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

Arcaine

I have actually been thinking about taxing BTL more than they are now. I actually believe that it would lock more people out of the housing market. Firstly if we accept that people rent, in general, because they cannot afford a house (I do accept that this isnt always the case) and secondly that most people who BTL seriously are fairly cash savvy people and would recover any tax paid on purchase of the property through increased rent payments. Then we would be taking more money out of the hands of the people renting, reducing the savings pool avauilable to buy houses. I just wonder if any increase of tax would actually put anyone off considering BTL because putting money in the bank gets little to no interest, therefore any yield is a good yield from people that have little or no choice.

twadge_face

Cleaver wrote: »

<sigh>

And, of course, people who want to privately rent a house. For three years at Uni my mates and I wanted to rent a house, so we were an example of people who wanted BTL landlords to exist.

Sigh all you like, but this was an example of where university accommodation couldn't keep up with demand so BTL had to step in.

The private rented accommodation around my university was utterly notorious.

Given the choice, in our 2nd and 3rd years we all would have preferred to stay in the university-provided flats but these were reserved for 1st years only.

Compared to the BTL houses we lived in subsequent to our 1st year, the university-provided flats were cheaper, better maintained and in a much better state of repair.

BTL is only an "OK" solution for an otherwise failed system.

Imagine in the universities had invested money in buying up property for rent to students instead of landlords. Tuition fees might not be such a concern, hey??

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We still have those people ramping, and trying to get people to buy now, pay more now, get more debt now etc etc.

Those people are salespeople. I think it is the job of most salespeople (whatever they sell) to convince someone that their products are a) better than everyone elses and b) better value so that they can extract the maximum price that the buyer is willing to pay.

It's a big cruel world out there. Will you hold my hand next time I go to Tesco?

EB69

I'm with you in many respects G_D - my own lack of knowledge and research was clearly my biggest downfall.

I do think however that there is a market for BTL - but I dont want to be a part of it. My son at uni however could no way afford to buy a property but he and 4 friends have rented a gorgeous place between them - nice safe area. OK, the landlord is making a profit but why shouldnt he? The rent the boys are paying this year is far, far lower than the extortionate Halls fees he paid last year, and its a far nicer home. Where would he live otherwise? I also rented a place myself a few years ago when I needed to travel on business for a couple of years - I would not have wanted to sell up and move to the area I rented in, but it was convenient for me for work. Everyone was happy.

chucknorris

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Sigh all you like, but this was an example of where university accommodation couldn't keep up with demand so BTL had to step in.

The private rented accommodation around my university was utterly notorious.

Given the choice, in our 2nd and 3rd years we all would have preferred to stay in the university-provided flats but these were reserved for 1st years only.

Compared to the BTL houses we lived in subsequent to our 1st year, the university-provided flats were cheaper, better maintained and in a much better state of repair.

BTL is only an "OK" solution for an otherwise failed system.

Imagine in the universities had invested money in buying up property for rent to students instead of landlords. Tuition fees might not be such a concern, hey??

I used to rent to students, never again, no way!

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Those people are salespeople. I think it is the job of most salespeople (whatever they sell) to convince someone that their products are a) better than everyone elses and b) better value so that they can extract the maximum price that the buyer is willing to pay.

It's a big cruel world out there. Will you hold my hand next time I go to Tesco?

Salespeople?

Half of them are VI's, touching cloth, in the same position as EB69.

I didn't realise our own version of these people on this forum....Ghouls, Hamish, Sibley etc were Salesman.

Is chucky a salesperson? Check out his thread yesterday, trying to swing something from nothing, and prove that 7% falls actually mean you are worse off, so buy now, buy buy buy. He's just a salesman. Indeed.

Check out ISTL calculating to the very penny that you are 44p better off this year if you buy now, on the basis of one single mortgage...don't miss the boat etc.

EB69

chucky wrote: »

these bad people i can't believe that they force these people down to the solictors and to the bank to sign up or buy property... pmsl...

Oh no one forced me - I was nervous and uncertain but quite willing and it just sounded so do-able - even though there would be short term losses for me I could manage that for a while... ha!

£42k later...

Cleaver

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Sigh all you like, but this was an example of where university accommodation couldn't keep up with demand so BTL had to step in.

The private rented accommodation around my university was utterly notorious.

Given the choice, in our 2nd and 3rd years we all would have preferred to stay in the university-provided flats but these were reserved for 1st years only.

That's great, but we didn't want to stay in Uni accomodation, we wanted our own house. And luckily there was a market out there for us to rent one from.

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Compared to the BTL houses we lived in subsequent to our 1st year, the university-provided flats were cheaper, better maintained and in a much better state of repair.

That's great too. So if your university was providing good, cheap accomodation then there wouldn't be a requirement for BTL. Which sounds good to me.

Three problems:

a) Universities don't seem to want to build lots of houses for their students as they are happy for landlords to provide them
b) Universities haven't got any money at the moment so building or buying accomodation is the last thing on their mind at present
c) Universities are funded by taxpayers. Why should taxpayers fund accomodation for you?

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

BTL is only an "OK" solution for an otherwise failed system.

That's an interesting way of looking at it I guess. You say 'failed system', but I imagine most universities and most students are pretty happy with the arrangement we've currently got. There wasn't many of us at Uni who wanted to stay in halls after the first year for a number of reasons really, so private rentals suited most people.

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Imagine in the universities had invested money in buying up property for rent to students instead of landlords. Tuition fees might not be such a concern, hey??

What would be the difference to society of a university buying a house instead of a landlord? Students would pay the same rent or possibly even more - my uni rent was more in halls than it was in a private house.

I also would still ask the question whether the public would want their money to buy houses? And I say that fully aware of the irony of that statement in light of us propping up all the banks. But is it really wise for universities to be buying loads of houses? Is there a requirement for that?

chucky

EB69 wrote: »

Not sure that's always the case. Sometimes people take a gamble and it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. No one else's fault.

this poor misfortune who's screwed up his own and his family's future and reckons it's everyone else fault except his own... poor desperate lad...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We still have those people ramping, and trying to get people to buy now, pay more now, get more debt now etc etc.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Salespeople?

Half of them are VI's, touching cloth, in the same position as EB69.

I didn't realise our own version of these people on this forum....Ghouls, Hamish, Sibley etc were Salesman.

Is chucky a salesperson? Check out his thread yesterday, trying to swing something from nothing, and prove that 7% falls actually mean you are worse off, so buy now, buy buy buy. He's just a salesman. Indeed.

Check out ISTL calculating to the very penny that you are 44p better off this year if you buy now, on the basis of one single mortgage...don't miss the boat etc.

he has nearly 35,000 posts and he wants people not to buy a house because he can't afford one and doesn't want to be left behind...

chin up Devon - you can't blame everyone else your whole life...

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nothing.

lol - sales people.... how desperate are you to buy a house??

quality, that was probably your best post. salespeople hahah, keep it up.

35,000 posts and you're still trying to stop people buying houses... it's quality... lol