying or worse, staying without paying.Unless you own the property outright, it seems like a massive PITA for no advantage.
You can do better than 6% on the stock market. I'm 50/50 in property vs stock market, and the stock market had beaten property every year for me. Its in ISA's and a SIPP so it's all nicely compounding tax free
The main thing keeping me in property is the Capital Gains Tax liability.
MrBig said:
98elise said:
. You can get 5% returns on cash these days!
This is the crux of it. 5% return guaranteed, no worries about tenants smashing the place up, disappearing without paying or worse, staying without paying.Unless you own the property outright, it seems like a massive PITA for no advantage.
The central bank aims to have lower interest rates when possible so high interest savings rates aren’t likely to be for the long term.
98elise said:
Killboy said:
98elise said:
IO mortgages ,(which most BTL are) do not pay off your property.
Average yields are 4-5% before expenses and tax.
Sounds like a savvy business model then.Average yields are 4-5% before expenses and tax.
I used to work for one of the largest corporate landlords in the country. The debt they held was huge, but it didn't matter.
This is my problem with "landlords". They expect absolutely everything, and try pat themselves on the back as "entrepreneurs" for doing renters a favor and if it weren't for their kind generosity their tenants would be out on the streets. I also wonder what percentage of private landlords are only in that situation due to inheritance.
Corporations owning property for the purpose of renting out are worse, but that does not excuse a large portion of private landlords.
Perhaps a certain poster from the "Has your insurance gone up" thread can come explain how he weeds out those on benefits - while somehow also thinking you are allowed to discriminate against them.
MrBogSmith said:
MrBig said:
98elise said:
. You can get 5% returns on cash these days!
This is the crux of it. 5% return guaranteed, no worries about tenants smashing the place up, disappearing without paying or worse, staying without paying.Unless you own the property outright, it seems like a massive PITA for no advantage.
The central bank aims to have lower interest rates when possible so high interest savings rates aren’t likely to be for the long term.
JagLover said:
markh1973 said:
Corporate landlords aren't exempted from the inability to recover interest costs in full - they simply have their own version of the rules.
A quick google search identifies no rules. There are tax problems in switching from an individual ownership to corporate ownership, but not aware of any limitations in claiming interest for companies?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff