The Moral of a BTL.....?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You've pumped words into my mouth to argue against since my first post on the subject and clearly nothing is going to stop you creating something to argue with.

So I'm done here.

How can somebody pump words into someone's mouth when they're typing on a keyboard?!?! Blaming another forum user what you type in your own posts is very weird...

Yet another virtual online meltdown.............

OffGridLiving

As I said on another thread (where Devon is continuing his very public emotional breakdown), Devon needs a break from the board in order to re-focus. The board also needs a break from him - 50k posts and all of them in this one board populated by between 15 and 30 people, that's a whole new level of obsessiveness.

Loughton_Monkey

chucky wrote: »

How can somebody pump words into someone's mouth when they're typing on a keyboard?!?! ........

I have no idea, but if it is possible, then it sounds rather immoral to me. Or is it unethical? I can't tell the difference myself.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So I'm done here.

You could use that as a signature - it must get repetitive having to keep typing it.

OffGridLiving

wotsthat wrote: »

You could use that as a signature - it must get repetitive having to keep typing it.

No one flounces like Devon, except maybe shortbrained.

silvercar

JencParker wrote: »

I think the point that you are missing is that with runni g a business should come responsibility. Responsibility to customers / clients. Unfortunately this seems to have been lost replaced with the ideal that making the most profit (whether for shareholders or business owners) comes before anything else. It is an Attitude that has come from across the pond and is found in most businesses not just btl but one that also makes society poorer.

SO if he concentrated on the student rental market, where we can safely assume tenants are generally planning on moving out after one year, then it would be morally acceptable?

SO applying that logic to all private landlords, to be morally white they should concentrate on the transient market and steer clear of providing homes to those that would be more in need of longer term tenancies.....so the supply of decent homes to those in greatest need of decent rental homes ie those who are never going to be in a position to buy is reduced, forcing rents up for these people...and that is moral!

JencParker

silvercar wrote: »

SO if he concentrated on the student rental market, where we can safely assume tenants are generally planning on moving out after one year, then it would be morally acceptable?

SO applying that logic to all private landlords, to be morally white they should concentrate on the transient market and steer clear of providing homes to those that would be more in need of longer term tenancies.....so the supply of decent homes to those in greatest need of decent rental homes ie those who are never going to be in a position to buy is reduced, forcing rents up for these people...and that is moral!

Considering the student houses my children rented, the conditions of the houses, the way they turned every room into a bedroom giving the students no communal living area and the relatively high rents (far higher than halls that included meals and no bills), I think those who rent to students are the biggest parasites of them all!

Generali

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Interestingly via shelter's website you can find out all sorts of stats about your area. There are 18 homeless families in temp accomodation, 7000 people on council housing waiting list, and 5700 empty privately owned properties.

And if some of those 5700 properties were sold to BTLers, the housing shortage would go some way to being relieved.

jamesd

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That mess he is in has a knock on effect to his customers. In this case, he is going to sell up as soon as he can, presumably giving the tenants 2 months notice to get out. He'll kindly let them stay until he can break even and then chuck them out when he has.

His customers aren't forced to be on statutory periodic tenancies. They have the option to seek places where five year, three year or one year ASTs are available and to negotiate extensions when there's a year still remaining on the longer ones. He's not forced to continue to own a place, he can look to sell when he wants, including to a person who will want a tenant to remain in place. The tenants may also have the option to buy if they want to and he could ask them if they are interested.

Now, as a tenant, I've been in that position twice within the last ten years. The first time the property was sold to a BTL person who raised the rent to the amount required to meet normal mortgage lending criteria at the time. I paid that £25 increase a month early as a christmas present and welcome to their new property, complete with a message telling them that. I didn't even hear about the viewing for possible sale in advance because the notice for a viewing was given while I was on a business trip and the viewing happened before I had returned.

The second time the landlord was getting divorced and wanted to sell. Before the survey had even been done I had gone out and made an offer to buy a different property on the same street. Landlord was probably hoping I'd buy his, which remains unsold a few years later. We've discussed me buying it but circumstances aren't right for me to do that at the moment.

Other than that initial £25 increase the rent remained constant for some eight years. My words to the landlord early on were that my approach was to "keep the money coming and don't bug the landlord", making me a very low hassle and reliable tenant. Much more so than any of his other tenants. That helped to make his choices more stark: does he want to risk losing a reliable and low hassle tenant by raising the rent or not? He chose not.

Tenants have options as well. Not just landlords. Much less so for some social tenants who may lack financial or personal resources to deal with things but that's far from being all tenants.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

I don't agree. I think that choice of investment or business can also be a moral choice.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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. ... At the other. The complete shysters. Total disregard for anything other making the maximum amount of money.

Take Zopa's new Safeguard lending product. Depending on credit grade of the borrower it will add a non-refundable charge of up to a thousand Pounds+ to the loan, most of that going into a pot that is to be used to pay lenders if the borrower defaults. If the borrower repays after three months, none of that is refunded. If they overpay regularly they still get to have paid the same fee as if they had kept the loan for the whole term. My view is that this is an unethical investment product, so I do not use it, even though I have used their previous products. In aspects like debt collection they seem to act eminently professionally but that's not enough to overcome the problem with the product itself.

For me, there are moral/ethical thresholds for investments and businesses. Those don't necessarily correlate with what is called "ethical investing" but they do still exist.

For me, making property available to rent by those who can't afford to buy or don't want to buy is an activity that helps people with one of their core survival needs. Hence my view that it's one of the most moral activities around.

Prothet_of_Doom

JencParker wrote: »

Those who only think of themselves and what they can gain tend to think of it as envy or jealousy. It is typical of the attitude that Maggie encouraged - think only of yourself. There who think beyond themselves and look at the effects on society as a whole - they are not envious or jealous, they just see selfishness and injustice to fellow humans. Somewhere in the middle is the right balance, but we will not achieve it through the current capitalist attitude that money and profit is a priority.

I suspect you will find a lot of reassurance on this board as it is frequented by those who do have money and self interest high on their list of priorities .

My upbringing by Christian Socialists, who had a utopian belief about the world may have been impacted by actually living in the real world.

How would you invest 10% of your earnings, in order that you live a comfortable life when you retire?
If I put it into a pension scheme, (and I do put into one, because I'm hedging my risks), it will be invested in a capitalist world.
Is money a priority? No, but having spent the first 28 years of my adult life skint, I am now in a position to make sure that I can support the local economy in my retirement, some 20 years away. Support it by making sure I use the excess I have now, to make sure that I don't have to rely on handouts in the future.