Surely Discrimination?

The_J

antrobus wrote: »

(Scratches head)

People have mortgage rights? That's a new one. At least it's a right that seems to have slipped the minds of the worthies who complied the European Convention on Human Rights.

Shut up! You'll give them ideas.

DVardysShadow

chrisscott666 wrote: »

I think there are some harsh comments there just because people are a bit bitter towards land lords, I’m a land lord and although I’m in it for the money obviously if it didn’t make a profit I would not do it but then dose that make a shop keeper evil? my rents are set below what others charge and the standard of my housing is high, I do not believe for one minute that landlords are pricing new buyers out the market for the simple reason they can pay more for a house than I can, my price is set by mathematics, I need to make a certain amount from the rent I charge, I’ve been out bid regularly by new buyers as once they go above my maximum it’s not worth me buying as I won’t make enough to make it worthwhile.

I work 70 hours a week in my own job to pay for these houses (every week) so I’m working hard and I do believe although I’m in it for the money. I’m also helping family’s out, in the 5 years I’ve been doing it having 8 houses I’ve never had a tenant leave because I look after them. and don’t rape them for every penny they have, we both get a fair living.

I do agree the arrangement charges are extortionate however but like people say you can choose to pay them or simply not.

I don't have a problem with Landlords. Like dunstonh, I do have a problem with the humbug that it is a public service and the howling about discrimination and how unfair it is that lenders charge more for the risks associated with letting. Especially if the topic goes away from the loan itself you would probably tell us you are taking financial risks and deserve reward.

As for working 70 hours a week, I don't doubt it. But does that make the moral case for you being the benefactor of families who would otherwise be homeless? For me it does not, it makes the utilitarian case that you are making a bloody good screw out of an ecosystem which keeps housing in short supply and I don't doubt that if God sent more hours in the week, you would use those too.

There is something cockeyed about a system where the tenants cannot afford the house in their own right but you can and you do very nicely out of it if they pay you.

SouthCoast

I have 11 flats in Bristol which I have a commercial loan.

A very competitive market place.

I do hope that you are getting a very good after tax return for all your hard work.

Thrugelmir

Gadge0275 wrote: »

This seems to me to be discrimination.

Where's the discrimination?

You are operating a commercial venture for the purposes of making money. Banks do likewise.

You receive rental income to cover your overheads. Banks charge fees and interest to cover theirs.

Is your complaint that no longer easy to make a profit?
Now that cheap credit has vanished.

I suspect the commercial realities have (and will) caught people off guard. As interest rates adjust to a normal level. Which is somewhat higher than they currently stand.

COLOURBOUNCE

He'll be complaining about discrimination if the market collapses leaving his 11 flats underwater, and most others only have to worry about one.

Gary123456790

I just renewed my car insurance and you know what, they charged me more than they charged my mum!!!!

SURELY DISCRIMINATION??

The_J

Gary123456790 wrote: »

I just renewed my car insurance and you know what, they charged me more than they charged my mum!!!!

SURELY DISCRIMINATION??

At the end of this year the Gender Pricing changes will take effect across all insurance so that insurers cannot discriminate based on sex. This will mean that women pay more for car and life insurance, men pay more for critical illness and income protection.

Ageism will be the next one.

Of course, the idiots who bought this to the European Court didn't think for one moment that rather than bring prices down, the insurers would just increase everything across the board because if you have to pidgeonhole someone, you'll do it at the risk of the lowest common denominator.

Gary123456790

Yeah its completely stupid.

Its like when the EU imposed a limit on the degree of bend in a cucumber. Bendy cucumbers rotted in the fields when people couldnt afford the straight ones...

Then later they scrapped it... Net result - we paid money for them to sit there and come up with this crap.

Gary.

MonkeyMad

Bendy cucumbers would have rotted in the fields because the supermarkets and farmers wanted to retain the price premium for the "Extra" Class cucumber rather than let us buy a Class II bent cucumber. Difficult to see how you can blame the EU for that, especially since the guideline actually has its origins in the UN.

pineapple

chrisscott666 wrote: »

I think there are some harsh comments there just because people are a bit bitter towards land lords,

No it's because the OP is comparing two different scenarios so people feel the whinging about discrimination isn't valid.