Not necessarily true. I spent money (albeit small fry) improving my rental property and ended up selling it for less than I’d bought it for 15 years later.
You also can’t look at the value of the property in that way. If a landlord spends £3000 today upgrading the central heating system, it’s of no use right now to the landlord if that increases the property value sometime in the future; the landlord needs to recoup those costs today.
As with any investment thats a risk you have to take i guess. However even though you sold it for less than you bought it for the tenants still paid off the capital on the mortgage for you? This is kind of where i get stuck on this whole thing, the tenants pay the landlords mortgage in full and then also seem to have pay more ontop for the upkeep of the property. If the tenant is essentially paying someone elses mortgage for them why should they then also be expected to pay eztra on their monthly payments to cover maintenance like a new boiler etc.
At that point what service value is actually been provided? Its just the tenant paying to buy and maintain someone more fortunates house. Whereas if it was regulated to the point the tenant is paying your full mortgage for you but the service you are adding is maintenance of the property then thats a fair exchange.
Last edited: