Landlord Vs Tenant | God Vs Worm

Indeed, although in reality rent is actually usually slightly higher than mortgage repayments. silly isn't it, really. backwards perhaps..

How would it possibly work the other way around? Letting property wouldnt work if the cost to finance was > the letting value :confused:

One thing that's not been mentioned yet is that, ok, say that you earn 30k and your partner earn's 20k, well that means that you wouldn't be able to go into the mortgage equally most likely. likely event would be that you could put up say 15k towards deposit and she could put up 10k. Personally this wouldn't be acceptable to me. My partner has far more savings than I do because she's 5 years older, even though I earn slightly more than her. I have no intention of going into buying with an unequal share in the property. Just leads to issues down the line...

You do not have to have a legal equal share in a property?

My father was earning something like 20k per year back in 1985 when he bought his current house for 24k at 36 years old. It took him 1 year to save for the deposit and the repayments were less than it would cost to rent back then. Oh, and he got something like a 95% mortgage... Nowadays he's earning 35k but the house is worth 450k and the deposit on it would be something like 70k+. The numbers just don't work.

The numbers dont work because that is not a typical example at all. A house worth 24k in 1985, yet worth 450k in 2011 is HIGHLY abnormal. My parents have a place which they bought in the mid 80's for £210k. It is now worth maybe £750k. Thats only a 3.5 fold increase. 24k did not buy 450k (today) in 1985. Either he bought a total wreck of a shell (which were undervalued then and not accessible to the masses anyway), was VERY lucky, or..whatever. But that is not normal and there lies the problem with that math.

Another issue with those figures is the small matter of the fact that his career looks as though it started well, then fell off a cliff. 20k earnings in 1985 is good! But to only have managed 35k now after all that time and periods of mega inflation is not typical either. Both sets of oposing figures are skewed dramatically to give your desired argument some weight.
 
Last edited:
How would it possibly work the other way around? Letting property wouldnt work if the cost to finance was > the letting value :confused:

The landlord, being someone who is now in the property business, should be able to get much lower mortgage rates than the tenant. Equally they should have an overall lower mortgage due to investing a substantial amount up front.

Lastly, there is no reason why you cannot have companies that both build properties and then let them out.

The numbers dont work because that is not a typical example at all. A house worth 24k in 1985, yet worth 450k in 2011 is HIGHLY abnormal. My parents have a place which they bought in the mid 80's for £210k. It is now worth maybe £750k. Thats only a 3.5 fold increase. 24k did not buy 450k (today) in 1985. Either he bought a total wreck of a shell (which were undervalued then and not accessible to the masses anyway), was VERY lucky, or..whatever. But that is not normal and there lies the problem with that math.
It does work like that.

My parents bought their current place for £95k in '97, it is now worth ~£275k - or was worth that in '08 pre the mess at least.
 
they should have an overall lower mortgage due to investing a substantial amount up front.

Huh? You cannot discount the value of upfront capital :p Every time i read one if your posts i just think how lucky we are that you are allowed no-where near any decision making.
 
Huh? You cannot discount the value of upfront capital :p Every time i read one if your posts i just think how lucky we are that you are allowed no-where near any decision making.

Investing more up front would bring the mortgage costs more down by more than the "profit" that the landlord will add in order to repay the upfront investment as not only does it show that the person has money, but it also lowers the overall risk that the lender takes on (due to having to lend less money).

Equally, the landlord still owns the actual property.


When mortgages are the same as rent it shows that the system is not working correctly
 
The landscape changed, approx 20 years ago, it was the Tories who basically set us up as a nation to be house owners. Until that point there was a fairly healthly council house type operation so those not wanting to own had a pretty high chance to secure a council house. With the easy low cost rent.

The housign stock of council houses was slaughtered and at the same time of course population has increased, so the % of council houses fell dramatically.

The buy to let crowd moved in and changed the face of rental, from being higher spec better properties (generalisation) they moved into the lower stuff, the stuff that people would traditionally have rented off the council. BUT and its a massive but they are after maximum return.

There is obviously an increase in social housing type schemes of various types, whether they will over time start to become the normal or remain very much a small niche we will have to see, but it will take a very long time to get there.

So people have been educated that owning their own home is right. It provides some massive security to them, ability to borrow some short term funds against the property if required. It also means come their retirement they will not be paying rent.
The government plus plenty of others are saying people are not saving enough for retirement, how much of that is down to having to pay rent when retired compared to owning their own house?

My personal view is that Labour perpetuated and probably worsened what the tories started, rather than allowing the proper correction the economy needed they tried to avoid it and artificially stopped the correction. The correction would have hit the overly inflated property prices hard as they would have forced a realism check onto people who borrowed well above where they should be, and those massively debt laden.

