The joy of being a landlord

[Freakbro]

I've been a landlord since January and I'm enjoying it so far I bought the house 20 years ago, lived in it for 19 and now moved in with a partner so am renting it out. I'll be one of those "good guy" landlords (that everyone on here seems to be ). As long as the tenants stay as good as they seem to be they can stay as long as they like and I've no need or intention to put up their rent.

But saying that, I think the woe is me defense of landlords on here is going a bit far, and I'm not so sure about the mass exodus of BTLs from the market that's being reported. We've had many many months of papers saying "There's a potential exodus because of XYZ" but when the mortgage data came out recently it unexpectedly showed a surge in BTL mortgage approvals. So it seems a bit of sensationalism again imo.

And for all this talk of

Most of the small time landlords I know have made nothing to very little the past few years. Many are even losing money after all the recent changes to upkeep, tax and running costs are factored in and the property has depreciated.

I think that's over egging the pudding somewhat. House price rises have flattened and are looking to decrease some this year, but they are still going to have to drop a long way just to get back to pre-pandemic levels! So if you've owned your rental property for some time, it's unlikely you're going to be in negative equity. Of course there are going to be some examples, say if you have a flat in a ****hole like Aberdeen (j/k), but as a whole, property owners have done very very well over the last few decades.

Of course, if you are the speculator type of landlord, who has been buying up houses by leveraging your existing stock to the max and have bought at the top of the market, then sure with the rising mortgage costs, all the other tax changes and the small decrease in value your "portfolio" it might not be as attractive and lucrative as before. But boo hoo, cry me a river, just like the stock market, if you are speculating to accumulate your capital can go up as well as down, that's the risk. And anyway, these sort of investments are for the long term, so bumps, dips and losses along the way are still overcome by the long term gain.

 

[Ormy1]

I've read this entire thread. I can see both sides, when I was young my dad owned a single extra property in addition to our family home, a shop front and two small flats which he rented out, but he sold up years ago due to various dodgy tenants in the flats making it not worth the hassle. The person who rented the shop was distraught, they saved a ton of money by renting a shopfront vs owning one because they didn't have to pay for basic repairs & maintenance, my dad was only able to make profit because he did most of this work himself, if he had to pay contractors to do all that work he would have to take a loss or drastically increase rent to the point he would not have been able to find tenants. This was in a rough part of Hull.

Since I moved out I have lived in rented properties for the last 15 years (under good and bad landlords), the last 7-8 years I really resented renting as I would like to have bought a house but could never afford it (I earn above the UK average wage but I work in London, no amount of saving/frugality is going to buy anything but the tiniest studio flat in the worst areas). I've finally taken the decision to move to the North, I've had to take an £8k/yr paycut to do so but at least I'll finally be able to buy my own property. If I manage to save enough, I would like to buy a second property to rent out before I retire.

My opinion on landlords:
If you own one or two extra properties (in addition to the one you live in), rent them out at below market rate in order to attract long term tenants, keep the property in good repair and refrain from invading the privacy of your tenants any more than strictly necessary, you are not evil. You are benefitting from a corrupt system (national housing shortage), but I would do the same in that position, so as long as you admit that fact (and not try to virtue signal as if you're a saint like some on this thread have done) then I have no problem. The unfortunate truth of the world is that the only way to make decent money is to make it from someone else. This will never change and likely be the ruin of our species, but hey ho.

If you increase the rent as far as the market will bear as often as possible just to make more money (regardless of how many properties you own), you are evil and need to die.

But for every one of those there is a really bad tenant (usually criminals) who will trash/abuse the property, rarely if ever pay rent and take unfair advantage of the landlord, they are also evil and need to die.

If you are a millionaire who has bought up dozens of cheap houses to rent out (regardless of whether you keep rents low or raise them regularly), you are evil and need to die. All you had to do to not be evil is buy commercial property or stocks & shares instead, anything other than cheap domestic property.

If you are high up in a company that has bought up dozens of cheap houses to rent out, you are evil and need to die. All you had to do to not be evil is buy commercial property or stocks & shares instead, anything other than cheap domestic property. Doesn't matter if the company bought the land and built the properties, still evil. You could have sold them at a minor profit (less than 20%-ish margin) to first time buyers to not be evil.

The root cause of all the problems mentioned in this thread is a lack of supply of cheap housing. This goes back to Thatcher, so the real blame lies with her, her cabinet, and everyone who voted for her.

Most of these problems could be fixed by a government project to build millions of cheap houses (there's plenty of disused industrial land just waiting), sell them at cost (when you spread the costs of building over a million houses they can be mighty cheap to build) and ONLY sell them to first time buyers, one per family (plus preventing them being rented out at all for some fixed term, say 20-30 years).

Of course many landlords are against this or anything like it as it will erode their profit margin, and they will use their votes and money (via government lobbying or any other means) to stop this happening, if that is you then you are evil and need to die (a majority of politicians in both parties fall into this category). If you are a landlord but you support (and vote for) building more cheap housing for first time buyers, I support you.

 

[Rai200]

Most of these problems could be fixed by a government project to build millions of cheap houses (there's plenty of disused industrial land just waiting), sell them at cost (when you spread the costs of building over a million houses they can be mighty cheap to build) and ONLY sell them to first time buyers, one per family.

I outlined this idea about a year ago in a different thread.

Random idea, but possibly build housing to be sold at slightly above cost price, only to first-time buyers on a fixed 5-10 year repayment.

A small studio, say 20-30 sqm would cost in the region of £35-60,000 to build as part of an apartment building. It gets people out of the rent trap of the private market and onto the housing ladder at effectively zero cost to the council as they wouldn't need to provide maintenance and would recoup initial costs within 10 years at most.

Once the property is paid off it can be sold and a flat-rate tax on the profit made could go to the local council in order to fund the building of more housing.

For example, Person A buys a flat for £45,000, and manages to pay it off in 5 years, then sells it for £120,000 on the private market. 25% of the profit (£18,750) goes directly to the council. Person A is now no longer eligible to purchase one of these properties as they're no longer a first-time buyer, so must go into the private market. But now they have £101,250 as a down payment for a larger property, meaning a smaller mortgage which is more risk-averse for the lender.

Tenant gets on the ladder, the council makes long term profit and it shouldn't affect the housing market too much as these people would have been stuck renting anyway.

 

[bigmike20vt]

I'm just here for the show at this point. My opinion on landlords (the big ones, not the mom'n'pop folks) is still that they should be outlawed. I

the thing is, regardless of whether that is a noble aim or not............ it will never happen. Even IF they wanted to no government has the clout to stand up to the handful of major land owners in this country.

Oxbridge, Wellcome ................ could you imagine what would happen if the government said they had to give up all their properties? they cant even stand up to the likes of Amazon.

and that is even IF they wanted to.... where as at least with the conservatives the opposite is true. Any policy to get rid of private landlords will be purely to get rid of the single property owners who you say you dont have as much of an issue with........... the corporations will not be touched - indeed i think the opposite would happen.. They would get bigger because i do not believe the conservative government have any interest in supplying a huge number of council houses.... and even if labour did... they have been in power what.... 25% of the time for the last 130 years or so? Anything labour chose to do if they get in power would be reversed next time the conservatives get in again.

 

[bigmike20vt]

How about the risk of being evicted at any time for literally no reason at all?
.

if our tenant approached me and asked to sign a 12 month, 2 year or 5 year contract to stay in the property - on the condition they pay their rent and look after it.

i would bite their hand off....... as much as many tenants may not want the risk of being asked to leave..... i dare say just as many, maybe even more, the reason they rent is they want the flexibility to up and leave with minimal notice.

or are you proposing a tenant be able to leave on a whim but equally a landlord cant get rid of them even if they need to sell up or move into their property?.

(and that is not even touching on "bad tenants" who still seem to have more rights than landlords in my experience - but going on landlords from hell articles maybe i am doing summat wrong)

 

[Sythe79]

I've read this entire thread. I can see both sides, when I was young my dad owned a single extra property in addition to our family home, a shop front and two small flats which he rented out, but he sold up years ago due to various dodgy tenants in the flats making it not worth the hassle. The person who rented the shop was distraught, they saved a ton of money by renting a shopfront vs owning one because they didn't have to pay for basic repairs & maintenance, my dad was only able to make profit because he did most of this work himself, if he had to pay contractors to do all that work he would have to take a loss or drastically increase rent to the point he would not have been able to find tenants. This was in a rough part of Hull.

