So are Landlords finished?

[98elise]

Good Plan Ted said:

Brief Update that happened at 6:30pm

Ministers agreed to amend the bill to ensure no ban was enacted until a probe into the courts had been held.
But the clause offers no timeline - leaving no clear date for when Section 21s will actually be scrapped.

Section 21 isn't being fully scrapped. It never was.

Section 21 is used for ending a tenancy once the contracted term (AST) is over. Basically whenever you want the property back other than for breeches of contract. The only thing that's changing is there must be a reason (selling etc).

Section 8 is for breeches of contract and can be used at any time.

When you have breeches after the end of an AST a Section 21 is also issued. Not being able to do this will be a huge problem for landlords.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 25th April 13:21

[98elise]

Electro1980 said:

In my experience most landlords, be that rental landlords or freeholder on a lease hold, will do the absolute minimum. They will replace anything with the cheapest possible and bodge things that are not critical. Most landlords seem only interested in ensuring the property is habitable for the next few years, not that it is a nice place to live for the long term.

I’m seeing lots of small time landlords saying how they are all benevolent but very few tenants agreeing.

You can't extrapolate your experience into "most landlords". My let's get a full refurb top to bottom and problems are fixed ASAP.

[andy43]

98elise said:

Electro1980 said:

In my experience most landlords, be that rental landlords or freeholder on a lease hold, will do the absolute minimum. They will replace anything with the cheapest possible and bodge things that are not critical. Most landlords seem only interested in ensuring the property is habitable for the next few years, not that it is a nice place to live for the long term.

I’m seeing lots of small time landlords saying how they are all benevolent but very few tenants agreeing.

You can't extrapolate your experience into "most landlords". My let's get a full refurb top to bottom and problems are fixed ASAP.

Ah, but I bet there isn’t a drop of Farrow & Ball in your entire portfolio. It’ll all be Screwfix on-offer Trade Matt

[NRS]

Louis Balfour said:

Rivenink said:

The original point I made, that Biggy conveniently cared not to comment on, was that it is the system that is screwed up; and it is benefiting the very wealthy, at the expense of renters. At the expense of young people. At the expense of small portfolio landlords.

Why do you think the very wealthy are culpable here, and not small landlords?

The interesting thing is a lot of the landlords on here think they are just an average person, and the focus should be put on the "super rich". The reality is a lot of young people these days count these "small landlords" as the rich people to go after. It's not really surprising when many are starting out life with 10's of thousands of student debt (needed to get lots of jobs as most ask for degrees now, even if not actually needed), having grown up with almost 2 decades of pay increases only matching inflation (so not getting real growth on salary) and have had to pay a (typically) older person's early retirement with their rent meaning they struggle to get a deposit down. That rent does nothing for the economy, it just moves money from someone with less money to someone with more. Hence the dislike and viewing them as rich people - because they typically are even if they don't view themselves as such.

[JagLover]

98elise said:

You can't extrapolate your experience into "most landlords". My let's get a full refurb top to bottom and problems are fixed ASAP.

Well yes the plural of anecdote is not data.

I have lived in five different rental properties and all except the first were in a good state of decoration when I moved in and were clean and tidy. Anything that needed repairing usually was in a decent timeframe as well.

The first that was the exception was also cheap, £500 a month in London suburbs.

[nikaiyo2]

Panamax said:

Let's make a list of things Councils are good at,

• Um
• Err
• Hmmm
• And I'm sure there was another one...

That is my point, we had a really good rental sector, that was competitive provided choice and massive flexibility. The cock wombles have screwed the pooch so to speak, they hate landlords, let them live in this idiot paradise they want.

[andy43]

NRS said:

Louis Balfour said:

Rivenink said:

The original point I made, that Biggy conveniently cared not to comment on, was that it is the system that is screwed up; and it is benefiting the very wealthy, at the expense of renters. At the expense of young people. At the expense of small portfolio landlords.

Why do you think the very wealthy are culpable here, and not small landlords?

The interesting thing is a lot of the landlords on here think they are just an average person, and the focus should be put on the "super rich". The reality is a lot of young people these days count these "small landlords" as the rich people to go after. It's not really surprising when many are starting out life with 10's of thousands of student debt (needed to get lots of jobs as most ask for degrees now, even if not actually needed), having grown up with almost 2 decades of pay increases only matching inflation (so not getting real growth on salary) and have had to pay a (typically) older person's early retirement with their rent meaning they struggle to get a deposit down. That rent does nothing for the economy, it just moves money from someone with less money to someone with more. Hence the dislike and viewing them as rich people - because they typically are even if they don't view themselves as such.

