what constitutes a BTL'er??

Radiantsoul

I don't really feel that BTLing is a moral issue.
Even if they caused the current crisis it is not clear to me they have moral responsibility for it.

chucky

ad44downey wrote: »

Sleazy, tight-fisted types who couldn't give a monkeys what adverse effect their greed has upon society.

i would really love to see (you don't deal in facts just soundbites but that's beside the point) some data that BTL has had an adverse effect on the UK housing market.

i'm here all week by the way. :rotfl:

MrDT

There are lots of 'unplanned landlords' about. Lots of people that had to move either to a bigger house, or to a new area, but couldn't sell their homes to make this happen. Lots of this bound to be going on in a broken market.

Someone I work with has rented out his home (over 100 miles away) in order to rent in this area. He would prefer to sell the old place and buy round here, but that simply wasn't going to happen anytime soon. I don't class him as a BTLer - since, uh, he didn't buy to let...

I think you're both landlords due to circumstance, not BTL landlords.

I don't get the tarring with one brush stuff either btw. I'm yet to have a bad experience with a landlord. They offer a service I'm happy to pay for, it's a mutually beneficial arrangement imo. Perhaps in some areas the leverage-to-buy-to-let debtors are far more abundant, maybe that's where the ill-feeling stems from.

Heyman_2

chucky wrote: »

i would really love to see (you don't deal in facts just soundbites but that's beside the point) some data that BTL has had an adverse effect on the UK housing market.

i'm here all week by the way. :rotfl:

It depends what you mean by adverse effect I suppose. Here's a few graphs from that 'other' site regarding Buy-to-Let -

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-buy-to-let.php

I guess one obvious thing is that there is now a hell of a lot of Bank and Building Society money tied up in BTL property stock, as opposed to 10 years ago. In the current climate these are probably going to be more susceptible to repo, so you could call that an adverse effect I guess.

System

Z1ppy wrote: »

to Joeskeppi, i do understand your frustration and will not patronise anyone saying if you work hard you will get there and all that rubbish cos thats not what you want to hear. Just be said in my comparitivly short working life i have been very fortunate so far and rather than waste it all, we decieded to do something with it! whether it was the right thing remains to be seen but we did something!

Ah sorry, I was being sarcastic. There are many people around here that have an irrational hatred toward anyone who has even so much as thought about BTL, personally I don't see a massive problem.

chucky

Heyman wrote: »

It depends what you mean by adverse effect I suppose. Here's a few graphs from that 'other' site regarding Buy-to-Let -

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-buy-to-let.php

I guess one obvious thing is that there is now a hell of a lot of Bank and Building Society money tied up in BTL property stock, as opposed to 10 years ago. In the current climate these are probably going to be more susceptible to repo, so you could call that an adverse effect I guess.

yes you're right - but i did just say the UK housing market.
there is nothing to suggest that BTL had any effect on the UK housing market with the exception of the first half of 2007.

as far as the UK economy is concerned it does have an adverse effect as you say.

purch

Sleazy, tight-fisted types who couldn't give a monkeys what adverse effect their greed has upon society

Yes, those were the only thoughts in my head as I sat in that auction room in the summer of 1991.

And I am sure all my tenants over the last 18 years feel the same way about me, for offering them nicely decorated and furnished places to rent.

The whole housing boom, and now bust is all because of me, and my greed for buying these properties that nobody else wanted.

I am such a b*st*rd !!!

shuze

purch wrote: »

Yes, those were the only thoughts in my head as I sat in that auction room in the summer of 1991.

And I am sure all my tenants over the last 18 years feel the same way about me, for offering them nicely decorated and furnished places to rent.

The whole housing boom, and now bust is all because of me, and my greed for buying these properties that nobody else wanted.

I am such a b*st*rd !!!

Ah so it was you. I wondered who I should blame.

And I bet you drive a car as well, so are responsible for global warming.

chucky

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

For me, a person's intentions count for a lot. Being a nice, socially-minded person puts you head-and-shoulders behind the greed-is-good/me-me-me brigade.

ah yes - we should also be hating people who have two cars in the family and those that have two bathrooms. that's just greedy and bad for the environment and of course society!!

IveSeenTheLight

Heyman wrote: »

It depends what you mean by adverse effect I suppose. Here's a few graphs from that 'other' site regarding Buy-to-Let -

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-buy-to-let.php

I guess one obvious thing is that there is now a hell of a lot of Bank and Building Society money tied up in BTL property stock, as opposed to 10 years ago. In the current climate these are probably going to be more susceptible to repo, so you could call that an adverse effect I guess.

Here is a graph showing the percentage of private rental properties has not replaced the percentage of social housing, therefore there are less rental properties as a percentage of stock than ever.

With this lower percentage, I don't understand how you perceive there to be such a large problem with a private rental market in the future.