Tenants should turn the tables on dodgy landlords

silvercar

carolt wrote: »

Why so keen to exonerate BTL, silvercar?

Its a question of balance. You see BTL as pushing prices up and preventing you from buying. Yet you ignore the fact that by renting rather than buying yourself, you are increasing the demand for rentals. This makes it harder for those long-term renters to find decent homes. Couple that with the STR brigade marching in with their equity banked; able to offer large deposits and rent in advance and the happily renting person (with no money behind them, possibly on benefits) now can't compete, so is left with the dregs of the rental market.

MissMoneypenny

silvercar wrote: »

If you check I think you will find that I say that people should ask their lender, but that some people don't ask.

Nope, you advise them to let without permission. Here is just one of your posts where you state this and it was on a thread that was only on the 2nd page of the mortgages board.

silvercar wrote: »

If NR won't give you permission, you could consider letting it without permission. You won't be committing fraud though you will be breaching a term of your mortgage. If NR find out they will probably huff and puff and charge you a couple of hundred pound and give you permission.

Yet you know full well that if the mortgage lender hasn't given the landlord permission to let, then the "innocent tenants" could be thrown out of the property through no fault of their own, with little or no notice to move.

Snooze

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Rob, you are obviously in a different timezone / planet.

You cannot compare Aberdeen to Leeds as they are totally different areas and markets and no, the property is not on "Millionaires Row".
Come back down from cloud 9.
You are making assumptions on 4 pictures, have no details about the flat, location, amenities, market data etc. You also do not know the properties it competes against or the town wealth / income.

"Leeds is the 3rd largest city in the UK by population"
Population has nothing to do with wealth.

Finally some little stats about Aberdeen compared to the UK
http://www.aberdeen-info.co.uk/facts.html
Gross Domestic Product = Aberdeen City £6.43 billion. If Aberdeen was a country, it would one of the richest countries in the world with a GDP per capita of £29,764. (Luxembourg tops the list with a per capita GDP of $35,000. The UK GDP per capita is £17,400.

If you want to compare earnings between Leeds and Aberdeen, the following link shows the mean Aberdeen wage is £524.60 per week while Leeds is only £464.40 per week.

Incidently a full time male (as I am) is £723.10 per week (£37,700 per year) as opposed to £589.50 per week (£30,700 per year) almost 23% more

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2008/tab7_1a.xls

Okay I put my hand up and admit I'm wrong then! I was seemingly wrongly basing my opinion of Scotland rents in general from having lived in Glasgow where the rents are significantly lower than, well, here in Leeds for example.

I still don't understand why Aberdeen commands such high rents though. When I lived in Glasgow I used to be outbased in Aberdeen for 4 days a week and it has nothing going for it whatsoever unless you're in the oil/gas/fish industries and the town overall is about as chavvy as Glasgow with everyone in their white shell suits. :rolleyes:

Anyway, getting back on track, it was photos of Pickles' supposed "excellant accomodation" I was enquiring about.

Rob

damanpunk

Snooze wrote: »

I still don't understand why Aberdeen commands such high rents though. When I lived in Glasgow I used to be outbased in Aberdeen for 4 days a week and it has nothing going for it whatsoever unless you're in the oil/gas/fish industries and the town overall is about as chavvy as Glasgow with everyone in their white shell suits. :rolleyes:

Rob

Lol, you just said in that one line why it commands such high rents i.e. oil & gas work. There is also a big contract market in Aberdeen, hence alot of travellers who work the week and stay in rented accomodation.

silvercar

I said this:

silvercar wrote:

The problem is that you would be turfing a lot of innocent tenants onto the street to deliver your aim.

In response to:

Maybe a property crash is what is needed to rid the market of amateur BTL investors who drove prices ever upwards.

Because if you get rid of all the BTL investors, where will you put the tenants? BTL investors would have to have a BTL mortgage as to apply for a mortgage without saying you will let the property is fraud. A point I continually make to distinguish it from breaching terms and conditions, even in that post you quoted from me.

IveSeenTheLight

Snooze wrote: »

Okay I put my hand up and admit I'm wrong then! I was seemingly wrongly basing my opinion of Scotland rents in general from having lived in Glasgow where the rents are significantly lower than, well, here in Leeds for example.

I still don't understand why Aberdeen commands such high rents though. When I lived in Glasgow I used to be outbased in Aberdeen for 4 days a week and it has nothing going for it whatsoever unless you're in the oil/gas/fish industries and the town overall is about as chavvy as Glasgow with everyone in their white shell suits. :rolleyes:

Anyway, getting back on track, it was photos of Pickles' supposed "excellant accomodation" I was enquiring about.

Rob

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Maybe you should have opened your eyes instead of being stereotypically blinkered.

I've worked in Leeds before, nice enough town, wouldn't say it has anything out of the ordinary more than Aberdeen, in fact, I would say they were quite similar in many ways

carolt

silvercar wrote: »

Its a question of balance. You see BTL as pushing prices up and preventing you from buying. Yet you ignore the fact that by renting rather than buying yourself, you are increasing the demand for rentals. This makes it harder for those long-term renters to find decent homes. Couple that with the STR brigade marching in with their equity banked; able to offer large deposits and rent in advance and the happily renting person (with no money behind them, possibly on benefits) now can't compete, so is left with the dregs of the rental market.

What is a 'long-term renter' exactly, that I'm supposedly pricing out? Other than council/social tenants, who have long-term security of tenure, there is, by definition, no such thing in the private sector (except for a few very lucky and very elderly people whose rentals that predate the current laws and who I am self-evidently not competing with on rents).

If rental laws in this country allowed for long-term security of tenure, I might agree with you. As it is, the current system does not make private renting a reasonable long-term option for anyone, as anyone, no matter how exalted a rent they may be able to or choose to pay, can be turfed out with no more than a couple of months notice.

Under current legislation, sadly, renting can be no more than a short-term option for eg people who need to briefly work elsewhere etc. It is a decidedly unsatisfactory solution long-term for anyone.

The solution is clearly in building more social housing for those long-term renters and/or reforming rental laws to ensure security of tenure and fair rents in the private sector.

I assume, with your evident concern for the wellbeing of poorer renters, that you would welcome both those moves as much as I would. :T

chucky

surely this needs to be moved to the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.

silvercar

What is a 'long-term renter' exactly, that I'm supposedly pricing out? Other than council/social tenants, who have long-term security of tenure, there is, by definition, no such thing in the private sector (except for a few very lucky and very elderly people whose rentals that predate the current laws and who I am self-evidently not competing with on rents).

My definition of long-term renters, for the purpose of this discussion, is the people who don't have social housing and so have to rely on private rentals, who are never going to be in a position to buy for whatever reason and are reliant on finding private properties that they can stay in long term.

Now, upsetting to some, this will include "benefit scroungers". It also includes those on low incomes with no career potential, it includes some disabled and long term sick, it includes single mums who may need rental for 10 years plus whil they combine being a mum with earning a wage....

These are the people who are just as entitled to decent private rentals as the STRs who take first pick of the available rentals.

Under current legislation, sadly, renting can be no more than a short-term option for eg people who need to briefly work elsewhere etc. It is a decidedly unsatisfactory solution long-term for anyone.

It is unsatisfactory, but there is no other option at the moment.

carolt

None of those people should be in private rentals. Why should the long-term sick or disabled be expected to live with minimum security and why should the taxpayer be forking out the cost of whatever a private landlord wishes to charge them?

We do agree on one thing, at least - this situation is EXTREMELY unsatisfactory. :mad: