The joy of being a landlord

[Maple Leaf]

I think living under threat of losing your home with only two months notice, for no reason, pretty much covers it no?

A landlord can only terminate an (AST) Assured Shorthold Tenancy with a Section 21 notice (2 months notice after the upcoming rent day) once the fixed period has ended. At that point in the tenancy, the tenant still has more power because he/she has the right to terminate the AST with just 1 month's notice after the upcoming rent day. The fixed period can be set at any length. The legal minimum is 6 months but I have seen fixed periods of 3 years used. You can negotiate with your landlord for a longer fixed period, the one they give you initially is not set in stone.

If a tenant leaves 2 months after being issued with a Section 21 notice (no Court appearance) then he will not have a CCJ (County Court Judgement) on public record against him, even if he was a tenant from Hell! On the other hand, if he has to go through Section 8 (Court appearance) proceedings then there will be a CCJ against him. Hence, Section 21 can actually protect a tenant's reputation when the landlord just wants to cut his losses and get his property back. Otherwise, the tenant may struggle to rent another property if the landlord/letting agent does a CCJ check.

Furthermore, after living in HMO's for many years I know of several cases where landlords used Section 21 notices to get tenants to change their bad conduct. For example, where a tenant has repeatedly engaged in anti-social/threatening behaviour to other tenants, been consistently late with the rent, or built up a big debt for their energy bills, then the landlord would issue one but later withdraw it if the tenant changed their ways before the 2 months was up.

I rented for 15 years and only received a Section 21 notice once (because the landlord was selling up). If you're receiving them frequently and you did nothing wrong then consider moving to a cheaper part of the country where there is not the massive demand for rental properties which allows landlords to dump good tenants and then get new ones who will pay much more. Up here in the North East of England landlords are keen to hold on to good tenants, they don't want the hassle of advertising and a void period and running the gauntlet of getting a dodgy tenant if they can do a deal with a good tenant and have them stay on instead for a below market value rent.

Finally, if a Section 21 notice is legally contested by the tenant (which requires a Court hearing) then it will currently take at least 6 months to get the tenant out even if the S21 notice was legitimate. The landlord cannot just call the Police to enforce a Section 21 notice leaving date (even if they are in the right). It is landlords who typically get shafted and are left with no legal recourse when tenants don't pay their rent but continue to live in the property for many months after their eviction date has passed and then trash the property before they leave. The current AST system does little to protect landlords, but there is a great deal of legislation which protects tenants' rights.

 

[Scam]

A landlord can only terminate an (AST) Assured Shorthold Tenancy with a Section 21 notice (2 months notice after the upcoming rent day) once the fixed period has ended. At that point in the tenancy, the tenant still has more power because he/she has the right to terminate the AST with just 1 month's notice after the upcoming rent day.

I’m not talking about people willing to go to court, people getting evicted, or general troublemakers. I’m talking about your average person who is a decent citizen and will leave a rented property when given notice. It’s those people that get shafted by the current system. Once an AST ends, most people go into a periodic tenancy (like my friends for example). That’s what always happened in my 20 odd years renting, that’s what most people end up on. And with that, your landlord only needs to give you 2 months notice to quit, and 1 months notice of a rent increase. It’s not enough, and is a cloud over a normal working person.

I rented for 15 years and only received a Section 21 notice once (because the landlord was selling up). If you're receiving them frequently

As of 18 months ago I no longer rent (thankfully). Much to the disappointment of those in here who like to argue with the “you’d be better off stopping complaining and actually do something something about it” etc.

I still see the injustices in our property market (just last week Shelter were reminding me that the average house is still “earning” more in this country than the average salary) and will continue to point out its flaws.

 

[aVdub]

I only go out when the weather is bad.
OH says I always moan about the weather....

 

[bigmike20vt]

I still see the injustices in our property market (just last week Shelter were reminding me that the average house is still “earning” more in this country than the average salary) and will continue to point out its flaws.

I find that hard to believe. I am sure there are outliers and also London will cost more....but the AVERAGE single rental property in UK earning more than the average UK salary? if so I really need to update our rental charges.
w
my wife's flat is a large single bed - compared to new builds almost huge for a single bed (no garden tho) it's a stones throw from central Cambridge with park and ride bust stop outside, a couple of miles from cambs train station and a way onto the A14. I can't remember exact numbers but we charge around £650 PCM and have not changed that rent in 5 years

according to Google the UK average salary is over £38000 (which stunned me. I need a pay rise as well!!! - maybe I should strike!)

but are you seriously believing that average rent on a single properly is over £3K PA?

edit I just picked Northwich... an average town in NW England (it's near where I grew up) £1500 gets you a detached 4 bed house.... I highly doubt that is the average size of property most people rent, and if they are then I would expect there would be 2 adults living there at least to split the costs

Rightmove.co.uk

Search over a Million properties for sale and to rent from the top estate agents and developers in the UK

www.rightmove.co.uk

 

[Maple Leaf]

I’m not talking about people willing to go to court, people getting evicted, or general troublemakers. I’m talking about your average person who is a decent citizen and will leave a rented property when given notice. It’s those people that get shafted by the current system. Once an AST ends, most people go into a periodic tenancy (like my friends for example). That’s what always happened in my 20 odd years renting, that’s what most people end up on. And with that, your landlord only needs to give you 2 months notice to quit, and 1 months notice of a rent increase. It’s not enough, and is a cloud over a normal working person.

You live in London! What do you expect really? Property prices and rents are insane in London. (I lived in Cambridge for a one year research placement and that was bad enough for me. The Letting Agents were brazen con-men out to shaft their customers.) A statutory periodic tenancy is hardly the preferred position in a tenancy for either the tenant or the landlord. The tenant can be asked to leave with 2 month's notice and the landlord can lose a tenant he wants to retain with just 1 month's notice.

In that situation you need to negotiate a new AST with a new (preferably) longer fixed term period for which you have to be prepared to pay more rent. Where you are in the country and the nature of the rental property determines how much leverage you have to negotiate with the landlord. If you live in London then you are stuffed in that situation. You need much more housing to be built down there. My advice to people in that predicament is to get out of London and move somewhere where the housing market is sensible.

I still see the injustices in our property market (just last week Shelter were reminding me that the average house is still “earning” more in this country than the average salary) and will continue to point out its flaws.

Round here property prices have levelled off now and are falling in some areas. If you live in London and the South East then investing in property is a sure thing. The sick thing about this country is how most of the best careers/business opportunities are concentrated in and around London and in the South East. If they were distributed more evenly around the country then you wouldn't have the outrageously overheated housing market down there which makes life miserable for so many people.

 

[JonRGV250]

As of 18 months ago I no longer rent (thankfully).

Great stuff

I still see the injustices in our property market (just last week Shelter were reminding me that the average house is still “earning” more in this country than the average salary) and will continue to point out its flaws.

I'm not saying that's not true, but i'd like to see some evidence.

 

[Scam]

but the AVERAGE single rental property in UK earning more than the average UK salary?

No you misunderstand. House price inflation means the price of property is inflating per year, more than average salaries. I can’t find the shelter link but see this for example- https://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/is-your-home-earning-more-than-you/

If you live in London then you are stuffed in that situation. You need much more housing to be built down there.

It doesn’t just make it ok though, because it’s London. It’s spreading to other cities in the UK and you can’t just tell people to not live there. I disagree with “build more” as well - there’s tons being built, they just get snapped up by investors and chucked on the rental market.

If they were distributed more evenly around the country then you wouldn't have the outrageously overheated housing market down there which makes life miserable for so many people.

I do agree.

 

[Quartz]

Businesses are not willing to move to where housing is cheap.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Businesses are not willing to move to where housing is cheap.

surely government could encourage it with sweeteners tho (I know... it would be an alien concept to give sweeteners to actually develop poor areas and create jobs rather than lining the pockets of rich donors.... but it would be an incentive which may help.

 

[bigmike20vt]

No you misunderstand. House price inflation means the price of property is inflating per year, more than average salaries. I can’t find the shelter link but see this for example- https://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/is-your-home-earning-more-than-you/

ahhh.. I understand now. I agree. it's a pita. I could have got almost a 100% mortgage back in the day but I am completely risk averse so decided to save for 3 years . in that time I scrimped and scrapped for every spare penny and put aside almost 12k iirc..... my which point houses had gone up ~ 3x the amount I have saved. this was back around 2000.... so this has been going on for decades. I don't have a solution... but I will say if it were not for the landlords renting for the 5 years before I bought a house I would have been in trouble ... because without the benefit of hindsite a 100% mortgage was terrifying and something I didn't want to risk

 

[Quartz]

surely government could encourage it with sweeteners tho

I can only speak for Scotland but the Scottish government could start by not taxing people more heavily and by not interfering in local ratings rulings. And they could go on and ditch the idea of giving a universal basic income of £25k.

 

[Ahleckz]

. And they could go on and ditch the idea of giving a universal basic income of £25k.

source please

 

[FoxEye]

Well, this thread will get the landlord haters frothing and soiling themselves.

(Frothing intensifies)

What's to say that hasn't been said before...

"We worked hard all our lives and made lots of money so we deserve to be in this position."

Is the first thing (of many) I object to. You worked hard all your life, made a lot of money, and therefore deserve to be able to spend your money on a mansion if you like. 7 bedrooms, gold plated urinal, 3 butlers in every room. Knock yourself out, you earned it. You could have the house you deserve, and fill it with the luxury you deserve. And nobody would complain.

But that's not what this is about, is it? You take that hard-earned money, and you use it to basically enslave other hard-working people, except they work hard in low-paid professions. Like carers, who often earn min wage. Like delivery drivers, who work brutal shifts for abusive companies. Like anyone working in retail, stacking shelves. Or working in a factory, or cleaning your office.

So many jobs that are actually "hard" and pay peanuts, and yet society needs that work to be done. You, as the hard-working business owner (or their accountant/architect/personal trainer), benefit directly or indirectly from their labour. But they didn't get a degree, or start a business, so they can't possibly be working as hard as you, now, can they. Of course now you say, "It's not about working hard, it's about working smart," and so on and so forth. The goalposts are changeable, but you always earned what you have by being superior to them. Or making better life choices (like having better parents). We get it.

So you take your hard-earned money, and you don't buy that mansion and hire 7 butlers. You could do, but you don't. Instead, you buy another family home, or a flat. And you become a landlord. And you get another "revenue stream" to top up your already above-average income. And, it turns out, unless something terrible happens, your tenants end up buying that 2nd house outright for you. So you add a third... because you deserve it. But it's not for you to live in, or your butler, it's for another hard-working factory employee to live in, and for them to pay off another mortgage for you. Heck, you don't even need to wait for the previous mortgages to be paid off by your tenants, you can keep adding more properties way before that point, with the banks help. Just don't get too greedy (lol).

You know what this sounds like, to me?

"I worked hard all my life and earned a lot of money. I deserve to have slaves. The law says this form of slavery is completely legal. And I'm going to keep adding more slaves to my portfolio because I deserve a comfortable life having worked so hard to this point. I deserve my slaves and their revenue streams. I worked hard to become a slave owner."

Just for one second, imagine you're the factory worker paying 70% (and more!) of their take-home on renting this property. You can't save for a deposit, and you begrudge paying rent that's way higher than mortgage repayment would be (if you could get one). You can't have any pets. You can't change the wallpaper. You can't plant anything in the garden (the landlord has it just they way he likes it, when he comes to visit once a year).

You especially can't mention anything that needs fixing or you dramatically increase the chances of being evicted. (Yes, this happens often. No, it's not just "a few bad landlords".)

