BTL'ers are not evil are they??

chucknorris

Bantex wrote: »

They can just withold the lending though. i doubt there would be much appetite to lend on properties with protected tenants. As Chucknorris said these places are typically downvalued by around 60%.

I was taking a rather pessimistic view when I said only worth 40% of their former value, by looking at current regulated tenancy property values. Of course current properties have suffered gradual rent depreciation for years, so in the early years they would be probably not be worth so less, from an income point of view. But what would make it very tricky to value would be the possibility that the same would eventually happen, but IMO it is hard to see it not happening, hence my pessimistic viewpoint.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Building more homes now without any rule, regulation or law changes will just play into the hands of housing profiteers, hence the discussion here about tenancy law changes.

you just couldn't make it up could you?

chucky

ukcarper wrote: »

I'll ask again

He won't reply. He's not capable of discussing or even putting together an intelligent reply.

It's obviously looking for attention that isn't being given elsewhere.

TickersPlaysPop

ukcarper wrote: »

I'll ask again how will you solve the void caused by the loss of BTL. Don't say prices will drop and all people will be able to buy because although prices might fall a little there will still be plenty of people who for one reason or another will not be able to buy.

You know the answer to this already?

On 19 April I post this....

1). I would prefer replacing individual vocational housing profiteering with a more controlled housing association type organisations to run the rental market, channeling the money available from money markets, such as pensions etc. partly as a way of preventing competion between buy to let profiteers and people wanting to buy a home to live in. Thus addressing the supply demand problem. As HPI slows down and houses become more affordable, there will be less demand for rental dwellings.... And more people can buy a home to live in and build wealth over their life time and not see rent payments going out every mth with no return.

2) even the 1 dwelling per person idea would allow owners to rent out their property, because they would still own only 1 dwelling.

3) quality if rented dwellings, is very subjective, and I don't think we could discuss this with any certainty. However, I think a code of conduct and standards are needed now with regulation with teeth!

4) illegal? I have already posted a comment yesterday on this! I said these new laws would be for new house transactions NOT old ones! So people with lots of properties, couldn't buy any more... If they sell some they still can't buy any more. The laws can be phased in over time if needed so it prevents chaos and creation of criminals!

It's easy with hind sight, but Years ago the benefits of private landlords should have been slowly decreased over a number of yrs to prevent the situation now where people can't buy their own home.

The number of houses per person should be limited, and ideally new houses now should be given preferentilally to those wanting to live there...... The competition from buy to let buyers should be reduced, handicapped or removed.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

You know the answer to this already?

On 19 April I post this....

1). I would prefer replacing individual vocational housing profiteering with a more controlled housing association type organisations to run the rental market, channeling the money available from money markets, such as pensions etc. partly as a way of preventing competion between buy to let profiteers and people wanting to buy a home to live in. Thus addressing the supply demand problem. As HPI slows down and houses become more affordable, there will be less demand for rental dwellings.... And more people can buy a home to live in and build wealth over their life time and not see rent payments going out every mth with no return.

2) even the 1 dwelling per person idea would allow owners to rent out their property, because they would still own only 1 dwelling.

3) quality if rented dwellings, is very subjective, and I don't think we could discuss this with any certainty. However, I think a code of conduct and standards are needed now with regulation with teeth!

4) illegal? I have already posted a comment yesterday on this! I said these new laws would be for new house transactions NOT old ones! So people with lots of properties, couldn't buy any more... If they sell some they still can't buy any more. The laws can be phased in over time if needed so it prevents chaos and creation of criminals!

It's easy with hind sight, but Years ago the benefits of private landlords should have been slowly decreased over a number of yrs to prevent the situation now where people can't buy their own home.

The number of houses per person should be limited, and ideally new houses now should be given preferentilally to those wanting to live there...... The competition from buy to let buyers should be reduced, handicapped or removed.

Who would provide these housing association type organizations you have never answered that question. The property needs to be built or bought and where is the money going to come from. I would like more social housing but I know that it is not going to happen and large private companies or organizations are not rushing in to provide rental property now and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

TickersPlaysPop

The horse has bolted now, but it should never have been allowed for buy to let purchasers to compete with people wanting and able to buy a home to live in. Years of this free market housing has partly lead to pressure pushing prices higher. It has now got to the stage where many people cannot buy a home to live in due to house price increases much higher than wage increases.

The amount of housing stock needed for renting? When people don't buy a house to live in it then it is needed for renting, or not needed at all. I'll mention again, the housing market should never have been allowed to be a free market commodity, it is partly due to the competition between buy to let and buy to live over many years that has pumped the housing market to very high level it is now, and we can't allow it to rise above wage increases.

In the interest of slowing house increases and allowing people to buy their home for social prosperity, houses should not be available for buy to let when they are first put on the market, and only opened for buy to let after a set period of time, maybe 3mths.

If you check my posts I have never claimed to know everything, I am here to debate, but unfortunately I have only recently realised who I am mainly engaging with on here... and most people on the forum are buy to let landlords! Strangely.... Those who are not buy to let landlords, tend to agree with me.

The idea above might be one that allows the landlord'ism to continue, but at a much more controlled and less socially devisive level.

Jason74

wymondham wrote: »

I regularly read that the BTL brigade are to blame for for a host of wrongs with the world, ranging from the price of housing to famine in some distant country and shrinking chocolate bars. I don't see it... all I see is astute people who have had to look to different ways to get a decent return on their money, because:

1. Interest rates are so artificially low, normal savings returns are usually worthless.

2. Pensions are all over the place, both in terms of predictability for long term investment in stocks and continual rule changes by the Government. The latest change I will admit probably made this more tempting!

