BTL LL's hit harder...

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

If they were decent landlords then they wouldn't be going out of business. I'd hazard a guess that the ones who are going bust are the ones who cant keep tenants for any length of time because they so inept. Reposession takes a while and the tenants would be given plenty of notice to get a new place. Some might even be quite please to get out of a AST early without penalty if the landlord is so shoddy. They're not getting "thrown out of their home", because it was never their home in the first place.

i would say that a decent landlord may also be a decent over-leveraged landlord. there are also non-decent over-leveraged landlords too.

you're assuming that tenants having to move out of a reposessed property is a pleasant experience - i'd take a look on the House Buying and Renting board for some of the bad experiences on there.

Lotus-eater

Harry_Powell wrote: »

They're not getting "thrown out of their home", because it was never their home in the first place.

It certainly was their home, it might not have been their "house".
I've got nothing against LL's per say, but they do tend to think about their tenants as cattle and this sort of backs up my thoughts.

PasturesNew

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Reposession takes a while and the tenants would be given plenty of notice to get a new place.

The tenant is often the last person to know, the lender sometimes doesn't even know there IS a tenant. Some tenants have come home to find the property was repossessed while they were out/at work because nobody knew. Some have had a couple of hours/days notice. Things are allegedly changing, with a few more rights, but even so, how many people can get together £1000-2000 at short notice for a new deposit, new credit checks, new holding fee etc?

Harry_Powell wrote: »

They're not getting "thrown out of their home", because it was never their home in the first place.

When you rent a home, it IS your HOME while you are living there.

baileysbattlebus

Harry_Powell wrote: »

If they were decent landlords then they wouldn't be going out of business. I'd hazard a guess that the ones who are going bust are the ones who cant keep tenants for any length of time because they so inept. Reposession takes a while and the tenants would be given plenty of notice to get a new place. Some might even be quite please to get out of a AST early without penalty if the landlord is so shoddy. They're not getting "thrown out of their home", because it was never their home in the first place.

The problem is a lot of tenants don't know the house is being repossessed until it is too late.

The LL doesn't have to keep them informed. The tenant doesn't know if the LL is in arrears with their mortgage or even if they have a mortgage.

We will always have a private rental market in this country - there is a demand for it. In the absence of social housing for everyone who needs it, there always will be.

Not everyone can afford or wants to buy a property. Do they take housing benefit into account when assessing someone for a mortgage. I know people who work and still get HB.

And you are wrong - the rented property is their "home" - they may not own the house. IMO, they should have better rights as tenants, currently the private rental market in this country is very LL biased.

Sorry all you private LL's - just my opinion.

zappahey

Harry_Powell wrote: »

because it was never their home in the first place.

Absolute nonsense. I don't own the house I live in but it's still my home.

lostinrates

Harry, I think you said you rent? (beware barn conversions) do you feel homeless?

Gorgeous_George

Absolutely right zappahey. Anyone who thinks a tenant doesn't live in their own home is a muppet and not worthy of being called a landlord.

The figures make sense and I'm only surprised that they are not much worse. The economic crisis affects everybody to some extent and if one person owns multiple properties the impact of it going belly up is much worse than for a single home-owner. Perhaps the figures do not include those rental properties that are mortgaged with a residential mortgage (with or without the lender's consent to let).

Again, it is only some BTL LLs who will fail. The delight that some regulars express will not be shared by the tenants that will probably lose their homes (and suffer anxiety/stress in the meantime).

As for the argument that most people would prefer to buy I'm afraid that question cannot be answered easily. When I first bought in 2005 it was because I had no real choice. There were no council homes available to me and private rentals were few and far between. I think that most people would be better off renting if they had the security of tenure that council homes aforded them in the past.

GG

StevieJ

brit1234 wrote: »

"buy-to-let properties were taken back by lenders - more than three times the rate in the owner occupier markets"

Well as a first time buyer I shed no tears. Over the last 5-6 years I have gone looking for a home to find the deveopements have been bought up by investors and priced me out of the market.

Remember property prices can only go up said the estate agent :rotfl:.

Hey Brit have a heart, have they not done you a favour

Yoshua

With rents falling almost as fast as house prices many are regreting BTL.

Anyway its better to be reposessed now rather than in a few years time. After 70% falls they will be in debt the rest of their lives trying to pay off what they owe the bank.

StevieJ

Yes OK :rolleyes: