Guess it ain't worth 60k then if no-one's willing to pay it....
The joy of being a landlord
- Thread starter Quartz
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,919
yes it is.... however if there happens to be a dip in the market for selling it is pretty unrealistic to expect a seller to deliberately press on and sell the property in a lull when they do not have to, esp when they have suitors lining up to rent it off them.
you know what tho..... if our local council offered to buy the flat off us at the going rate and also i could forgo the huge tax hit i would probably take it.
and before anyone asks why i should forgo the tax, i would counter with why not as i dont especially need to sell it. The flat is for my lad when he is a bit older to live in, and if i sell now i will only have to buy one back again in a few years time, which would leave me massively out of pocket (and i probably could not afford).
there is asking someone to do the "right" thing......... and there is expecting them to hugely shoot themselves in the foot and take a hit of 10s of 1000s of £ esp after all the legal fees.
honestly i believe many of the most vitrolic here are just jealous and if they were in my shoes i do not believe they would deliberately take a .... lets say £50,000 hit on their property only to have to buy back in a few years time.
and further more............ who would it benefit anyway? our tenant isnt likely to want to buy, they are a scientist on a short term contract, so great, we sell the pad back to this mythical council who want more council housing on the books....... our tenant gets booted out and a council approved one moves in. why would that be fair?
or maybe the tenant gets to stay.............. they still have the stress of not knowing what is going on, and combined with the unknown of whether their rent will change.... and does anyone really trust the council to be on top of maintanence etc given how well they manage other stuff?
Last edited:
A mortgage on a £60k house is peanuts, there is clearly demand to live in it, just not to buy it.
Yet someone is currently in there paying it.
Lol no, it's just Worksop.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,919
perhaps... but he is also saying that there are people who for what ever reason are happy to pay similar or more than a mortgage would cost them on that house.
what this surely means is that there are people who do not want to get bogged down with the hassle of buying and maintaining a house, they possibly want to keep mobile so they can move at short notice and as such are happy to rent.
why should the owner of the house not be allowed to service those people instead of selling a house for naff all.
the one area i have sympathy with and i do think is somewhat offensive, is when houses sit empty for long term and just go to ruin. property speculators who do that i do find annoying, but i suspect those people are unlikely to be on this forum, and indeed possibly not even in the uk.
Last edited:
Everyone (give or take a few) do what's best for them and thier family.
When I get to the savings point of being able to buy a rental, I'll look at it, if it's a good idea I'd certainly do it.
Being a landlord is pretty binary.
You are, or you aren't.
Its not like savings/investment when you can have a few k to a few mil.
Its also not so obvious if you are "evil".
A lot probably is envy.
We rent it out at £425. And I agree, it's madness that people will rent it but won't/can't buy it & pay less overall.
The issue seems to be that the people who want it can't even get 5% together or lenders just won't touch them with a bargepole due to poor past decisions.
Which is fine, my only point was the house is only worth as much as the market dictates. Its not worth 90k because an estate agent valued it at that or that what it was bough for previously for example.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,919
whilst this is true................................... try saying that WRT rental prices and expect to get a lot of heat
according to some on here landlords have to carry the can for inflation, maintanence cost increases and new legislation without touching rental prices, but at the same time accept that non paying tenants are a cost of doing business and to just accept it, and to also understand that it is acceptable for a tenant to not look after the property - or in our case actively trash it - because it isnt theirs so why shouldnt they let it go to crap?.
i cant comment on BTL prices and what not as we do not have a mortgage of note on the property....... which i agree is a very fortunate position to be in (of course its swings and roundabouts... someone close to me died to put us in that position so there is that!).
Last edited:
you do realise your flat in the dead end of nowhere that apparently even the boat people don't want to live in isn't typical, or even the average for even the country as a whole let alone the majority that live in civilisation.
It's edge case after edge case trying to justify the norm.
I don't rent, the property has lots of equality and the cat has his own double bedroom thanks, I'm just not deluded to thinking my own little edge case world must be normal.The spite in that last post
but you keep being you wondering why the majority are just mean people who don't like you.
That's a lack of empathy with the entitled whingers banging on that life is hard and things are expensive.
No, that's just what some people hear in their heads to justify the scummy position they hold. it's OK, you're allowed to hold scumbag views and people are allowed to call you out when you have one.
No. I said what I said and no more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,919
i have empathy for anyone who isnt happy, including renters wanting to buy.... however what triggers me is the vitriol slung from some posters happy to call LLs any name under the sun as well as accusing us of stuff which (most) are simply not guilty of.
I try to treat people in kind, and have no problem with people disagreeing with me...... hell the housing situation in the uk is an absolute disaster...... This is exactly what the current government will want however...... the population bickering amongst themselves whilst letting them carry on unchecked destroying every sector one by one.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,830
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
The probably there though is the lack of social housing. Landlords shouldn’t be the scapegoat for government failures.
Your last comment couldnt be more true, when we have people blaming each other, the government has won out.
Go back 40 years and the market was largely a split of social renting and ownership Thatcher decided she wanted private enterprise in the rental market so there was a shift with right to buy, and winding down of social housing building programs, and of course eventually the AST got introduced to lure landlord's into the market.
Here we are 40 years later with the result of those policies, a shortage of social housing which has led to the private market taking on the lack of supply for rental properties which has now spilled over into the home ownership market.
There will always be a permanent base line demand for rentals no matter how good the state of the to buy market is as there will always be people who for whatever reason are not in a position to buy a home, and that demand is not been met by social properties.
The spill over effect being two things, (a) it reduces the housing stock available to buy as the BTL market is drawn from the same stock and (b) it makes it harder to save up for buying as rent chews into savings/income, people do need to live whilst they saving up.
The deposit requirement is supposedly to deal with negative equity risk, but as long as a mortgage is paid negative equity shouldnt matter, I think its more there as a means to assess the buyer's capability if they can afford the mortgage in the first place because if they can save up the deposit it should in theory show they have disposable income over their existing costs reducing the likelihood of defaults. Of course doesnt necessarily work that way in practice with mum and dad often supplying that deposit.
But I think those who dont have mum and dad to give them the leg up, its not their fault they dont have that support. Also think how easy it is to prepare when you only have stability of tenure for 6-12 months at a time, and have to deal with moving costs, rental costs and so forth whilst getting a deposit together.
But in my view it shouldnt be seen as renting is only there to serve as a step on the ladder to buying, I think it should also be considered ok people choose to rent instead, and social housing is there to provide secure affordable tenancy. Plus to cater for the situations where buying is not suitable in the first place.
There does seem to be a mindset that renting should only be temporary and as such its issues shouldnt be fixed. But even if you have that point of view, please realise the problems in the rental market, making it difficult to make it only temporary as it affects the ability to buy probably more so than how much a house costs.
I did a search just before making this post and in my area there is far more availability of properties to buy vs renting, over 20x more. This is why I think the problem has been misidentified, with people thinking that houses are now being rented instead of brought rather than those who would have been renting socially are now renting privately.
What would be useful data is the % of households that are owner occupied now vs say 1980.
Last edited: