The Moral of a BTL.....?

JencParker

wotsthat wrote: »

It's also frequented by those who think that they are well placed to act as moral guardians for reasons unknown.

Unkown to whom? Those who don't know what morals are?

I think IveSeenTheLight summed it up quite succinctly....

Originally Posted by IveSeenTheLight View Post
No need to explore the morals...

And as the OP seems to have come to the conclusion that anyone with morals may be a 'freak', then they've come to the right place.

What I wanted to understand was if there was any foundation to her beliefs or are they based on the fact that she's a freak

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

German tenants have a much more secure tenancy, and can make their rented home their own - much like those in LA housing can here. The main problem with our current rental market is that it offers no security of tenancy (apart from the meagre 6/12 month contract). That may be fine for the young or those who come to an area to work for a short term contract (particularly applicable to London), but the lack of security when settled or raising a family is unacceptable in a so called civilised society.

do you have any figures for the number of people who are forced to quit their rental in Germany ; and how does this compare with the UK?

wotsthat

As he considers his sister-in-law a freak he's taking her views on the morality of BTL with a pinch of salt. That's different to thinking someone is a freak because they have morals.

As for ISTL his stance was clearly positioned. If someone is acting legally, providing a decent service and works on building mutual respect between landlord and tenant what do morals have to do with it especially in the context of BTL?

Charles Dickens seems to have made a lasting impression on a lot of people.

There's nothing to stop people with these strong beliefs from setting up a 'nice persons' rental company.

Thrugelmir

jamesd wrote: »

BTL is one of the most moral investments there is.

Not an investment. It's a business like any other it's aim is to make a profit , i.e. money. How the owners run their business is where morality comes into play. In my personal experience this splits into various camps.

At one end of the spectrum. Those that build their business in a professional manner, abiding by all legalities and treating their customers with respect. With the aim of hopefully developing long term relationships. Which benefit both parties.

At the other. The complete shysters. Total disregard for anything other making the maximum amount of money. Though chancing your luck too often doesn't always lead to a path of riches.

Graham_Devon

There was a caller on Radio 2 today who was a BTL landlord, having purchased properties in 2006 he was hoping for prices to continue rising so that he could sell his portfolio without realising a loss.

Some of you may have heard it, however, it will be on Iplayer, was around 12-1pm if I recall correctly (just incase I'm accused of having "no evidence").

This is where IMO, morals come into play.

See, while this landlord wants to sell and doesn't want to realise a loss, there are families living in these houses which, at the right moment, he will pounce and sell with little regard to the disruption to the families.

His only concern was the capital.

How many other landlords are there out there waiting to do the same? How many families disrupted and displaced?

This person was taking a chance on house prices and it didn't work out. He's now looking to get out ASAP. He came across as woe is me, but there was not even a mention of the people in these houses that he had taken a punt on.

Morals will mean different things to different people. This story will mean different things to different people. However, it's the families renting these houses that I feel some compassion for. It's too easy for BTL landlords to take a punt, and far easier to involve completely innocent people in your gamble.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There was a caller on Radio 2 today who was a BTL landlord, having purchased properties in 2006 he was hoping for prices to continue rising so that he could sell his portfolio without realising a loss.

Some of you may have heard it, however, it will be on Iplayer, was around 12-1pm if I recall correctly (just incase I'm accused of having "no evidence").

This is where IMO, morals come into play.

See, while this landlord wants to sell and doesn't want to realise a loss, there are families living in these houses which, at the right moment, he will pounce and sell with little regard to the disruption to the families.

His only concern was the capital.

How many other landlords are there out there waiting to do the same? How many families disrupted and displaced?

This person was taking a chance on house prices and it didn't work out. He's now looking to get out ASAP. He came across as woe is me, but there was not even a mention of the people in these houses that he had taken a punt on.

Morals will mean different things to different people. This story will mean different things to different people. However, it's the families renting these houses that I feel some compassion for. It's too easy for BTL landlords to take a punt, and far easier to involve completely innocent people in your gamble.

Surely you welcome a house becoming available for a desperate family to buy?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

Surely you welcome a house becoming available for a desperate family to buy?

This is one way to look at such a situation. One persons loss is another persons gain.

But no, I don't welcome it. The tenant will likely have to pay for new checks, get their deposit back, move their families.

This is part and parcel of renting, but as we are talking of the morals of BTL, I believe it's immoral to chase the capital with little regard to those you are involving to the level the caller suggested today.

If you cannot afford the risk, don't take it. He clearly couldn't afford the risk but took it anyway, sucking unknowing families into his gamble.

I can see what you are saying in that every persons loss is someone elses gain, but I don't operate on that level.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is one way to look at such a situation. One persons loss is another persons gain.

But no, I don't welcome it. The tenant will likely have to pay for new checks, get their deposit back, move their families.

This is part and parcel of renting, but as we are talking of the morals of BTL, I believe it's immoral to chase the capital with little regard to those you are involving to the level the caller suggested today.

If you cannot afford the risk, don't take it. He clearly couldn't afford the risk but took it anyway, sucking unknowing families into his gamble.

I can see what you are saying in that every persons loss is someone elses gain, but I don't operate on that level.

One landlord who has been renting out his property for 7 years wants out and you consider it immoral.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

One landlord who has been renting out his property for 7 years wants out and you consider it immoral.

That's not what I said. He's only been renting it that long and continues to do so as he has no choice as he can't afford the loss.

Please don't twist what I said, its pointless. Disagree by all means, but don't twist it.

As I said, its immoral IMO to take a risk as he did, where a slight fall leaves him in negative equity, looking to sell up as soon as possible, and pull innocent families into your gamble.

If he'd put down higher deposit levels and bought a couple less houses, thereby protecting himself instead of going for the most amount of houses credit would allow him, he wouldn't be in this position and those families he provides a service to wouldn't be at risk either.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's not what I said. He's only been renting it that long and continues to do so as he has no choice as he can't afford the loss.

Please don't twist what I said, its pointless. Disagree by all means, but don't twist it.

You seem to be saying that his intent is all important and not the effect on the tenants.

So if he got out for another reason (approved by you) then that poor family forced out wouldn't have been a factor anymore and the landlord would bask in moral righteousness.