Wilsons Selling Up. The Lot. All 700 Houses.

Pobby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman

Graham_Devon

Pobby wrote: »

Graham, I realised that those 2 individuals were not nice but how can they stoop so low?

I think I referred to this on page 2. Pure greed. Their business practice has allowed them to get to where they are because their business ethics are non existant.

As I said, the tennants are treated only as payments for the mortgages. Nothing more.

The few people they employ are treated as nothing more than a contract that is needed, and employees played off against each other until they have got the best price. Pray on the bloke with a family to feed and get him to give you man hours in return for giving him a job.

The wilsons treat everyone, whether it is the tennant, or the employee, or the family trying to buy a house who they gazump purely as a means to the most profit. They were quite happy to make their offer for the house, then wait until the seller has no option. If a family does buy at a better price, bam, gazumped. They wouldnt even do it in the early stages as they didnt want to have to offer a better price. Would do it later on in the process, just incase the buyer fell through and their lower offer still stands.

Generali

Pobby wrote: »

Graham, I realised that those 2 individuals were not nice but how can they stoop so low?

UK housing really does need sorting out. How many more landlords are there out there like the Wilsons?

A further worry is the new wave landlords who have over extended themselves. If anything went wrong with their properties they couldn`t afford to put it right.

Just how many of those have bought with yields of 5% or less. Loads I would have thought.

Well the yield doesn't really matter so much as the cashflow.

Given the typical profile of a BTL LL as middle aged solid earners, my guess (and I have little to back this up) is that they are likely to have a decent deposit and so a low yield isn't likely to cause any long-term cashflow pressures. The main thing likely to trip them up would be a long void and a long period of unemployment combined, the sort of thing that is only likely to a middle class investor in the middle of a brutal recession of a sort that we almost never see.

It's just as well that sort of thing is so unlikely to happen really.

nearlynew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The wilsons treat everyone, whether it is the tennant, or the employee, or the family trying to buy a house who they gazump purely as a means to the most profit.

<pedant mode on>


Whilst I generally agree with what you're saying, I think you mean "outbid" rather than "gazump"

A buyer cannot "gazump" another buyer.
Only a seller can "gazump" a buyer.


< pedant mode off>

ninky_2

"sitting tenants with regulated rents".....those were the days! how about stopping btl loans so that people actually rent property of those who own them and not those who are renting negative equity off a bank? or is that just too radical?

Generali

ninky wrote: »

"sitting tenants with regulated rents".....those were the days! how about stopping btl loans so that people actually rent property of those who own them and not those who are renting negative equity off a bank? or is that just too radical?

It would push up the cost of renting quite substantially as the supply of rented property fell.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

It would push up the cost of renting quite substantially as the supply of rented property fell.

er no, generali, that's what regulated rents are for. have rent control more along the lines of france.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

er no, generali, that's what regulated rents are for. have rent control more along the lines of france.

In that case you end up with a shortage of supply and rationing by non-price means (eg queuing like happens with the NHS).

Frinstance, if you talk to low paid people in tourist areas of France they have a great place in which they get to live for 10 months a year. They are forced to vacate for July and August and bunk with family/friends as tourists will pay so much more.

Don't imagine the Government can solve housing problems by price controls.

To sum up, "Er, no ninky"

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

In that case you end up with a shortage of supply and rationing by non-price means (eg queuing like happens with the NHS).

i'd rather queue than be ripped off....

as i see it the result of rent contols could lead to the following...

property prices go down as hiked rents cannot be used to take out btl mortgages at inflated levels.

those who are renting are able to save more easily for a deposit on a property and this is now more affordable due to reduced price of rents - this reduces the number of rental properties actually needed.

tax money is saved in housing benefit paid on high rents to private landlords.

investing in housing also becomes more affordable for the state as housing and land costs reduce due to the falling property prices - therefore able to build more social / council housing.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

i'd rather queue than be ripped off....

That's your choice.

Of course by forcing that choice on other people, you're denying them the choice to pay an amount they deem to be reasonable but which you deem to be a rip-off.

What happens if someone wants to pay less than you for lower quality than you're prepared to accept and then force that choice on you?

Whose choice is reasonable? Mine? Yours? Gordon Brown's?