This happened a bit more in the States and in for example Ireland where the overly inflated house prices have been brought much more down to earth. I would bet my last dollar both those economies will see a faster recovery once it starts. The UK will be held back by the failure to allow adjustment, along with the breaking effect the attempts to pay back the massive debts will have on our economy.
An active and in balance housing market is a key part to any growth or recovery, we won't see it as we do not have that.

Most people who own propety would be horrified to see their rapidly inflating property value depreciated 20-30% but for most its wooden dollars, it only truly affects those who are in it to make money.

Affordable housing is a basic commodity to allow an western type economy to flourish, its not (or shouldn't be) seen as another way to make a fast buck. Unfortunately it is now seen as that, and as such it will hamper our economy for years.

Maybe someone could show me how the massive increase in house prices from Ireland benefitted most of the population or even the economy long term? You will strugle by the way since there is virtually no real benefit to those people, the only real benefit is to those who made a fast buck.
 
The landscape changed, approx 20 years ago, it was the Tories who basically set us up as a nation to be house owners. Until that point there was a fairly healthly council house type operation so those not wanting to own had a pretty high chance to secure a council house. With the easy low cost rent.

The housign stock of council houses was slaughtered and at the same time of course population has increased, so the % of council houses fell dramatically.

But why can private builders, the likes of Barratt etc, not setup long term renting operations and built small apartment blocks that they can rent out?

For that matter, why do we build so few good quality flats/apartments in this country
 
Commercial rates for lending (ie buy to let) have actually tended to be slighly higher than mortgage rates albeit by a very small amount. Typically they also had to put down larger deposits. They were seen as riskier investments historically.

Not sure if that applies right now or not, haven't looked recently.
 
But why can private builders, the likes of Barratt etc, not setup long term renting operations and built small apartment blocks that they can rent out?

For that matter, why do we build so few good quality flats/apartments in this country

Absolutely no reason, but as a business they are in it to maximise profit and they make that by wacking up 4 bed detached houses and flogging them in a booming property market.

Building land is limited and is often bought again as an investment long term.
Most people can easliy clear 20-30% profit building their own home, by that I mean getting a builder to do it for you. But good luck finding the land to do it, the vast majority is snapped up by developers as soon as its available.
 
A lot of people hate flats. It can be bad enough if you have 2 sets of selfish neighbours, flats just multiply the issue. One bad neighbour can ruin your life virtually, maybe keeping you up when you should be asleep or with their kids being feral or whatever.

TBH it would be easier to get people to buy into flats if they setup a much stricter regime on acceptable noise pollution. Stuff like subs and things have become normal.
Imagine having 4 unemployed neighbours who love to watch films from 11pm - 5am who have lovely big subs. When you need to be in bed by 11pm for a 5am rise to go to work.
How long till you go on a rampage? ;)
 
Not trying to take the opposite side but I gotta point out:

The landlord has nothing whatsoever to lose. House damaged? No worries, just claim on insurance.

They pay for the insurance, the more claims the more they pay so id say it is a worry. I have a landlord mate who wont rent to DSS for this very reason.


Something in the property stolen? No worries, just deduct from the deposit.

Doesn't work if the deposit doesn't cover what was taken, no joke my friend had one tenant make off with the boiler, the cooker and all the radiators :|


Rent withheld or late? No worries, deduct from the deposit or just kick the tenant(s) out.

Its not that easy to get rid of a troublesome tenant...
 
The Deposit Protection Scheme was a good step.

The next logical step would be a simple expansion to cover landlords duties under the contract. Pretty much like a CAB type operation. Take in your contract and they can enforce works to take place within a reasonable timeframe.

This like the DPS needs to be outside the agency model so they are independant. If this existed most landlords would just do the stuff they try to get away with not doing.
 
Regarding the example earlier, 35K now is only the equivalent of less than 15K in 1985, so the person in question has actually had a real wage cut of about 25%
 
Regarding the example earlier, 35K now is only the equivalent of less than 15K in 1985, so the person in question has actually had a real wage cut of about 25%

Exactly, he has totally skewed the figures from both ends as per above to suit his argument.
 
Looks like things are better in France, none of this six month AST rubbish:

http://www.livingfrance.com/expert-advice-legal-legal-renting-out-your-french-property--4236

A residential lease must be granted for a period of at least three years (six years if the landlord is a company). If neither party terminates the lease at the end of its term by serving the appropriate notice the lease will automatically renew for a further three (or six) -year period.

If notice is given to the tenant because the landlord wishes to sell the property, the notice must give the price at which the landlord wishes to sell. The notice thereby effectively constitutes an offer to sell to the tenant at that price and the tenant has a pre-emptive right to purchase in preference to any other purchaser.
 
A few years back when I rented I was fairly lucky, ok, the landlord was a nightmare to get hold of if anything went wrong but the lettings agent was one of my customers, I had full control over every aspect of their web business so it was highly unlikely they'd try and rip me off.
 
kOoxz.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom