Should minions be the instrument of rich people?

[Raikiri]

The flat I rented in North Greenwich was bought by a farmer from Southampton for his daughter to reside in while at Uni as she wasn't happy being in halls, I'm sure he still owns it now as she'll have let Uni and is renting it out to someone else but the reason he bought it initially was for her to reside in.

When I was at Sussex many of the International students were from wealthy families and I knew a fair few that been bought properties rather than living in halls. Better for them to buy an appreciating property than spend 30 grand on rent over 3 years.

One of them had a new build, 2 bed flat for for about 180k. Similar flats in the building are now about 350-400k.

Obviously this is just my personal experience but I imagine it's more common than people think.

 

[Jez]

Makes you wonder why he didn't just keep it if the gains are that good and rent it out especially as you say he thought rents were high with double the value surely they would be even higher therefore no brainer to keep it long term.

Bit like my parents, couldn't be bothered to own a property in a now irrelevant location. Purchase is there to provide net free and, importantly, controllable accommodation only. This is a pretty normal thing to do, buy the house, take the rent from the other students living there to keep it the cost neutral, and then sell it when finished. This makes far more sense than renting somewhere outside of your control for them.

 

[Bear]

Funny enough we are considering the same... also at York if my daughter goes there. Don't know yet how we would raise capital to buy it. But it's something we are looking at.

I had a work mate that did it, he bought a house for his son and daughter to live in whilst they were at uni. He just bought the house on an interest only mortgage and was going to sell it after they had finished and pocket any profit

 

[Quartz]

Landlording is entirely immoral and should be banned. There's no societal good from allowing it.

I'll bite.

You do realise that landlords provide a valuable service, don't you? You do realise that landlords take considerable risks, don't you? You do realise that property can decrease in value, don't you? Not everyone wants to buy a house. Not everyone intends to stay long term. And on the flip side, you do realise that people moving out of a house may not want to sell it for various reasons and therefore will want to let it out, don't you?

 

[cheesyboy]

You do realise that landlords provide a valuable service, don't you?

They do not. They simply remove a home from the market and therefore force a person/family to pay their mortgage for them.

You might think this nonsense on an individual level, but when there are 2.65million landlords in the UK, that's exactly what happens.

The requirement for rentals is, to a great extent, caused by the price of buying being too high. Which is directly caused by landlords.

 

[Quartz]

They do not

False. Or do you expect council and housing association properties to be sold off too?

They simply remove a home from the market and therefore force a person/family to pay their mortgage for them.

False. No one is forcing people to rent a property.

Which is directly caused by landlords.

And your evidence for that is what, exactly? Nothing to do, perhaps with too many people? The population of the UK has gone up almost 10x in the past 200 years.

 

[200sols]

They do not. They simply remove a home from the market and therefore force a person/family to pay their mortgage for them.

You might think this nonsense on an individual level, but when there are 2.65million landlords in the UK, that's exactly what happens.

The requirement for rentals is, to a great extent, caused by the price of buying being too high. Which is directly caused by landlords.

Agree 100%.

 

[cheesyboy]

False. Or do you expect council and housing association properties to be sold off too?

I do not. Thumbs up to council and housing associations.

False. No one is forcing people to rent a property.

If there are limited homes, and 2.65 million landlords take properties off the market for owner -occupiers, of course they are forcing people to rent. There's simply no argument.

And your evidence for that is what, exactly?

It's very simple supply and demand economics. More demand=higher price. It's particularly egregious because landlords, by and large, are taking housing stock that is exactly what first time buyers would be purchasing. And they have more liquidity and faster access to cash, so on a micro scale will 'win' in individual house purchase bidding contests.

 

[Dolph]

I do not. Thumbs up to council and housing associations.

But they are just landlords.

If there are limited homes, and 2.65 million landlords take properties off the market for owner -occupiers, of course they are forcing people to rent. There's simply no argument.

Only if you assume that the person renting the property is in a position to buy that property.

It's very simple supply and demand economics. More demand=higher price. It's particularly egregious because landlords, by and large, are taking housing stock that is exactly what first time buyers would be purchasing. And they have more liquidity and faster access to cash, so on a micro scale will 'win' in individual house purchase bidding contests.

If it's so simple, how do you get it so wrong?

 

[cheesyboy]

But they are just landlords

They are not

 

[cheesyboy]

Only if you assume that the person renting the property is in a position to buy that property.

This really isn't refuting what I said at all.

If it's so simple, how do you get it so wrong?

Explain how 2.65 million landlords hasn't pushed up house prices please.

 

[FoxEye]

Makes you wonder why he didn't just keep it if the gains are that good and rent it out especially as you say he thought rents were high with double the value surely they would be even higher therefore no brainer to keep it long term.

I guess not everyone wants to be a parasite, adding to the problem?

 

[Dolph]

This really isn't refuting what I said at all.

Explain how 2.65 million landlords hasn't pushed up house prices please.

House prices (both purchase and rental) are driven by a complex combination of supply, demand, and finance availability, and ultimately a proxy for accessibility of accomodation .

The existence of landlords isn't responsible for the challenges of accessibility of accomodation, and it's either dishonest or ignorant to pretend it is.

 

[cheesyboy]

House prices (both purchase and rental) are driven by a complex combination of supply, demand, and finance availability, and ultimately a proxy for accessibility of accomodation .

The existence of landlords isn't responsible for the challenges of accessibility of accomodation, and it's either dishonest or ignorant to pretend it is.

So purchasing 4.5 million (2017 figure, an increase from 2.8m in 2007) of the UK's 24 million houses didn't affect prices?

Remarkable.

 

[FoxEye]

You don't think the 50% who earn less than the median should be able to afford the tiniest, worst 3 bed you could find?

Single parents on more than median salary can't get a terrible little 3-bed for their family either.

He's done this before, a quick RightMove search and he doesn't even check what kind of properties he's finding just posts links to them here.

Last time it was shared ownership studio flat for £100k in Truro, this time it's a chalet in a holiday park... where ground rent is payable, etc. Yeah, great examples of affordable housing those are

 

[FoxEye]

House prices (both purchase and rental) are driven by a complex combination of supply, demand, and finance availability, and ultimately a proxy for accessibility of accomodation .

The existence of landlords isn't responsible for the challenges of accessibility of accomodation, and it's either dishonest or ignorant to pretend it is.

The existence of readily available statistical trends says you're wrong.

The trend is for a sharp decline in home ownership, and a sharp increase in private rented accommodation.

They are "providing a service" by decreasing home ownership, and pushing rents above mortgage payments.

Have you looked at rent as a % of income recently? That tells its own story. In places now rent is >70% of income.

Nothing to see here, landlords provide a useful service (lol).

 

[Psycho Sonny]

You don't think the 50% who earn less than the median should be able to afford the tiniest, worst 3 bed you could find?

Single parents on more than median salary can't get a terrible little 3-bed for their family either.

Not in one of the most expensive places in the country no. I thought this was clear but I've said it again.

They can move where it's more affordable and find a different McDonald's to work in nearby.

 

[Jez]

@FoxEye , we'll never see eye to eye on this as i am a landlord of a few properties, this is my simplistic exit from work plan because i am too stupid and risk averse to have much in the stock markets. I am just a normal (i would like to think nice!) person with a normal corporate job, very far from some rich spiv landlord. I just tend to buy another property every few years whenever i see a good deal around on a dilapidated freehold which i think i can do up myself, I've put a lot of work into each one. I don't use mortgages so I'm certainly not one of these landlords who buys leveraging rents against their borrowing.

Anyway, that aside, i am genuinely interested (i mean this sincerely, I don't know many people IRL who are not likeminded, so never see the other viewpoint IRL), what do you make of this situation? a property which i am buying at the moment:

Part of an old hotel which is being sold off, are some store rooms which served the hotel on the ground floor, own front door from the street and self contained from the rest of the mansion house which this is in. These years and years ago used to be staff quarters but have been used for hotel storage for at least 50 years. Total gut job, new services, everything. I am buying this part of the mansion house, as a flying freehold subject to many other flying freeholds around it, with the aim to use PD prior approval to change the use class from E commercial to C3 dwellinghouse. It'll make a very nice little place to rent out as a self contained flat/house/whatever.

This place is not mortgageable, and is obviously not currently classed as a dwelling let alone being a home for anyone. This little project will increase the housing stock in the area. In your view, am i wrong in buying this and renting this out? Or is your view that i should immediately sell this to create an open market home?

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I guess not everyone wants to be a parasite, adding to the problem?

They should all move to China then see how it works out for them.

Renting out property goes hand in hand with capitalism.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

@FoxEye , we'll never see eye to eye on this as i am a landlord of a few properties, this is my simplistic exit from work plan because i am too stupid and risk averse to have much in the stock markets. I am just a normal (i would like to think nice!) person with a normal corporate job, very far from some rich spiv landlord. I just tend to buy another property every few years whenever i see a good deal around on a dilapidated freehold which i think i can do up myself, I've put a lot of work into each one. I don't use mortgages so I'm certainly not one of these landlords who buys leveraging rents against their borrowing.

Anyway, that aside, i am genuinely interested (i mean this sincerely, I don't know many people IRL who are not likeminded, so never see the other viewpoint IRL), what do you make of this situation? a property which i am buying at the moment:

Part of an old hotel which is being sold off, are some store rooms which served the hotel on the ground floor, own front door from the street and self contained from the rest of the mansion house which this is in. These years and years ago used to be staff quarters but have been used for hotel storage for at least 50 years. Total gut job, new services, everything. I am buying this part of the mansion house, as a flying freehold subject to many other flying freeholds around it, with the aim to use PD prior approval to change the use class from E commercial to C3 dwellinghouse. It'll make a very nice little place to rent out as a self contained flat/house/whatever.

This place is not mortgageable, and is obviously not currently classed as a dwelling let alone being a home for anyone. This little project will increase the housing stock in the area. In your view, am i wrong in buying this and renting this out? Or is your view that i should immediately sell this to create an open market home?

You are a parasite adding to the problem. He's made his view pretty clear.