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

Blackpool_Saver

Cleaver wrote: »

Yes. You're scum. Move along.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The_Fox_3

stringsmk2 wrote: »

Does this apply to me as well. I bought a place but I am now renting it?

Yes

Look, some of you BTL apologists can be as clever as you want, but i will tell you this, if a survey was done asking those living in rented to day if they would prefer to be giving the chance to buy BTL would be dead in a year.

You idiots can come up with your individual heart warming storys..
"we had a lovely couple who loved me and Mrs Landlord so much they named their first born after one of us, in time they grew to respect and love us so much for putting a roof over their sad little heads that they decided that Mr Landlord could inpregnant her as well as naming the other offspring after us again"

I general nobody wants BTL or second home ownership to the degree we have it, it is destroying aspiration.

The_Fox_3

poet123 wrote: »

So, everyone who worked hard and decided to buy a property to bolster a badly performing pension is "reptilian scum"? .........OK

The part of the problem at least

The_Fox_3

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm going to ask this for what might be the 165th time on this forum.

In 2003 my girlfriend and I wanted to rent a place for a year before moving from the area. We didn't want a council house or LA house, we wanted to rent a house from a private landlord for a period of 12 months.

There are hundreds of thousands of people like us. Where, or who, would we rent a house from if you 'ended' buy to let?

Suspect troll!

But if you are speaking the truth then you come under the minority that should be catered for by a smaller BTL market.
If you live in a BTL now and have no aspirations for anything else i am pleased for you, seriously.

poet123

The_Fox wrote: »

The part of the problem at least

Rubbish, pure unadulterated rubbish.;)

FATBALLZ

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm going to ask this for what might be the 165th time on this forum.

In 2003 my girlfriend and I wanted to rent a place for a year before moving from the area. We didn't want a council house or LA house, we wanted to rent a house from a private landlord for a period of 12 months.

There are hundreds of thousands of people like us. Where, or who, would we rent a house from if you 'ended' buy to let?

I'd like to see some well regulated professional companies look after the majority of private rentals, in a way that lets rents stay at reasonable levels and allows tenants to be able to hold their landlord to their obligations without the threat of eviction being held over them.

Cleaver

The_Fox wrote: »

Suspect troll!

But if you are speaking the truth then you come under the minority that should be catered for by a smaller BTL market.
If you live in a BTL now and have no aspirations for anything else i am pleased for you, seriously.

Who's a suspect troll? Me? Nearly 5,000 posts is some pretty impressive trolling.

What does 'speaking the truth' mean? There isn't a minority market for BTL, there's simply a market for private rental houses. I would completely agree with a reasonable view that BTL is far, far too big in this country and a decrease would be preferable.

But I asked you a simple question: if you 'ended' BTL where would people like me in 2003 live?

In terms of my situation, I rented for about 4 years (happily), owned for 2 years (happily), had a BTL whilst owning for about 4 years (happily) and now just own one place (also happily).

It's threads like this that make me wish the likes of dopester posted more often. There's a guy who has pretty much opposing views to me on certain aspects of this subject but has the intelligence, class, thought and cleverness to not only engage everyone in debate but can make someone like me look at my own opinion and think "hmmm, am I really sure about what I think?".

Instead we get Dr Fox here dribbling the same unitelligent rantings we've heard a million times before.

Cleaver

FATBALLZ wrote: »

I'd like to see some well regulated professional companies look after the majority of private rentals, in a way that lets rents stay at reasonable levels and allows tenants to be able to hold their landlord to their obligations without the threat of eviction being held over them.

I completely agree.

However, if I came along as an individual and provided one house that was cheaper and better quality than the company would you be happy for me to come in to business?

Arcaine

The_Fox wrote: »

Yes

Look, some of you BTL apologists can be as clever as you want, but i will tell you this, if a survey was done asking those living in rented to day if they would prefer to be giving the chance to buy BTL would be dead in a year.

What do you propose to make the situation better? Just saying give everyone the right to buy isnt the answer IMO. After all, its an asset owned privately. Lets have a look at some potential options for discussion as you seem to have none.

1) Legistate that no one can own more that 1 house. Married couples and other cohabiting must sell their second property within a set amount of time from the start of the marrige/arrangement. Again for houses that are inherited. Obviously a little extreme, Governement would have to set prices as it is unfair that when this comes in people should lose money they have put into a second property. The Government can manage the housing stock and collect rent on behalf of the state for those that wish to still rent.

2) Government controls on the rent that can be charged, coupled with a tax system that descriminates against landlords.

3) Banks have to lend to anyone who wants a house.

4) Banks are not allowed to give BTL mortgages.

Disclaimer. These are just ideas for discussion, I may or may not agree with any or all of them.

FATBALLZ

Cleaver wrote: »

I completely agree.

However, if I came along as an individual and provided one house that was cheaper and better quality than the company would you be happy for me to come in to business?

On the face of it I'd say that would be fine - in theory the fact that regulated professional companies exist with regulated levels of rent and a sufficient stock of housing should mean that housing supplied by private individuals would have a ceiling of the level of rent they could realistically charge and house prices would be pegged down to some extent.