Based on this, if you wanted a good, solid return for your hard earned money you look to certainties of which there are not many, but most would agree property is a good one because:

1. UK PLC is obsessed by increasing house prices

2. The Government are also majorly obssesed by increasing house prices and regularly add stimulus to ensure it continues to increase. The government have created an ideal breeding ground for BTL (high house prices, no social housing alternatives etc)

Given the above, surely if you can afford to be into BTL you would indeed be silly not to invest in one of the few Government backed certainties (prices aint going down if they have anything to do with it)? Everyone wants to have a comfortable retirement and this seems to be an ever more popular way of ensuring this?

I'm not BTL'er as I can't afford it, but if I could then it would definately be a consideration!

Should people give BTL'er a break and acknowledge they are just taking advantage of the climate they find themselves in??


Note: How people are as a landlord is another matter - I'm just thinking of the investment side...

I think all of this is fair enough. The problem, as Lydia J puts it very well, is that people acting in relatively innocent self interest ends up creating a significant social issue. We have three main tenures in this country (home ownership, social renting,and private renting). There can be little doubt that of the three, people who's long term housing tenure is private renting will (all other things being equal) be in a worse position than those in other tenures ue to the lack of either asset accumulation or security of tenure. There can also be little doubt that as BTL grows, more people find themselves in private renting longer term.

So we therefore have a dilema. BTL landlords are in themselves simply doing the best for themselves that they can, and operating in an environment permitted by law. But in doing so, they are creating a significant and growing social problem. Do nothing, and the problem continues to grow. Act to intervene, and some fairly key principles around property rights are potentially impacted. In themselves, neither are desirable.

Personally, I would take the view that the principle of housing as many people as possible with security of tenure takes priority over the interests of landlords. I would therefore look to disinsentivise BTL through the tax system by removing all tax allowances for BTL over a gradual period of 4-5 years, and eventualy taxing rental income at a significantly higher rate than any other form of income. Better security of tenure should also form part of the mix, with Shelters "Stable rental contract" (giving 5 year tenancies) being probably the best starting point here.

Doing this would make the economics of BTL much less favourable, while enabling landlords to gradualy withdraw from the market. It would also discourage new entrants, meaning that at the very least, the "stock" of BTL properties will stp growing, and will ideally start to fall back over time. The increased security of tenure would also improve housing outcomes for those who still need to use private renting, without creating an armageddon scenario for landlords and lenders.

The problem with the above is of course that it tackles BTL in isolation in the context of it's growth being part of a much bigger picture that the OP describes. As such, it would be naive to consider it a perfect solution, and it certainly brings with it its own problems. However, imho, the current unfeterred growth of BTL is pretty much the worst possible outcome, meaning that these problems become better than the alternative.

chucky

Jason74 wrote: »

I think all of this is fair enough. The problem, as Lydia J puts it very well, is that people acting in relatively innocent self interest ends up creating a significant social issue.

You are totally right.

People are buying property close to good schools and close to good transport links this means that house prices will increase.

If you're against house prices increasing you are against children getting a good education at good schools and people living close to good transport links.

There are too many factors influencing house price increases to point the finger at one or two factors. Most frothers on here can't see it unfortunately.

Jason74

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why are fuses blowing so much?

All seem reasonable requests if I'm honest. Front door may be a bit much, unless theres something wrong with it.

As for fixing the toilet, the tenant has done nothing wrong. If she's not there to let them in, shes not there.

Again, I say this with respect, but these are the issues you should kind of expect if you are going to be a hands on landlord, which is sounds as if you are, rather than paying someone to deal with these issues for you.

Graham, I'm broadly on the same side of the BTL argument as you are, but you're imho inviting criticism here. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of BTL itself, if there is going to be a landlord / tenant relationship, a bit of common sense on both sides is required.

Taking old git's posts at face value, the tenants requests here (and the way she has handled them) have gone way beyond reasonable. While I'm not convinced that jacking up the rent in response is entirely fair (and Mayonaise's suggestion of effectively a retaliatory eviction is beyond the pale imho, and a better argument for reform of the system than I could ever articulate), hes got every right to consider her a problem tenant. And there's certainly a valid argument (albeit one I'm uncomfortable with) that increasing the rent is simply a charge for the extra service that she is receiving.

I'm really not sure how you can be defending the tenant in this instance.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Graham, I'm broadly on the same side of the BTL argument as you are, but you're imho inviting criticism here. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of BTL itself, if there is going to be a landlord / tenant relationship, a bit of common sense on both sides is required.

Taking old git's posts at face value, the tenants requests here (and the way she has handled them) have gone way beyond reasonable. While I'm not convinced that jacking up the rent in response is entirely fair (and Mayonaise's suggestion of effectively a retaliatory eviction is beyond the pale imho, and a better argument for reform of the system than I could ever articulate), hes got every right to consider her a problem tenant. And there's certainly a valid argument (albeit one I'm uncomfortable with) that increasing the rent is simply a charge for the extra service that she is receiving.

I'm really not sure how you can be defending the tenant in this instance.

just extending this example:
some here argue for, either totally state run rental housing or monolithic not-for- profit organisations.

in this example the tenant, can if they wish leave and go elsewhere to a landlord that provides a more comprehensive level of service: the landlord can if they wish give the tenant notice/raise the rent/ suffer the loss.
If small landlords were abolished then the tenant would have no choice.