The Wilsons are going under.

dopester

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Secondly, other BTL investors may buy up some of the stock, I'm sure there would be high interest, but hopefully there would be some sort of rules imposed, say 10 houses only to each investor.

You'd think the downfall of the Wilsons would put people off. Or tighter finance or tighter MEW. The Wilsons would need to be hit hard for the risks of BTL to make it less of a path people want to dive into. Hopefully losing their main home, but I doubt that will happen unfortunately.

I'm looking forward to those locked out of home ownership at any sane level of affordability becoming a significant political force to be reckoned with, and not mostly ignored or tricked into S/O at still stupid high prices as "value". That is about the best they get at the moment politically. The vested-interests don't want values to fall it seems to me.

kabayiri

carolt wrote: »

ASTs only last 6 month - if it was me as a tenant, I'd be off.

Why though Carol?

They might get a new landlord, who isn't so profit centred as the current duo.

OH and I have talked about buying another property. But we wouldn't seek to make a fast buck from it, and we would expect to offer tennants a fair deal in return from good tenure.

carolt

Why? Because I'd be worried about all the upheaval, and want a safer berth to rent in. Or, if there was lots on the table to buy, I'd want to buy.

Graham_Devon

dopester wrote: »

You'd think the downfall of the Wilsons would put people off.

Wouldn't put off professional landlords or companies.

I.e. those who ARE in the business for the yield, and not the HPI.

There are plenty of them out there. The Wilsons were never professional landlords. They were just a greedy couple who used HPI as their profit and aim. The yield just literally covered some costs on the path towards HPI.

We need landlords. People need to rent, no matter what the cost of a house is. Renting has it's place in the market and always will have.

What we don't need however, is people like the Wilsons trying to make collosal profits on the back of other peoples misery.

nearlynew

"Chancers" is the word you're looking for graham.

PasturesNew

One of the "problems" of having your home sold from underneath you is that the new buyer is often likely to have paid more for it than the original LL ... so more interest payments to cover. So the rent might be put up, whereas the old landlord would have been more to have left it as it was if he was just snuffling along.

PayDay

PasturesNew wrote: »

All it needs now is for their tenants to all delay the next rent by one week ....

Longer it the tenant loses their job or has a salary cut. Councils are backlogged with housing claims and then they pay the landlord 4 weeks in arrears.

PasturesNew

PayDay wrote: »

Longer it the tenant loses their job or has a salary cut. Councils are backlogged with housing claims and then they pay the landlord 4 weeks in arrears.

1] It is not HB any more, it's LHA
2] They pay the tenant direct
3] It's really the tenant's responsibility to ensure the rent's paid so they'd just get their marching orders ... except the LL then has to balance off the probability of getting paid -v- getting a void and a new tenant.

PayDay

PasturesNew wrote: »

1] It is not HB any more, it's LHA

I didn't put Housing Benefit, I put "housing claims".

PasturesNew wrote: »

2] They pay the tenant direct

Which means the Wilsons will have to wait even longer to get their rent and it seems they may have a cashflow problem?

PasturesNew wrote: »

3] It's really the tenant's responsibility to ensure the rent's paid so they'd just get their marching orders

If the tenant hasn't got the money to pay, then they can't pay. Some landlords need the rent to be on time to cover their mortgage payments. They will be in trouble if their tenant has to make a claim for LHA.

PasturesNew wrote: »

... except the LL then has to balance off the probability of getting paid -v- getting a void and a new tenant.

Exactly...and they already have empty rentals and mortgages to pay.

PasturesNew

PayDay wrote: »

I didn't put Housing Benefit, I put "housing claims".



Which means the Wilsons will have to wait even longer to get their rent and it seems they may have a cashflow problem?



If the tenant hasn't got the money to pay, then they can't pay. Some landlords need the rent to be on time to cover their mortgage payments. They will be in trouble if their tenant has to make a claim for LHA.



Exactly...and they already have empty rentals and mortgages to pay.

Not sure if I read your first posting right, or what's gone on. So not sure if this post was correcting something I misunderstood.

Been up all night ... damned neighbours coming and going on noisy wooden stairs all night. I feel like !!!!!! today... communal style living in flats just doesn't work when you have one with mates in who are clompy-footed men of about 18-22 who arrive at 2.30, leave at 4.30... and you have another 2 nighbours who are cleaners and leave at about 6. And 2 others were obviously on night shifts and came in at 7am and 8am.

I hate the noise of them all coming/going, clompy footsteps on open/uncovered wooden stairs, banging of firedoors/communal doors.

Flats should be banned. I think I need a snooze.