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

The_Fox_3

kriss_boy wrote: »

People arent being held at gun point and forced to rent.

Surely we all make a decision at a young age as to whether we save a deposit for a house or go and finance a car and buy the latest iphone?

Well yes they are!

They are now having to pay for those that borrowed too much over the last 10 years. The only reason interest rates are at the level they are now is to bail out those that did not plan for the future.

PasturesNew

julieq wrote: »

With owner occupation at 70% or so, you'd hardly say that the ivory tower was exclusive.

67.9% and falling.

The total number of households in England was 21.5 million in 2008-09, up from 20.2 million in 1999.

Of these, 68 per cent were owner occupiers, 18 per cent were social renters, and 14 per cent were private renters.

Owner-occupation decreased from a peak of 70.9 per cent of households in 2003 to 67.9 per cent in 2008-09.

In contrast, the proportion of households renting privately rose from 10.8 per cent to 14.2 per cent over the same period.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/ehs200809householdreport

StevieJ

One thing you don't mention is how globalisation will impact the UK wage structure, most likely scenario is a fall in living standards for the west and an increase for the EM, meeting somewhere in the middle. If that is the case then house prices (real) are likely to see a downward pull from this direction in the long term .

The_Fox_3

Great day yesterday!!....

Another BTL bites the dust, someone i have know in my area for a while now, not a very pleasant character who owns between 15 and 20 properties is in serious trouble with the law.

I am not sure what he has done, but i have a sneaking feeling it is business(BTL)related, and know for a fact that he has not been paying his Bills to many businesses and tradesmen around here, i have not touched him for over a year now as i know what he is like.

Fingers crossed we might have 15 to 20 properties back in the hands of decent hard working familys soon.

will keep informed

Fox

IveSeenTheLight

The_Fox wrote: »

Great day yesterday!!....

Another BTL bites the dust, someone i have know in my area for a while now, not a very pleasant character who owns between 15 and 20 properties is in serious trouble with the law.

I am not sure what he has done, but i have a sneaking feeling it is business(BTL)related, and know for a fact that he has not been paying his Bills to many businesses and tradesmen around here, i have not touched him for over a year now as i know what he is like.

Fingers crossed we might have 15 to 20 properties back in the hands of decent hard working familys soon.

will keep informed

Fox

1 anecdotal BTL Landlord "possibly" moving 15 to 20 properties to owner occupancy.

That's a fraction of the market given CML released that there were 26,900 BTL loans advanced in Q3 2010
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2770

Percy1983

Good to hear. As they say, every little helps.

IveSeenTheLight

Percy1983 wrote: »

Good to hear. As they say, every little helps.

I'll give you another one then.
My F-I-L sold his rental property when he retired at the end of last year.
It certainly helped his pension fund.

Running_Horse

leveller2911 wrote: »

I blame the tw@ts who make "Homes under the hammer" ive never seen anyone other than a BTL investor buy from the auctions they show.So that must mean FTBers and young couples never buy at auction... The whole programme is all about investment oppotunities and nothing to do with buying a home.

Its just more shallow,cheap tat we get from Aunty Beeb. I don't blame the BTL ers personally as the ones that Ive met haven't got much up top and are generally touching cloth with worry ,most are just lemmings.....

Most HUTH properties are slums most FTBs would not touch with a bargeploe and would never be given a mortgage for.

If someone risks their financial future bringing such places back into use and up to modern standards, then that can only be a good thing, and they deserve any rewards from their investment.

So you don't like BTLers or FTBs? Do you like anyone?

Flyboy152

Percy1983 wrote: »

Good to hear. As they say, every little helps.

I find it a little disconcerting that someone would find the withdrawal of up to twenty homes being taken out of the rental market a thing to celebrate. Tell me, what would happen if every home was withdrawn, where would people who can't afford to buy their own home live?

There also seems to be a disparity in the understanding of the term, "buy-to-let." It used to be attributed to the small investor or home owner, who has one to three properties, however, someone who owns twenty properties, has left the "buy-to-let" status behind some time ago.

twadge_face

LANDLORDS_ARE_COOL wrote: »

People don't like landlords because they know landlords are better than them. It's as simple as that. The peasants who rent envy their landlord's flash new motor and designer suit. That's just the way it is. There's winners and lots of losers in this life.

I've said it before, but the only landlords I know were previously drugdealers and have based the entirety of their empire (a dozen or so properties) off the back of deceit-fuelled loans and a falsified employment reference. It's an open secret in the community.

Basically, they see it as the easiest way to make the most money. They take housing allowance folk, mostly, in homes in multiple occupation. But I think the reduction in housing allowance, plus increasing interest rates, is going to stiff them.

No flash cars or w4nky suits. That's just w4nky estate agents innit. People can sniff the stink of sleaze from miles off. That's why no-one likes estate agents who happen to be landlords too, they're super-double-greedy, and I think that's the type you're talking about, isn't it L_ARE_C or whatever sockpuppet you are! I'm just pushing the debate forward...