I agree the super rich are the people to go after. Problem is they’re not visible enough. The LL is a traditional symbol of ‘the rich’ and they’re a dead easy target for the politicians to point fingers at, as there’s millions of voters who rent.

[andy43]

JagLover said:

98elise said:

You can't extrapolate your experience into "most landlords". My let's get a full refurb top to bottom and problems are fixed ASAP.

Well yes the plural of anecdote is not data.

I have lived in five different rental properties and all except the first were in a good state of decoration when I moved in and were clean and tidy. Anything that needed repairing usually was in a decent timeframe as well.

The first that was the exception was also cheap, £500 a month in London suburbs.

I often think there should be a TripAdvisor for landlords. Tenants could leave reviews.

[NRS]

andy43 said:

Puzzles said:

andy43 said:

Electro1980 said:

In my experience most landlords, be that rental landlords or freeholder on a lease hold, will do the absolute minimum. They will replace anything with the cheapest possible and bodge things that are not critical. Most landlords seem only interested in ensuring the property is habitable for the next few years, not that it is a nice place to live for the long term.

I’m seeing lots of small time landlords saying how they are all benevolent but very few tenants agreeing.

A BTL is an investment. Same as shares, savings accounts, gold coins. There’s no point in spending anything more than the bare minimum as the idea is to make money… and it can be quite upsetting going over and above (when inner benevolence mistakenly kicks in) and then finding it gets trashed anyway.
I used to do EPCs and the state of many owner occupied places was far worse than the average BTL, certainly in terms of energy efficiency and safety.

Surely depends on how much more you can rent the place for in good condition? Probably get a better tenant too.

The difference in rent between magnolia’d wood chip with Indian restaurant carpet and instagram-ready grey walls and trendy laminate is very small - it’s the locality and number of bedrooms. And the ability to pay slightly higher rent does not in any way mean you get a more hygienic and intelligent tenant with superior parenting skills… in my experience.

I'd agree with that. One of the problems some nice new Landlords make is fitting out a house too well, if they're unlucky and get a bad tenant it gets trashed and they then fit it out with the cheapest stuff afterwards. Which makes sense. It would also help keep rental costs down, as the costs of a very nice refurb don't need to be added to the rent.

andy43 said:

Killboy said:

andy43 said:

There’s no point in spending anything more than the bare minimum as the idea is to make money…

Exactly. Rentals aren't st because of the tenants

They’re safe though. Most owner occupied houses of the same value are in a far worse state - no RCDs, boiler never checked from one year to the next, and decor and hygiene from the last century.
The only time a rental gets really st is because of the tenant. Mould, neighbours in tears, debt collectors, drugs… but that’s quite rare. So far <touches laminate>

Got the stats for this, or is it just a feeling you have?

[andy43]

Just a feeling.
I used to do EPCs and am in and out of deceaseds properties almost weekly - the state of a lot of resi properties is a real eye opener. No EICR requirements, no annual gas safe checks, mould, knackered windows, no heating controls, many unfit for rental certainly…no stats though.

[98elise]

Rivenink said:

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.

Owner occupiers, if freehold, have the power, right, ownership and choice to fix their own problems. And usually they do, because they live there and like any normal person, they don't want to live in a cold, mould infested sthole.

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 st their property is.

Why would a tenant not heat their home, or clean mould if it appears?

Let's play a game. Post a postcode near you and a radius on right move that identifies say 10 properties in your area for let.

Mine is ME5 8HN, and a radius of 1 mile (which would capture my house). It returns 16 properties for let and they all look perfectly nice. Its the Medway Towns so not some leafy london suburb. Obviously we can then cross check to see how owner occupiers compare.

That should give us some idea how terrible BTL landlords are.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 25th April 09:46

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 25th April 10:46

[Louis Balfour]

andy43 said:

JagLover said:

98elise said:

You can't extrapolate your experience into "most landlords". My let's get a full refurb top to bottom and problems are fixed ASAP.

Well yes the plural of anecdote is not data.

I have lived in five different rental properties and all except the first were in a good state of decoration when I moved in and were clean and tidy. Anything that needed repairing usually was in a decent timeframe as well.

The first that was the exception was also cheap, £500 a month in London suburbs.

I often think there should be a TripAdvisor for landlords. Tenants could leave reviews.

Great idea. Providing that landlords can also leave reviews for tenants.

[98elise]

nikaiyo2 said:

It’s just a mendacious argument isn’t it.

First time buyers don’t buy property like this, they don’t buy studios, they don’t buy one beds, they don’t buy places need loads of work they etc. maybe in London but in general they don’t.

