Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
so that's where Clarkson got the idea from
Associate
Yep although you then need to factor in that you're most likely going to be paying more for the same nubmer of rooms etc in a new build. And they do still develop issues
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,554
Either bought by other landlords, so less of an issue, or bought at a price that those renting wouldn’t afford to buy anyway. We sold to a family from Hong Kong and I know of many others in this area where the same has happened. Many of the locals complaining about this will be priced out either way.
Associate
Most are bought by first time buyers not other landlords.
Landlords get some obviously but then its not a good time to be a landlord so I would say most will go to first time buyers.
Rents are at an all time high because the government have made it very difficult to be a landlord now, so they are getting out.
Supply and demand, demand is high supply is low so high rents.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
I need to fully read the labor manifesto/policy, but if it doesn’t include building new housing then it’s akin to wiping your arse with a spiders web.
Given that most are already paying vastly more in rent than the mortgage payments, I'm not sure that holds water.
Soldato
You would need a deposit to get a mortgage too. Plus some people might not want to actually buy a property.
Tell me, why should an honest landlord feel the need to sell up just because they are forced to provide more secure tenancies, be banned from no-fault evictions and also to allow their tenants to make reasonable changes to their home? Or are you saying the majority of landlords don’t want to provide these things and are only in it because they have an inordinate amount of power over their tenants?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,207
I would say the ability to make changes to a property should be something agreed in advance and not a right of a renter. I have lived in multiple rentals and would not dream of making changes without the landlords permission. I respect why a landlord would not want me making changes but that said if the place NEEDS decorating if they won't let the tenant do it then they should be liable for keeping it nice.Tell me, why should an honest landlord feel the need to sell up just because they are forced to provide more secure tenancies, be banned from no-fault evictions and also to allow their tenants to make reasonable changes to their home? Or are you saying the majority of landlords don’t want to provide these things and are only in it because they have an inordinate amount of power over their tenants?
also no fault evictions.... not something anyone wants but just like a tenant may want to move out even IF the landlord is good.... a landlord may need to ask a good tenant to leave... lots of reasons for a change in circumstances and that option has to be on the table with fair notice.
that said I would support more rights for tenants but also the rights of LLs need to be improved. as has been said multiple times in this thread the current rules stink for both sides and allows both bad tenants AND bad LLs to exploit the system it seems.
small landlords are being forced out. the massive ones however as I have suggested earlier in thread are fine. just last week Wellcome have announced another huge swathe of houses being built (despite local objections, which is ok except no one else would have been given planning permission, defo corruption there imo) and these will either be rentals or highly restricted leasehold purchases.
Last edited:
Like for like, owning a property is more expensive than renting, unless you’re buying in the middle of nowhere and generating your electricity via hamsters.
Someone ran the math a while back and at least for the properties they picked it worked out cheaper to rent a property then get a 100% mortgage for the same property once all costs are included. Mortgage payments worked out cheaper if someone did something like pay off a larger deposit to reduce mortgage payments or re-mortaged after paying a large chunk of the mortgage off. Though there are a lot of variables to factor in so it might not be straight forward case of one is always cheaper then the other.
Last edited:
Soldato
I wouldn't have had issues with that so long as Landlords get protection too.Tell me, why should an honest landlord feel the need to sell up just because they are forced to provide more secure tenancies, be banned from no-fault evictions and also to allow their tenants to make reasonable changes to their home? Or are you saying the majority of landlords don’t want to provide these things and are only in it because they have an inordinate amount of power over their tenants?
'Inordinate amount of power' is also just not the reality. If anything I found the opposite to be true when my tenant stopped paying rent and went radio silent.
I agree some people may not want to buy a property... Good news though! - For that small proportion of the population who are looking to only rent there are still more than enough properties in the hands of private LL to cover them.
Or dare I say it... go back to a system whereby the more "basic" level of rental housing is council supplied, then those private landlords with something "a bit special" can still have their cake and eat it too.
Just imagine your tax money not being put into other private LL's pockets via the Housing Benefit system and instead being used to fund things like... new schools, roads, facilities, infrastructure etc.
Yep you do need a deposit too and as the property market shifts from a rental to a purchase focus, the banking sector will look to cash in on that by providing more "incentivized" mortgages for first time buyers, such as reducing the deposit requirements or allowing a larger % to be purchased on mortgage vs deposit.
The banking sector is interested in making money, they are not going to cut their nose off to spite their face (to use a common expression) by refusing to "adjust to the changing markets".
For many it's about more than just the money. Having the 'security' of knowing they won't be evicted in 6-12months when the LL decides to hike the rent to the new "local market threshold", to give just one example.
Last edited:
You looking at it is isolation and need to factor in all the other changes. If you take the increased tax's, increased running costs, less protection, interest rate hikes but not able to put up rent many are running at a loss or barely breaking even. Many landlords are trying to get out before all the new rules hit some of which are going to cost a lot of money which they cannot afford. They dont want to risk getting stuck with a property where they cannot sell, cannot change the rent or evict while running at a massive loss.Tell me, why should an honest landlord feel the need to sell up just because they are forced to provide more secure tenancies, be banned from no-fault evictions and also to allow their tenants to make reasonable changes to their home? Or are you saying the majority of landlords don’t want to provide these things and are only in it because they have an inordinate amount of power over their tenants?
I have mixed feelings about no-fault evictions. Not really read into it. Can a landlord not evict at all or can they give reasonable notice for certain things? Lets pretend someone was a landlord and there other half dies. They want to stop being a landlord as they cannot cope managing it by themselves and they want to pass the family home down to a 20 year family member to live in. This is no longer impossible or can they give 6+ or 12+ months notice? It doesn't feel right they cannot stop being a landlord and keep the property if they change they mind and are forced into staying as a Landlord. I am all for tenants having extra protection and getting extra notice periods but I am not sure about the tenant being allowed to stay no matter what and the landlord never being allowed to choose to stop renting. Kicking out good renters to bring in new renters sure stop that. But what about landlords who want to stop renting all together are we saying they stuck being a landlord?
Soldato
I can’t believe there’d ever be a situation where someone would be forced to continue as a landlord against their will.
Didn't think that was a small proportion of the population. I thought the majority of renters into the millions of them are the ones who are looking to only rent not buy though it might depends on location. Clearly there are not enough properties in the hands of private LL to cover them. Not with the speed landlords leaving and rent prices are going up due to lack of private LL's.
Last edited:
Tell me, why should an honest landlord feel the need to sell up just because they are forced to provide more secure tenancies, be banned from no-fault evictions and also to allow their tenants to make reasonable changes to their home? Or are you saying the majority of landlords don’t want to provide these things and are only in it because they have an inordinate amount of power over their tenants?
Ok, the inordinate amount of power over tenants quote is a bit silly.
This is not aimed at anyone in particular..
I can only speak from my position and from a few landlords I personally know (and others I speak to on social media) and most are looking to get out of the game.
That said, the people I know/talk to are mostly in their 50's and own the rentals outright and the properties have served the purpose of providing retirement a bit earlier, whilst also topping up their income in the process (I include myself here).
Yes, myself and those others are obvious Nazi evil scum and deserve to die (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread), but it is what it is.
The tweet I posted earlier, whether it will be a thing or whether Labour (if/when) get in will provide a screeching u-turn on it then who knows, but it does seem to have had the effect of making some landlords wanting to cash in now, and that really only exacerbates the current problem.
I can't speak for BTL landlords, as I don't know any, but i'm not sure any of the proposed rules will make it a position anyone would want to put themselves in, but I may be very wrong?
What I do know, and has been mentioned many times in this thread is that none of this eases the current problem for the people that can't afford to buy and are stuck paying rent.
I got the most idiotic reply on here when I said I'd had a property inspection done and also asked if my tenant wanted/needed anything done to my property, and it'll cost me several months rent..
*puts on glowing halo
but, most of the work has been done, with the rest to follow.
Her happiness is my main priority, and like any investment, I want a return on it.
Why this is so hard to understand, is beyond me.
Soldato
Skipton offering a 100% mortgages for renters with 12 months of on time payments.
5.49% - renters in the thread should be all over this if they meet affordability and credit history checks.
5.49% - renters in the thread should be all over this if they meet affordability and credit history checks.
I don't see how this resolves the lack of housing.