Since I moved out I have lived in rented properties for the last 15 years (under good and bad landlords), the last 7-8 years I really resented renting as I would like to have bought a house but could never afford it (I earn above the UK average wage but I work in London, no amount of saving/frugality is going to buy anything but the tiniest studio flat in the worst areas). I've finally taken the decision to move to the North, I've had to take an £8k/yr paycut to do so but at least I'll finally be able to buy my own property. If I manage to save enough, I would like to buy a second property to rent out before I retire.

My opinion on landlords:
If you own one or two extra properties (in addition to the one you live in), rent them out at below market rate in order to attract long term tenants, keep the property in good repair and refrain from invading the privacy of your tenants any more than strictly necessary, you are not evil. You are benefitting from a corrupt system (national housing shortage), but I would likely do the same in that position, so as long as you admit that fact (and not try to virtue signal as if you're a saint like some on this thread have done) then I have no problem. The unfortunate truth of the world is that the only way to make decent money is to make it from someone else. This will never change and likely be the ruin of our species, but hey ho.

If you increase the rent as far as the market will bear as often as possible just to make more money (regardless of how many properties you own), you are evil and need to die.

But for every one of those there is a really bad tenant (usually criminals) who will trash/abuse the property, rarely if ever pay rent and take unfair advantage of the landlord, they are also evil and need to die. All you had to do to not be evil is buy commercial property or stocks & shares, or anything other than cheap domestic property.

If you are a millionaire who has bought up dozens of cheap houses to rent out (regardless of whether you keep rents low or raise them regularly), you are evil and need to die. All you had to do to not be evil is buy commercial property or stocks & shares instead, anything other than cheap domestic property.

If you are high up in a company that has bought up dozens of cheap houses to rent out, you are evil and need to die. All you had to do to not be evil is buy commercial property or stocks & shares instead, anything other than cheap domestic property. Doesn't matter if the company bought the land and built the properties, still evil. You could have sold them at a minor profit (less than 20%-ish margin) to first time buyers to not be evil.

The root cause of all the problems mentioned in this thread is a lack of supply of cheap housing. This goes back to Thatcher, so the real blame lies with her, her cabinet, and everyone who voted for her.

Most of these problems could be fixed by a government project to build millions of cheap houses (there's plenty of disused industrial land just waiting), sell them at cost (when you spread the costs of building over a million houses they can be mighty cheap to build) and ONLY sell them to first time buyers, one per family (plus preventing them being rented out at all for some fixed term, say 20-30 years).

Of course many landlords are against this or anything like it as it will erode their profit margin, and they will use their votes and money (via government lobbying or any other means) to stop this happening, if that is you then you are evil and need to die (a majority of politicians in both parties fall into this category). If you are a landlord but you support (and vote for) building more cheap housing for first time buyers, I support you.

You've just done the same thing, either something's bad or it isn't. You can't say one or two rentals is fine, but 10 you need to die. That's like saying my small cotton farm only has 5 slaves and I treat them real good, not like the big cotton farm down the road with 50.

Again I don't think landlords are evil...................... I just think they are on par with scalpers, dodgy windows' salesman scamming NFT YouTubers... take your pick. It's not illegal, so have at it, but don't expect people to like you or fall for your justifications you know what you're doing.

 

[bigmike20vt]

The mental gymnastics are amazing in here. Found a forum full of private land lords that are not in it to make money but to provide a service to those in need looool.

of course i am in it to make some (some) money....... that does not mean there isnt a need for properties to rent and anyone can say as much as they want that government should provide the properties....... but they dont have them to provide because they chose to sell them all.
until that changes then private landlords are needed, the question is will they be normal everyday folk or will they be a small number of increadibly rich businesses with 100s or 1000s of properties.
i dont disagree the government should have council housing...... but they dont. i cant control that (other than not voting for the current government and on that you are safe).

 

[bigmike20vt]

Easily. It can take a long time to evict a non-paying tenant. Even a paying tenant can damage the property. And so on.

our 1st 2 tenants were like that.... thankfully our following 3 have been brilliant. my wife was on the verge of a breakdown at its worse at the time... not helped that it was her flat she saved up for and lived in that she had spent 100s of hrs and a lot of money decorating it to a high standard only for it to be trashed in a few months.
she wanted to sell it, complete with taking a hit on her mortgage as well as a big old tax / legal bill.....

I persuaded her to keep it on the condition that she has nowt to do with it. after a rocky start (touches wood) it is going ok now and ticking over. essentially we dont make anything on it but we cover our costs and have someone paying our mortgage off on it (its less than £200 a month repayments... TBH we should pay it off really)

 

[Ormy1]

You've just done the same thing, either something's bad or it isn't. You can't say one or two rentals is fine, but 10 you need to die. That's like saying my small cotton farm only has 5 slaves and I treat them real good, not like the big cotton farm down the road with 50.

1. False equivalency with slavery. Slavery is evil no matter how many slaves you own, there is no debate on that. The evilness of renting domestic property is up for debate, we are all doing exactly that throughout this whole thread, and I'm stating my position. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

2. Yes of course you can say one or two is fine but 10 is not, we set limits on things all the time. For example you can legally store 5 litres of petrol at home but you cannot store 500 litres. The limits might be arbitrary and up for debate but they can still be set and enforced.

Any more logical fallacies you wish to add?

 

[JonRGV250]

The people who my heart goes out to are the mods who have to sift through page after page of the same thing over and over again.
God bless ‘em

 

[Sythe79]

1. False equivalency with slavery. Slavery is evil no matter how many slaves you own, there is no debate on that. The evilness of renting domestic property is up for debate, we are all doing exactly that throughout this whole thread, and I'm stating my position. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

2. Yes of course you can say one or two is fine but 10 is not, we set limits on things all the time. For example you can legally store 5 litres of petrol at home but you cannot store 500 litres. The limits might be arbitrary and up for debate but they can still be set and enforced.

Any more logical fallacies you wish to add?

Trying to claim something is a false equivalency, with a false equivalency, interesting.

Exploiting people is a moral question whether it be renting, slavery, wages, serfdom, pick one, so the same. A question of morality and a health and safety directive isn't the same... try again

 

[ColdAsIce]

of course i am in it to make some (some) money....... that does not mean there isnt a need for properties to rent and anyone can say as much as they want that government should provide the properties....... but they dont have them to provide because they chose to sell them all.
until that changes then private landlords are needed, the question is will they be normal everyday folk or will they be a small number of increadibly rich businesses with 100s or 1000s of properties.
i dont disagree the government should have council housing...... but they dont. i cant control that (other than not voting for the current government and on that you are safe).

Yes I know what the reality of the current situation is. I'm discussing what I would like to see happen in the future

 

[Diagro]

What everyone should be arguing for is more houses to be built in the UK.

Good luck.
Councils fight that at every turn. Refusing consent on stupid points.
They end up granting large developments and refusing all the small ones. Bribes most likely come to play here.

I've watched the last 9 of my councils planning committee meetings. It's laughable.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Yes I know what the reality of the current situation is. I'm discussing what I would like to see happen in the future

fair enough i can respect that... but i think people here are putting the cart before the horse...

the 1st step in all this has to be the government getting a load of housing to allow the council to rent out. once that is done, then i think the issue with private landlords will solve it self.

 

[ColdAsIce]

if our tenant approached me and asked to sign a 12 month, 2 year or 5 year contract to stay in the property - on the condition they pay their rent and look after it.

i would bite their hand off....... as much as many tenants may not want the risk of being asked to leave..... i dare say just as many, maybe even more, the reason they rent is they want the flexibility to up and leave with minimal notice.

or are you proposing a tenant be able to leave on a whim but equally a landlord cant get rid of them even if they need to sell up or move into their property?.

(and that is not even touching on "bad tenants" who still seem to have more rights than landlords in my experience - but going on landlords from hell articles maybe i am doing summat wrong)

Contracts might be different in Scotland than England but I don't believe any contract can even exist that allows for 1 year, 2 year, 5 year notice from either side that would need to be given to leave. Even if they did exist, you would need to be a complete idiot to sign yourself into a 5 year contract. Anything can happen in life and that would mean having to pay 4+ years of rent to leave your contract early O_o

 

[Sythe79]

Good luck.
Councils fight that at every turn. Refusing consent on stupid points.
They end up granting large developments and refusing all the small ones. Bribes most likely come to play here.

I've watched the last 9 of my councils planning committee meetings. It's laughable.