I just wish they would all stop pissing about and just ban BTL, people can live in their own owned property or they can rely on the council. Give every tenant the right to buy where they live at current market rates. If not the council should be forced to buy at current ,market rates. The clowns believed Corbyns lies about a rental crisis in 2017 and created a real one let them have a bit of socialist housing for real.

Would the council be providing properties to corporate lets, house shares and students? The 3 times I've rented places its been for those reasons.

Would the have a pool of properties in every area ready for people that need to move on a set date? Would there be a priority, ie if a single mum need urgent accommodation does the guy needing a place near work get bumped?

Most people I know who live and work in central london are renters. Those that own property tend to be comute in. Are the councils going to provide central London accommodation for high paid workers?

Councils don’t (nor have they ever) been the solution to all lettings. They work best for those in greatest need, not people who need a choice and flexibility.

Why do current renters need the right to buy, they can buy on the open market for the same price. If they wanted (and were able to) buy now, they could.

[Biggy Stardust]

98elise said:

Would the council be providing properties to corporate lets, house shares and students? The 3 times I've rented places its been for those reasons.

Would the have a pool of properties in every area ready for people that need to move on a set date? Would there be a priority, ie if a single mum need urgent accommodation does the guy needing a place near work get bumped?

Most people I know who live and work in central london are renters. Those that own property tend to be comute in. Are the councils going to provide central London accommodation for high paid workers?

Councils don’t (nor have they ever) been the solution to all lettings. They work best for those in greatest need, not people who need a choice and flexibility.

Why do current renters need the right to buy, they can buy on the open market for the same price. If they wanted (and were able to) buy now, they could.

Yes, but "wouldn't it be lovely if.........................?"

[philv]

I don't understand it.
All these punitive measures against landlords, and the situation just gets worse.

When it's even worse in a few years time, what then?

[dxg]

The end of Section 21 and the right for a tenant to remain in a property won't end renting. It will, however, make the renting of housing even MORE attractive to the current wave of institutional investors actively building up portfolios of individual residential units as a new asset class. This is the continental model. The RICS President was pushing for it over ten years ago.

If anything, having tenants "trapped" in properties assures the revenue stream that makes the asset class even more attractive.

What WILL kill landlords - be they institutions or individuals - is any hint of rent controls, as that will kill the capitalisation of the revenue stream.

[Killboy]

98elise said:

Why would a tenant heat their home, or clean mould if it appears?

Let's play a game. Post a postcode near you and a radius on right move that identifies say 10 properties in your area for let.

Mine is ME5 8HN, and a radius of 1 mile (which would capture my house). It returns 16 properties for let and they all look perfectly nice. Its the Medway Towns so not some leafy london suburb. Obviously we can then cross check to see how owner occupiers compare.

That should give us some idea how terrible BTL landlords are.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 25th April 09:46

I'm not sure advertising photos of rentals are a great indicator of quality.

[Biggy Stardust]

dxg said:

The end of Section 21 and the right for a tenant to remain in a property won't end renting. It will, however, make the renting of housing even MORE attractive to the current wave of institutional investors actively building up portfolios of individual residential units as a new asset class. This is the continental model. The RICS President was pushing for it over ten years ago.

If anything, having tenants "trapped" in properties assures the revenue stream that makes the asset class even more attractive.

What WILL kill landlords - be they institutions or individuals - is any hint of rent controls, as that will kill the capitalisation of the revenue stream.

Removing S21 won't "trap" tenants in the slightest. We all have something to bring to this discussion- it might be best if what you bring is knowledge.

[Electro1980]

JagLover said:

98elise said:

You can't extrapolate your experience into "most landlords". My let's get a full refurb top to bottom and problems are fixed ASAP.

Well yes the plural of anecdote is not data.

I have lived in five different rental properties and all except the first were in a good state of decoration when I moved in and were clean and tidy. Anything that needed repairing usually was in a decent timeframe as well.

The first that was the exception was also cheap, £500 a month in London suburbs.

And yet here we are, with vast numbers of people complaining about the way they are treated by landlords and needs for ever more regulation. If the most landlords were as good as so many of them claim we wouldn’t be needing all this government intervention.

[wildoliver]

Without getting all wibbly and spouting conspiracy theories the "banks" are the issue, not landlords, tenants or home owners.

Banks want house prices to go up because bigger house prices mean bigger mortgages which means more profit. Companies like BlackRock which may as well be banks in reality want private landlords disincentived so they can gain control of yet another market. Big mortgages also result in defaults, which result in houses going to auction and being bought up by the likes of BlackRock. None of this is conspiracy theory it's all happening in plain sight. The only CT aspect is are the governments banging the drum for business helping them along, or just so incompetent they are being useful idiots? Does it matter?