And your landlord expects you to show some gratitude, because of the valuable service he is providing you. Remember, he worked hard to become your master.

 

[deusexlumina]

(Frothing intensifies)

What's to say that hasn't been said before...

"We worked hard all our lives and made lots of money so we deserve to be in this position."

Is the first thing (of many) I object to. You worked hard all your life, made a lot of money, and therefore deserve to be able to spend your money on a mansion if you like. 7 bedrooms, gold plated urinal, 3 butlers in every room. Knock yourself out, you earned it. You could have the house you deserve, and fill it with the luxury you deserve. And nobody would complain.

But that's not what this is about, is it? You take that hard-earned money, and you use it to basically enslave other hard-working people, except they work hard in low-paid professions. Like carers, who often earn min wage. Like delivery drivers, who work brutal shifts for abusive companies. Like anyone working in retail, stacking shelves. Or working in a factory, or cleaning your office.

So many jobs that are actually "hard" and pay peanuts, and yet society needs that work to be done. You, as the hard-working business owner (or their accountant/architect/personal trainer), benefit directly or indirectly from their labour. But they didn't get a degree, or start a business, so they can't possibly be working as hard as you, now, can they. Of course now you say, "It's not about working hard, it's about working smart," and so on and so forth. The goalposts are changeable, but you always earned what you have by being superior to them. Or making better life choices (like having better parents). We get it.

So you take your hard-earned money, and you don't buy that mansion and hire 7 butlers. You could do, but you don't. Instead, you buy another family home, or a flat. And you become a landlord. And you get another "revenue stream" to top up your already above-average income. And, it turns out, unless something terrible happens, your tenants end up buying that 2nd house outright for you. So you add a third... because you deserve it. But it's not for you to live in, or your butler, it's for another hard-working factory employee to live in, and for them to pay off another mortgage for you. Heck, you don't even need to wait for the previous mortgages to be paid off by your tenants, you can keep adding more properties way before that point, with the banks help. Just don't get too greedy (lol).

You know what this sounds like, to me?

"I worked hard all my life and earned a lot of money. I deserve to have slaves. The law says this form of slavery is completely legal. And I'm going to keep adding more slaves to my portfolio because I deserve a comfortable life having worked so hard to this point. I deserve my slaves and their revenue streams. I worked hard to become a slave owner."

Just for one second, imagine you're the factory worker paying 70% (and more!) of their take-home on renting this property. You can't save for a deposit, and you begrudge paying rent that's way higher than mortgage repayment would be (if you could get one). You can't have any pets. You can't change the wallpaper. You can't plant anything in the garden (the landlord has it just they way he likes it, when he comes to visit once a year).

You especially can't mention anything that needs fixing or you dramatically increase the chances of being evicted. (Yes, this happens often. No, it's not just "a few bad landlords".)

And your landlord expects you to show some gratitude, because of the valuable service he is providing you. Remember, he worked hard to become your master.

This is all valid but to address the overarching point, where do you draw the line where it’s ok to make money and not ok to make money?

what about the food industry engineering products that are considered essentially addictive.

What about pharmaceutical companies skewing clinical trials to promote efficacy of their drugs. Or just charging extortionate amounts for them, period.

The entire banking industry/system. We’re moaning about the landlords, when really there’s a group of people above them making more money and another etc etc. It’s all messed up, none of it particularly fair.

that being said, there is a housing crisis. I agree that people who work a 40 hr week on minimum wage should be able to live comfortably (and by that I mean, 30% on rent). But what has lead to this situation is decades of poor government policy in multiple areas. I don’t think it’s as simple as pointing to a group of people and saying “you shouldn’t be making money”.

 

[FoxEye]

(snip)

that being said, there is a housing crisis. I agree that people who work a 40 hr week on minimum wage should be able to live comfortably (and by that I mean, 30% on rent). But what has lead to this situation is decades of poor government policy in multiple areas. I don’t think it’s as simple as pointing to a group of people and saying “you shouldn’t be making money”.

