The joy of being a landlord

Hotwired said:
What you pay for rent has zero bearing on the rules that the landlords are meant to follow.

If it's a dump it's basically guaranteed that they're breaching their agreement with the council.

Does paying "more" mean the landlord is definitely looking after the place? No. It just means you're paying more.
Click to expand...
I know that, you know that. But some people clearly don't think so. It was all i was really digging at.
 
alchal said:
About to get married in September, both have our own houses, looking to stay at our lasses and maybe rent mine out, family at first ( brother ) got 40k on that mortgage which we could potentially pay off but leave very little savings or sell and pay of the living in house.

Not sure which is the better option, especially looking at the new EPC rules coming in.

Any advice?
Click to expand...

You need to find out what it would rent out for and then compare that amount of income with your mortgage payments. House prices will continue to climb and if the government continue their war on landlords then less available rentals will continue to drive up rental prices, so if you only have a small mortgage on a place then yes it's worth hanging on to.

If you were looking at actually getting a new mortgage to buy a place to rent out then I'd advise against it, but if you already have a property and looking to rent it out then it's a yes.

There's never really a good reason to sell a house unless you actually need the cash to pay off a debt or you don't want the hassle of renting. (We renovate properties too so we flip from time to time but if you aren't looking to get in to renovating then just hold what you have and enjoy the bit of extra income and you've basically got a pension pot sat there accruing).
 
Last edited:
EvilRob said:
Maybe in the long run. Right now it seems like it's making things much worse for renters.
Click to expand...

This.
As long as the government is providing options for renters I agree that pushing out landlords is no bad thing.

But I don't believe it is. Well. Not fast enough anyway.


It would be great if there was affordable, public owned accommodation for all. Basic needs met. But the option of "fancy" rent is still a thing.


The amount people have to spend on mortgages and particularly rent is a huge drain and pressure on standards of living.
 
413x said:
This.
As long as the government is providing options for renters I agree that pushing out landlords is no bad thing.

But I don't believe it is. Well. Not fast enough anyway.


It would be great if there was affordable, public owned accommodation for all. Basic needs met. But the option of "fancy" rent is still a thing.


The amount people have to spend on mortgages and particularly rent is a huge drain and pressure on standards of living.
Click to expand...

Problem is also housing associations, why these exist is beyond me.

They are a nightmare to deal with and really do nothing to help with the upkeep of the property, ie wooden windows, dodgy roofs etc etc, my neighbours both have sanctuary housing and they are unfit for purpose.
 
Last edited:
Ok... there seems to be some miss understanding here, of course there is a minimal standard of living and there should be a minimal standard to the rented properties and the service that the landlords are providing.

But say you are to go on holiday, each holiday has a type, self catering, B&B, full inclusive etc, then each holiday package is award a star... with the photos (which always looks better than in RL) you have a clear idea of what you are getting.

Likewise with renting a property, you seen the photos, heck you oftern visit the place and the location. you get copies of all the legal docs so you know what sort of service you are getting.

If you are renting a place where the landlord turns up two hours late and does not have a reasonable excuss, then I would not be renting the place no matter how cheap it is..
if you are viewing a place that is a ****hole, then again; I won't be renting the place no matter how cheap it is..

cost should be one of the lesser factor in deciding if you are renting a place or not; you know you budget before even booking an appointment.
if you budget only allows for ****holes places, then it may be an issue with your budget.

if you visit serveal places that all look good, then it's a choice between which the estate agents or landlord seems to be the better one.
if you visit a place where it's seems ok, but there's a better place for the same price then try haggling the price down.

I went out with an estate agents, and most people just seem to want to hackle the price down before looking at the service that they are offering... which is part of the price.

It seems most people take longer to decide on a holiday than they spend looking into where to rent or who to rent from.
 
alchal said:
Problem is also housing associations, why these exist is beyond me.

They are a nightmare to deal with and really do nothing to help with the upkeep of the property, ie wooden windows, dodgy roofs etc etc, my neighbours both have sanctuary housing and they are unfit for purpose.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have no experience of this. I always rented Privately.

Bad housing is yet another crippling aspect we have. Bad stock, bad insulation, mould etc.

For me, in an ideal World, the government would have a huge portfolio of decent (ie well. Insulated) stock, but basic. So anyone who wanted a basic home could pretty much get a "standard" place.


But it's a pipe dream and very expensive (similar to taking back water companies public would be).