What's worse is even it the perfect utopian always better than evil socialism free market is that larger and larger percentages of new builds aren't actually built for homeowners but built 100% with buy to letters in mind.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Contracts might be different in Scotland than England but I don't believe any contract can even exist that allows for 1 year, 2 year, 5 year notice from either side that would need to be given to leave. Even if they did exist, you would need to be a complete idiot to sign yourself into a 5 year contract. Anything can happen in life and that would mean having to pay 4+ years of rent to leave your contract early O_o

i was perhaps being a little facetious on the 5 or even 2 years ... and a contract would not need to be completely balanced.... but if a renter wants a rolling contract with absolute minimum notice then it is a bit rich to expect the landlord to not be allowed to give notice on them at all - for exactly the reason you mentioned.

personally i would be ok with 3 months notice from a tenant and would be more than happy to sign a contract where i need to give 6 months notice for a good tenant to have to leave.

i dont think that is an unreasonable ask myself.

 

[ColdAsIce]

i was perhaps being a little facetious on the 5 or even 2 years ... and a contract would not need to be completely balanced.... but if a renter wants a rolling contract with absolute minimum notice then it is a bit rich to expect the landlord to not be allowed to give notice on them at all - for exactly the reason you mentioned.

personally i would be ok with 3 months notice from a tenant and would be more than happy to sign a contract where i need to give 6 months notice for a good tenant to have to leave.

i dont think that is an unreasonable ask myself.

That is absolutely fair, agreed.

 

[Scam]

I can give you a real-life example that only recently happened of a landlord I know losing money and being stuck as a landlord unable to get out.

Yours is a very long post but I thought it worth picking out these points... How does one get "stuck" as a landlord? If you don't like the return your investment is getting you, just sell. You may lose money, but that's what happens with an investment vehicle like this. It's nobody's problem bar the investor if they lose money. Get over it. Landlords have had it so good for so long, they literally can't comprehend an investment in BTL going south.

While the tenant is able to live cheaper saving more money per month.

Most rent is more than a mortgage, at least in the SE. It's been that way for years... Hence posters above talking about getting £200/month over their mortgage in 'profit' etc.

While the tenants have an easier ride in many cases with less stress and more options.

Again, how does the tenant have less stress than the landlord? The landlord might have to decide to sell and maybe lose money in the investment. The tenant loses their home ffs. They might be a family of 4 with two kids in local schools, local jobs/good commute and a network of friends and family nearby. Your whole life could be flipped upside-down through no fault of your own when your landlord sells.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Yours is a very long post but I thought it worth picking out these points... How does one get "stuck" as a landlord? If you don't like the return your investment is getting you, just sell. You may lose money, but that's what happens with an investment vehicle like this. It's nobody's problem bar the investor if they lose money. Get over it. Landlords have had it so good for so long, they literally can't comprehend an investment in BTL going south.

Most rent is more than a mortgage, at least in the SE. It's been that way for years... Hence posters above talking about getting £200/month over their mortgage in 'profit' etc.

Again, how does the tenant have less stress than the landlord? The landlord might have to decide to sell and maybe lose money in the investment. The tenant loses their home ffs. They might be a family of 4 with two kids in local schools, local jobs/good commute and a network of friends and family nearby. Your whole life could be flipped upside-down through no fault of your own when your landlord sells.

so much dishonesty in this post.... at least TRY and argue in good faith.

my mortgage is far less than the rent we charge because we have already paid off most of the flat... so yes our mortgage is under £200 a month (actually it isnt now.... the interest rate increases have put it over it)........... but at the same time we have £200,000 of our money tied up in the property... i am not complaining about that, it is what it is and we are lucky to have that much in the property (note however i have not been allowed a pension for the last 7 years and wont be allowed one for a further 2, so the money in the flat is instead of putting it into a pension) , but to try to argue that my mortgage under £200 a month proves buying is cheaper than renting is bad faith............................ a mortgage for the full £230,000+ of the flat may STILL be under the £650 we charge for rent (i dont know i have not done the maths) but it wont be by much and even then the lodger does not have to worry about any of the white goods failing, or the kitchen or bathroom units needing replacing, or the roof leaking etc,

again i am not complaining about that, its part of the job............. but your arguing in bad faith.

and stress on the landlord vs tenant...... again you are picking an outlier. I can only speak for myself but we have only had single tenants or a couple in our properties, have never asked a good tenant to move out (and by good i mean one who pays their bills, does not trash the place or deliberately disable the heating and block up ventilation).... and if a tenant wanted the piece of mind of a longer notice period in their contract i would be more than happy to accommodate and i dare say a lot of landlords would too.