Clearly they earned a decent chunk of money in their chosen profession, before they became landlords. In that respect, I'm not saying they shouldn't be making money. They can continue in their highly paid profession as long as they desire, and continue to be paid well in so doing.

This is about people who choose to become parasites on the low-paid, when they are already in a position of relative luxury. They are already way above the level of the low-paid, in terms of purchasing power, quality of life, life outcomes, dare I say it... "happiness".

Indeed, some of those landlords choose to give up entirely on being productive, in favour of simply relying on their rental income to finance premature retirement. That's not really good for anyone, is it?

Yes, govt housing policy is probably the root cause of creating the environment in which this evil flourishes. Right to Buy is a big problem. Councils being effectively banned from increasing social housing stock is another.

 

[deusexlumina]

Clearly they earned a decent chunk of money in their chosen profession, before they became landlords. In that respect, I'm not saying they shouldn't be making money. They can continue in their highly paid profession as long as they desire, and continue to be paid well in so doing.

This is about people who choose to become parasites on the low-paid, when they are already in a position of relative luxury. They are already way above the level of the low-paid, in terms of purchasing power, quality of life, life outcomes, dare I say it... "happiness".

Indeed, some of those landlords choose to give up entirely on being productive, in favour of simply relying on their rental income to finance premature retirement. That's not really good for anyone, is it?

Yes, govt housing policy is probably the root cause of creating the environment in which this evil flourishes. Right to Buy is a big problem. Councils being effectively banned from increasing social housing stock is another.

Well, I agree with a lot of this and fundamentally I guess the solution should be a situation where it’s simply not possible to profit off of housing. How that is implemented however I have no idea.

I think my point is that once you become moderately wealthy and invest in anything, you are essentially skimming more money off of the lower paid. E.g dividends on stocks, where the profit could be used to increase the minimum wage of the workers.

 

[Akagi]

Imagine being a landlord and expecting any kind of sympathy in this day and age, LOL, pwnd.

 

[deusexlumina]

Imagine being a landlord and expecting any kind of sympathy in this day and age, LOL, pwnd.

What I find funny is I remember saying something similar about 10 years ago, and using the famous Winston Churchill quote.

You’ll be surprised how your views change as you grow up and you’re given an opportunity specific to your own personal circumstances.

But no, speaking for myself personally, I’m not asking for sympathy. I’m putting across the point that the situation is a bit more complex than “all the landlords are evil”.

 

[Akagi]

Landlords are societal leeches. Thats kind of all there is to it in my opinion.

 

[Devilman]

Well, I agree with a lot of this and fundamentally I guess the solution should be a situation where it’s simply not possible to profit off of housing. How that is implemented however I have no idea.

I think my point is that once you become moderately wealthy and invest in anything, you are essentially skimming more money off of the lower paid. E.g dividends on stocks, where the profit could be used to increase the minimum wage of the workers.

Massive council tax and general taxation hikes on those owning more than 1 "household property". There is simply no reason why anyone need to own more than 1 property in this day and age... You cannot live in more than 1 property at a time.

What I find funny is I remember saying something similar about 10 years ago, and using the famous Winston Churchill quote.

You’ll be surprised how your views change as you grow up and you’re given an opportunity specific to your own personal circumstances.

But no, speaking for myself personally, I’m not asking for sympathy. I’m putting across the point that the situation is a bit more complex than “all the landlords are evil”.

Whether by inheritance or buying into the market early, those who decide to become a "private landlord" choose to do so.

They could sell the property, they could pass it down to their children, many other things.

They choose the enrich themselves at the cost of others. (Often those less fortunate than themselves (read - not earning as much / didn't inherit a property)

Many of them then choose to expand on that exploitation by buying more properties and turning them into rentals, further limiting supply to FTB and pushing prices yet higher, making mortgages unobtainable for another swath of the hard working public.

How else you can define that except evil? (even though I do agree the term "evil" does seem a little excessive in this context)


To put it another way....

You're meant to "Punch Up" not "Punch Down".