House prices rose 7.3% this year, average now almost £250k

[Simon]

If it's crap they can sell the property. It's funny how people feel they're entitled to make a profit from their lands.

Landlords class often mocks other people for acting entitled because they want housing that doesn't cost 65% of their income, but in reality they're ones acting like entitled babies. It's all projection.

Flats in Reading have fell on their arse in the last few years. The flats were 250k a few years agot now two havent sold for 4 months for 215-225k. Not idea time to sell really.

I think the anti BTL retoric needs a reality check. Often people end up having one or two properties, sometimes witout some grand 'i want to be a property mogul' plan which sometimes are a hassle but you keep them cause you hope they go up in the future. The tax chanegs screwed the little guys, anyone with 3+ properties will now be operating as a limited company anyway so it wont impact them.

As said, if its so easy then why arent you all doing it? It used to be easy but people have ignored the changes over the last few years brough in to make BTL less profitable 'to help houses on market' but its literally had no impact apart from potentially increaseing rents. The giverment removed 10% wear and tear, tapered off interest allowance and removed tenant fees.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Empty property is a risk. Fees are much higher now since tenants can’t be charged. The tax changes also make it pretty small margin. The biggest thing you get is property price rise but this doesn’t mean you own the property outright when you realise this gain.


Actually it’s the opposite. If you are paying repayment then it’s likely over a year that you are actually paying out more than is coming in due to tax changes.

why is it not viable to pay interest only ?

Unlike you put down an extremely large deposit or had the property a long time and it's risen considerably that just isn't viable any more. Not up here anyway.

The expenses, taxation and interest (which is higher on buy to let's) is too much when combined.

You would need a large deposit to make it worthwhile or be in an area where house prices are constantly rising so your rent is too.

The days of someone putting down 10% getting a buy to let on interest only mortgage and printing money are now gone. Well here they are and for majority of the country.

 

[Simon]

You put down £60k so let's say for arguments sake the property could have been around £200-240k when you bought it?

Says the guy who put down £60k for a glorified loan, makes a profit off it every month from his tenants, and then gets circa £240k capital at the end of his mortgage term. lol the deflection is real bro Do you call your tenants entitled because they're unable to save a £60k deposit themselves because you and your ilk have pushed up rents in their local area?

Agreed. See above.

You wont pay off a mortage AND make profit each month now due to tax changes.

 

[Kenai]

If being a landlord is so profitable and easy. Do it yourself.

As said, if its so easy then why arent you all doing it?

I expect a good chunk would if they weren't struggling to even claw together enough to buy a house to live in to start with, due to being stuck in the cycle of throwing most of their potential savings into rental costs - whether it ends up directly in the hands of the landlord or the government as a tax is I imagine of little real interest to the person who only sees the money leaving their account month on month.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

In the current climate, the "risks" of being a BTL landlord are hugely overstated. The only real "risk" is being hugely over-leveraged, which is just being reckless.

In all other ways your rental property is a machine to print money.

Unless you've chosen to be a slum landlord you're not going to deal with a huge number of non-paying tenants or trashed properties. Or need to go through the eviction process to get people out.

Most tenants are just normal people trying to scrape together an existence.

Difficult when you take home <£1k and your rent is £700. (Where I live atm you can pay £700 for a room in a shared house. And that's a crappy town in Cornwall - not even Mayfair!)

Anyway none of what you said counters the point that the other chap made - that £600 rent on a property with a £350 mortgage just highlights the different experience renters have to home owners/BTL landlords.

At the end of the day the owner/landlord ends up with a property that they own. The renter ends up with nothing. Nada. Jack ****.

Yes it does. You don't have a clue because you don't actually own a property.

The cost of his mortgage doesn't dictate what he should charge.

Why?

Because you have no idea how much equity he has.

Basic example.

£80k flat.

I put down £50k deposit. My mortgage is 35 year term I pay £100 a month for the mortgage.

I alternatively put down a £8k deposit on a 20 year term I'm now paying £500 a month mortgage for the same flat.


So in your world I should be charging £75 a month rent in the first scenario and £400 a month in the second scenario for the exact same flat?

Really? Maybe this is why you don't own a property you don't actually have a clue how it works.

 

[Fusion]

Sell the houses and buy some shares lads. I have looked at BTL but shares are much less hassle.

 

[stuman]

I think most people understand its a type of investment for most landlords. With interest rates so low at the moment as well as the stamp duty holiday seems to be a perfect time to buy some nice investment property instead of some crap stocks or ISA.

I don't however think that a basic right of living should be seen as a profit generating investment.

Imagine that Joe blogs from down the road could buy water and ration it to the people to turn a profit. Then imagine that water was VERY expensive and there was a shortage. Would make a good movie, and the bad guys would be pretty hated.

(im being sensationalist, there should be a middle ground.)

 

[krooton]

I think the banning of letting/management agents would shake things up a bit.

That way landlords would only have a portfolio as big as they could manage, the fact that they can outsource that currently creates a double-whammy of hoovering up more properties, as well as having these agents in the first place who are just parasites who do sod all.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I said people "Shouldn't profit from something (housing) that should be a human right". Even said luxury property (ie mansions) should be exempt. Clearly what I want is basic housing to be available to all at cost. The kind of housing that we all need to live.

I didn't say, "People shouldn't make profit," or that all housing should be owned by the state, or that we should have a glorious citizens revolution, or all be paid the same, or any number of other things I didn't say.

It was you that started saying do I want people to be paid the same, etc. Which clearly is nothing to do with the discussion at all.

If you want a serious answer - no I haven't asked for everybody to be paid the same.

Should we also not then make food, gas, water, electricity and public transport all not for profit or run at losses too?

Asda makes 10 million times what the average landlord does. Yet I don't see any outrage at them providing food which we require to survive on a daily basis.

 

[HACO]

Flats in Reading have fell on their arse in the last few years. The flats were 250k a few years agot now two havent sold for 4 months for 215-225k. Not idea time to sell really.

I think the anti BTL retoric needs a reality check. Often people end up having one or two properties, sometimes witout some grand 'i want to be a property mogul' plan which sometimes are a hassle but you keep them cause you hope they go up in the future. The tax chanegs screwed the little guys, anyone with 3+ properties will now be operating as a limited company anyway so it wont impact them.

As said, if its so easy then why arent you all doing it? It used to be easy but people have ignored the changes over the last few years brough in to make BTL less profitable 'to help houses on market' but its literally had no impact apart from potentially increaseing rents. The giverment removed 10% wear and tear, tapered off interest allowance and removed tenant fees.

Because I don't want to get rich on the blood and sweat of those less fortunate than me.

It's a moral issue for me. I would never, ever, in a million years, take a property that someone could buy as their home off the market so that I can rent it out and get rich from its price appreciation, while I decrease supply and increase prices for everyone else as well. Never. Ever.

I'd rather be poor, hell, I'd rather ******* die than do this to other human beings.

 

[Haggisman]

I think the banning of letting/management agents would shake things up a bit.

That way landlords would only have a portfolio as big as they could manage, the fact that they can outsource that currently creates a double-whammy of hoovering up more properties, as well as having these agents in the first place who are just parasites who do sod all.

How would that work though - what would stop them employing a part time "personal assistant", "secretary", etc. to do the job for them?

 

[HACO]

How would that work though - what would stop them employing a part time "personal assistant", "secretary", etc. to do the job for them?

What if two landlords join up and together hire a personal assistant? What if that assistant sets up a company for their business? We've reinvented letting agents

The market needs serious regulation and massive massive tax increases though.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I expect a good chunk would if they weren't struggling to even claw together enough to buy a house to live in to start with, due to being stuck in the cycle of throwing most of their potential savings into rental costs - whether it ends up directly in the hands of the landlord or the government as a tax is I imagine of little real interest to the person who only sees the money leaving their account month on month.

Again more deflection.

If I worked in London earning a London wage. I'd simply just buy a flat in Manchester where it's cheaper and rent it out. Rinse and repeat.

Here's a genuine question. Foxeye lives with his parents. How long has he loved there for and how large is his deposit?

He should have at least £7.5k bare minimum per year of staying at home. Unless of course his parents are charging him £600 a month rent.

 

[Bald-Eagle22]

You put down £60k so let's say for arguments sake the property could have been around £200-240k when you bought it?

Says the guy who put down £60k for a glorified loan, makes a profit off it every month from his tenants, and then gets circa £240k capital at the end of his mortgage term. lol the deflection is real bro Do you call your tenants entitled because they're unable to save a £60k deposit themselves because you and your ilk have pushed up rents in their local area?

Agreed. See above.

How I make my money away from my property investments is not in question here - all i can assure you is it was nothing to do with renting property out.

Property for me is long term investments nothing more and just a small part of what im involved with,

And no i don't call any of my tennants entittled , i call them cutomers and treat them with respect . The entilted ones i'm referreing to are the ones who do noting but moan insetad of rolling up their sleeevs and getting on with life .

 

[stuman]

Should we also not then make food, gas, water, electricity and public transport all not for profit or run at losses too?

Asda makes 10 million times what the average landlord does. Yet I don't see any outrage at them providing food which we require to survive on a daily basis.

I would expect if there were country wide food shortages for the government to step in and stop people buying all the food to resell at massively inflated prices thus creating further shortages and therefore creating a continually spiraling food shortage and market for price gougers. I would also expect the supermarkets to pull their weight and play the CSR tune and supply at "normal" prices.

 

[Bald-Eagle22]

Again more deflection.

If I worked in London earning a London wage. I'd simply just buy a flat in Manchester where it's cheaper and rent it out. Rinse and repeat.

Here's a genuine question. Foxeye lives with his parents. How long has he loved there for and how large is his deposit?

He should have at least £7.5k bare minimum per year of staying at home. Unless of course his parents are charging him £600 a month rent.

Exaclty what i have done on several occasions now . I've shown exmaples of how this can be done but poeple have this entitled attitude of buying where they have been brought up or where there suport bubble is.

 

[Bald-Eagle22]

What if two landlords join up and together hire a personal assistant? What if that assistant sets up a company for their business? We've reinvented letting agents

The market needs serious regulation and massive massive tax increases though.

You dont think this happens already ?

 

[Bald-Eagle22]

Because I don't want to get rich on the blood and sweat of those less fortunate than me.

It's a moral issue for me. I would never, ever, in a million years, take a property that someone could buy as their home off the market so that I can rent it out and get rich from its price appreciation, while I decrease supply and increase prices for everyone else as well. Never. Ever.

I'd rather be poor, hell, I'd rather ******* die than do this to other human beings.

Have you got a mortage ?

You could argue the same about banks making a lot more profit from Mortage Interest than landlords ever could from rent i assure you.

 

[krooton]

How would that work though - what would stop them employing a part time "personal assistant", "secretary", etc. to do the job for them?

Well my idea was more along the lines of you cannot employ another company to do such work for you, but you can employ people, provided you set up your own company to do so.

This creates a bunch more work for landlords to do (setting up company, managing payrolls, HR, blah blah), making the whole point of lettings agents (I pay you percentage, you deal with everything) moot.

At the end of the day, it is nigh on impossible for a landlord to manage a 10 property portfolio without agencies doing all the dirty work for them, so taking them out of the equation will force smaller portfolios.

ps. I'm just throwing ideas out there, I don't have some cast-iron plan to carry out a brainfart I had a few minutes ago

 

[Simon]

Because I don't want to get rich on the blood and sweat of those less fortunate than me.

It's a moral issue for me. I would never, ever, in a million years, take a property that someone could buy as their home off the market so that I can rent it out and get rich from its price appreciation, while I decrease supply and increase prices for everyone else as well. Never. Ever.

I'd rather be poor, hell, I'd rather ******* die than do this to other human beings.

If rentals disappeared tomorrow. Where would people live ? They don’t have deposits to buy a house.

Landlords provide a service that people pay for.

This isn’t about social housing