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

Cleaver

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

All BTL landlords exploit the financially/socially vulnerable. Simples.

I never said they EXCLUSIVELY exploit the poor.

My apologies. You used the phrase 'all', and from that I wrongly assumed you were using it it as you normally would use that word.

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Anyway appearances can be deceptive as I would have thought you would've been well aware in particular, Cleaver.

Huh?

twadge_face

chucknorris wrote: »

One of my ex tenants was really minted, at the time he definitely had a lot more than me, he just want (what he perceived as) the hassle of buying somewhere

And your point is what, exactly?

You exploited them. You brilliant, brilliant genius.

Just shows you up as a parasite. Merry Christmas.

Cleaver

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

I would just like to remark that this is a very popular thread.

OP must be onto something.

The notion that BTL is a bad thing stirs up strongly emotive responses on both sides.

Must be a bit of a sore point.

Posting an 'I hate Landlords, let's burn them all' thread on this forum is pretty much the bread and butter business of this place. It's a bit like logging on to the PETA forum and starting a 'I just love how warm leather gloves keep your hands, don't you?' thread.

As we've all said a hundred times, this issue doesn't really get discussed much in the real world as most people don't care that much either way.

twadge_face

Cleaver wrote: »

My apologies. You used the phrase 'all', and from that I wrongly assumed you were using it it as you normally would use that word.

*sigh*

Writing to some of you is like trying to address someone with Aspergers, albeit with their literal-but-illiterate paradox on overdrive.

All BTL landlords exploit the poor. Doesn't mean they exploit anything BUT the poor.

Just like all people drink water. Doesn't mean they don't occasionally enjoy, oh, a mochachino.

Huh?

LOL!

chucknorris

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

And your point is what, exactly?

You exploited them. You brilliant, brilliant genius.

Just shows you up as a parasite. Merry Christmas.

That you are the moaning, unhappy person, so unhappy that you moan and complain on internet forums.

How brave of you to insult me on an internet forum, well done! I guess that you are probably as quiet as a mouse when face to face with someone.

Cleaver

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

And your point is what, exactly?

You exploited them. You brilliant, brilliant genius.

Just shows you up as a parasite. Merry Christmas.

I've got to to have a new year's resolution not to reply to these pointless comments. But as we're still in 2010...

The people who rented our house wanted to rent. They had sold their house, were planning to move abroad and wanted to rent. They were specifically looking for a house to rent. They were actively looking for someone who owned a house that they could rent for a short-term period. They were customers who wanted a product. At no point did they ever feel exploited, because they got a product they wanted at a price they seemed happy with. Is this clear?

But happy Christmas to you too.

Cleaver

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

*sigh*

Writing to some of you is like trying to address someone with Aspergers, albeit with their literal-but-illiterate paradox on overdrive.

All BTL landlords exploit the poor. Doesn't mean they exploit anything BUT the poor.

Just like all people drink water. Doesn't mean they don't occasionally enjoy, oh, a mochachino.

LOL!

Oh, okay. I guess if you're looking at in general terms then I'm sure BTL landlords do 'exploit' the poor. I guess in the same way that all businesses will make a profit out of poor people at one time or another.

twadge_face

Cleaver wrote: »

Posting an 'I hate Landlords, let's burn them all' thread on this forum is pretty much the bread and butter business of this place. It's a bit like logging on to the PETA forum and starting a 'I just love how warm leather gloves keep your hands, don't you?' thread.

Yeah yeah I know.

As we've all said a hundred times, this issue doesn't really get discussed much in the real world as most people don't care that much either way.

Disagree. I think this indicates an undercurrent of discontent. Particularly as:

- the bankers got off scott-free
- lots of cuts for people that don't really understand/know why
- students getting narky about tuition fees

...it just needs someone articulate to put it all together in a friendly perceitvable manner and I do believe the veil over people's eyes will be lifted.

Julian Assange has the right idea.

The times ARE a-changing.

What a TRAGEDY if that were to undermine your immoral business model.

twadge_face

Cleaver wrote: »

I've got to to have a new year's resolution not to reply to these pointless comments. But as we're still in 2010...

The people who rented our house wanted to rent. They had sold their house, were planning to move abroad and wanted to rent. They were specifically looking for a house to rent. They were actively looking for someone who owned a house that they could rent for a short-term period. They were customers who wanted a product. At no point did they ever feel exploited, because they got a product they wanted at a price they seemed happy with. Is this clear?

But happy Christmas to you too.

I've got that. And I've got no grudge with you. I'm sorry, it's just the principle of BTL that I find disagreeable.

I'm not kidding when I say that the landlords who are pals of mine are the widest of wideboys and estate agents to boot!!

I hope you have a good Christmas.

ash28

Percy1983 wrote: »

I do believe the drop in the rental market is more due to the wealth of the county increasing rather anything else and the point is that drop would have been further if BTL's hadn't mad there own market driven by greed.

As for it being a good investment I really can't argue, but it does seem to be an investment type which was only available to one generation as us younger ones can barely afford one house and then don't have a massive equity form nothing to then cash in and buy more.

I can see argument of pensions have collapsed etc but if all the money LL's have chucked at housing was paid into pensions would they have been in such a bad way?

In short I think socially and morally there should be much higher tax's on the LL's to make it not so attractive, in short it should cost you money along the way if you expect ownership of the property at the end. Yes there would still be the BTL market as some would see it as making a loss for 25 years and then a good investment afterwards, but I doubt everybody would jump on the band wagon.

I agree that the general wealth of the country has had something to do with the fall in the numbers of people renting property. Selling off council property contributed to this and IMHO getting rid of assured tenancies contributed too.

The pensions collapse - I don't agree with - people in the late 1980s and the 1990s were very cautious about putting money into pensions - look at Robert Maxwell and the pension fund of his group - he removed around £400m from the fund and left pensioners not knowing if they would have a pension or not - companies used to raid their pension funds if they needed cash - they can't do that now. It all led to the Pensions Compensation Board. Companies also took and take "pensions holidays" where they stopped paying in if they had a surplus - OH's company did this for about 3 years from 1997 and had to dragged kicking and screaming into making payments into the fund again.

Around the same time the gov't introduced the assured shorthold tenancy which gave landlords far more flexibility regarding tenancies - so a lot of people decided to invest their pension money in property. It seemed a safer long term bet than pensions for a lot of people - I would say back then it was security for the future rather than greed that drove quite a number of people to become landlords.