BTL, vile lowlife business, nobody wants to be living under their roofs

Accountant_Kerry

I have a BTL and I rent myself due to circumstance, I try and be a good landlord as I know its horrible to have a rubbish one, I have owned and rented periodically for 14 years and in some ways prefer renting, I rented one house for 7 years before the landlord decided to sell. I pick my landlords carefully.

Nothing wrong with decent people being decent landlords as soem people don;t want to buy / will never be able to afford it, there is nothing wrong with renting, the UK has a unhealthy obsession with home ownership that you don't see in the rest of europe.

Landlords should be regulated and tenants should have more rights, this will weed out the shocking landlords and give more stability to tenants, I have german friends who have loads of rights when renting and never want to buy for example.

twadge_face

chucky wrote: »

yep i see where you're coming from.

poverty was never an issue in the 1950s
neither was the large numbers of people living in the same room.
the quality of property for everyone was much better then too.
life expectency due to these fundamental issues wasn't an issue either.

you're right it was much better then

Despite your flippant sarcasm you do make reasonable points both here and elsewhere.

However, you do have to realise whilst things are much better for some (NON-overextended homeowners and BTL greed-scoundrels, both of which massively bailed out by government policy), OTHERS are condemned to private tenancies, expensive rents and virtually no rights... often these same people are also priced out of buying anywhere despite what blinkered bulls claim.

At least with social/council housing, rents were kept below market value. The whole idea was meant to support the poor.

The whole private BTL is there SOLELY to benefit the voters of middle England, aka those who are already reasonably well off.

I think the OP is justified in feeling a little peeved and is not alone in their thoughts.

I also think the OP is correct in identifying a developing militant streak in the UK. I like to think it can lead to positive change.

After we put all the BTL landlords' and bankers and politicians heads on sticks (joke (sort of)).

Graham_Devon

stringsmk2 wrote: »

Because you had to have your needs provided to you by the state and the tax payer.

LOL the irony of a BTL landlord stating this.

The BTL business has been held up by the taxpayer, through housing benefits.

twadge_face

chucky wrote: »

the problem is that most of these people think that this forum does represent the real world.. as you say it doesn't

they rejoice a 1% fall in average house prices. they don't understand that it means very little in the overall scheme of things, but they still rejoice it without understanding...

What on Earth?!? What about all the Hamish posts that you, Chucky, personally cheerlead when he sees something in MortgageRectalExaminer.com that prices have gone up 0.002% and does a cheers smiley like this: :beer: ?!?!?!?!?!
Am I going to have to post up the hipocrisy image again? Am I!?

twadge_face

@The_Fox

+1 for your honest thoughts

+1 again for the top quality title of this thread:

"BTL, vile lowlife business"

...which is lovely to see on the front page of this forum!

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Interesting thread. Loved the description of people sat with their pants around their ankles and kleenex in their hands. So apt!

Anyway, there is a problem with BTL. But not ALL BTL.

Funnily enough, its the ones on this thread, and the ones who will post later on in this thread, trying to argue against the OP, who will be best described in the OP

No point in having a debate then is there?
Wait, maybe we don't all think so narrow mindedly

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The BTL business has been held up by the taxpayer, through housing benefits.

As opposed to taxpayer subsidised council/ social housing.

I think a touch of extra regulation wouldn't go amiss but my money's on the private sector being able to provide housing for the poor in a more efficient manner than the state.

chucky

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

What on Earth?!? What about all the Hamish posts that you, Chucky,cheerlead when he sees something in MortgageRectalExaminer.com that prices have gone up 0.002% and does a cheers smiley like this: :beer: ?!?!?!?!?!
Am I going to have to post up the hipocrisy image again? Am I!?

you love a bite !!!!!!_face - my only worry is that you keep on swallowing that hook that is left dangling...

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL the irony of a BTL landlord stating this.

The BTL business has been held up by the taxpayer, through housing benefits.

oooops shock, horror - Devon has missed the point [again]

34,000 posts later and he still continues the anti-HPI spam and anti-BTL vendetta.
you would have thought he woould have realised this was only an internet forum...

wherediditallgothen

wotsthat wrote: »

As opposed to taxpayer subsidised council/ social housing.

I think a touch of extra regulation wouldn't go amiss but my money's on the private sector being able to provide housing for the poor in a more efficient manner than the state.

Depends what you mean by 'efficient'.

Financially, yes without a doubt.