Problem with punishing landlords without supply is... Supply and demand.

We all know it I suppose. Not sure what a realistic solution is. As it's all really expensive
 
I've never understood the issue people have with mould. The number of people who seem to just completely ignore it for months and months and then complain boggles the mind. Yes there are plenty of houses that get mould because of a fault that needs fixing by the owner but I would never let any property I lived in build up mould like many people seem to. Wipe it off. Buy mould cleaning spray. What am I missing?
 
413x said:
We all know it I suppose. Not sure what a realistic solution is. As it's all really expensive
Click to expand...

The solution is to call for a return to the gold standard for money. This would give money a real and meaningful value in relation to real economic activity. Without the gold standard, the bankers are able to print money for themselves, and this leads to rampant inflation, rampant house price inflation, and a massive detachment between what people are able to earn through jobs that deliver real economic value, and what they have to pay to the bankers and landed classes for basic living requirements, i.e. a space in the country to exist in. It is the debasement of money that gives the bankers a massive advantage over the rest of the population, and allows the financial sector to become grossly oversized and too powerful. The UK economy has become over financialised.

Bring back the gold standard - or a Bitcoin standard. This alone would return a functional housing market.

The reason "it's all really expensive" is because it is able to become artificially high through the bankers printing money from thin air, and the rest of the population has no option but to pony up for somewhere to live. The reason it's dysfunctional is because money itself, the medium of exchange, is easily manipulated by the banking sector. Going back to using gold coins would work better ... the sooner more people, particularly young people, understand this the better.
 
Last edited:
radderfire said:
The solution is to call for a return to the gold standard for money. This would give money a real and meaningful value in relation to real economic activity. Without the gold standard, the bankers are able to print money for themselves, and this leads to rampant inflation, rampant house price inflation, and a massive detachment between what people are able to earn through jobs that deliver real economic value, and what they have to pay for basic living requirements, i.e. a space in the country to exist in. It it the debasement of money that gives the bankers a massive advantage over the rest of the population, and allows the financial sector to become grossly oversized and too powerful. The UK economy has become over financialised.

Bring back the gold standard - or a Bitcoin standard. This alone would return a functional housing market.

The reason "it's all really expensive" is because it is able to become artificially high through the bankers printing money from thin air, and the rest of the population has no option but to pony up for somewhere to live. The reason it's dysfunctional is because money itself, the medium of exchange, is easily manipulated by the banking sector. Going back to using gold coins would work better ... the sooner more people, particularly young people, understand this the better.
Click to expand...
:cry::cry::cry::cry:
 
Regular as clockwork, soon as BTC sees a bit of upward action, radderfire starts reminding everyone how incapable they are of understanding real world economics.
 
mid_gen said:
Regular as clockwork, soon as BTC sees a bit of upward action, radderfire starts reminding everyone how incapable they are of understanding real world economics.
Click to expand...

No, the economics are extremely simple. Money is printed from thin air by the bankers and pushed into the system, which has the effect of pushing up house prices. It has been so badly abused that house prices have become astronomical.

What isn't simple though is the way "professional" economists talk about it, but this is just to ensure that most of the population gets bamboozled and doesn't think about it too much, otherwise they might come to the simple conclusion above.
 
(as someone totally not qualified in economics and so probably am missing something) i think there is a good argument for having gold standard... it wouldnt have to be gold but having your printed money tied to something of an intrinsic worth makes sense......

but tying to BTC considering just a few years ago it went from what $70k to under $20k seemingly overnight.......... hell no!.
 
radderfire said:
It's not a laughing matter if you are a young person trying to afford somewhere to live.
Click to expand...
But just because bitcoin has a fixed amount of coins doesn't mean today a house would be 100btc and tomorrow 200 etc.

Also. Wealth would be even more skewed as with any crypto a few would hold most.


Btc doesn't really change anything


Anyone new on the scene would still face exactly the same hurdles.

I bought my house for 1btc.
Now it's 100btc.
My kids need 1000btc for it.
 
Last edited:
radderfire said:
No, the economics are extremely simple. Money is printed from thin air by the bankers and pushed into the system, which has the effect of pushing up house prices. It has been so badly abused that house prices have become astronomical.

What isn't simple though is the way "professional" economists talk about it, but this is just to ensure that most of the population gets bamboozled and doesn't think about it too much, otherwise they might come to the simple conclusion above.
Click to expand...

Btc wasn't in existence, then it was. So it's literally printed out of thin air as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom