BTL'ers are not evil are they??

chucknorris

Masomnia wrote: »

Would more security of tenure be such a big issue for you though?

You've said in other threads (I think!) that you've had a lot of long term tenants that you have a good relationship with. If you're looking to buy a BTL and there's one available with a tenant already in, surely that saves you the bother of finding one, less time spent void etc.

Longer term security is one thing, which I would have no problem with (say up to 3 years).

But if a labour Gov did what they did last time and introduced a system that allowed tenants to stay for as long as they liked on a tenancy that has strict controls, that would devalue my properties by about 60% (that is approx. the difference between an open market property and what the same property would be worth with a protected tenant). But what I don't know is, would there be any warning and a chance to get the tenants out and regain possession and then sell, before such a system could be introduced, actually that is something that I should look into, bearing in mind that so much is at stake?

Does anyone know what happened the last time?

Masomnia

chucknorris wrote: »

Longer term security is one thing, which I would have no problem with (say up to 3 years).

But if a labour Gov did what they did last time and introduced a system that allowed tenants to stay for as long as they liked on a tenancy that has strict controls, that would devalue my properties by about 60% (that is approx. the difference between an open market property and what the same property would be worth with a protected tenant). But what I don't know is, would there be any warning and a chance to get the tenants out and regain possession and then sell, before such a system could be introduced, actually that is something that I should look into, bearing in mind that so much is at stake?

Does anyone know what happened the last time?

I see what you mean about people having tenancies for as long as they like. I can't see that ever happening though. Labour aren't left wing any more!

chucknorris

Masomnia wrote: »

I see what you mean about people having tenancies for as long as they like. I can't see that ever happening though. Labour aren't left wing any more!

I can't see it happening either, to me it seems about as unlikely as us having a base rate at only 0.5% for more than 6 years or Sunderland getting 4 points from their games against Chelsea and Man City. But as we all know now, that did happen, so it is very dangerous to dismiss anything that could potentially cost millions. I wouldn't start worrying though until we have a labour Gov, maybe I should be hoping that Scotland votes yes, so we end up with a Tory Gov for the foreseeable future.

Bantex_2

chucky wrote: »

No chance, keep on dreaming.

What, no chance of renters outnumbering owner occupiers?

chucky

Bantex wrote: »

What, no chance of renters outnumbering owner occupiers?

Maybe but that would take a generation to happen IMO.

It was no to this:

Bantex wrote: »

If reducing rents became an election winning policy.

Could get messy.

LydiaJ

chucky wrote: »

Let's look at it a different way.

People buy property in the catchment area of particular schools. House prices increase because of this.

Would you be against good schools in particular areas because they increase house prices? It's beneficial for children and the nation to have a good education so would you be against this too?

Well, there's a debate to be had about the wider effect of parents choosing to send their kids to the good schools and leaving the other schools to sink with none of the bright kids or motivated parents.

However, even without opening that can of worms, a young person educated at a good school ends up (usually) better educated than a young person educated at a not so good school. A young person growing up in a BTL often ends up with a worse education (because it's fragmented by several house moves at inconvenient times) than a young person growing up in a house that their parents own.

Or to put it another way, good schools provide a benefit to the young people attending them, and to society as a whole. BTL transfers money from the tenant to the LL while providing no benefit to society that would not equally well be provided by the same house being owner-occupied.

I'm not anti-LL. Clearly there are always going to be some people who either need or want to rent, and we need enough LLs to provide rental accommodation for those people, and we want those LLs to be responsible. What I find regrettable is that so many people see no way of making decent provision for their old age than to own a second property, leaving others unable to buy at all, who would, in previous generations, have been able to buy without undue difficulty.

Masomnia wrote: »

Would more security of tenure be such a big issue for you though?

You've said in other threads (I think!) that you've had a lot of long term tenants that you have a good relationship with. If you're looking to buy a BTL and there's one available with a tenant already in, surely that saves you the bother of finding one, less time spent void etc.

This is fine if you happen to get a buyer who wants to let it. Most vendors, however, want to offer their property to the widest possible market by selling it with vacant possession.

chucknorris wrote: »

Longer term security is one thing, which I would have no problem with (say up to 3 years).

But if a labour Gov did what they did last time and introduced a system that allowed tenants to stay for as long as they liked on a tenancy that has strict controls, that would devalue my properties by about 60% (that is approx. the difference between an open market property and what the same property would be worth with a protected tenant). But what I don't know is, would there be any warning and a chance to get the tenants out and regain possession and then sell, before such a system could be introduced, actually that is something that I should look into, bearing in mind that so much is at stake?

Does anyone know what happened the last time?

I think that's unlikely. I don't know what happened last time tenants got more rights, but I do know what happened last time landlords got more rights. The existing protected tenancies continued according to the terms of their contracts, and whenever new tenancies were set up, they went onto the new rules. There are still a few protected tenants out there, living where they're lived since before the Local Government and Housing Act of 1989.

If some government ever brings in major changes giving greater security of tenure for tenants, I think it's likely that the new rules will only apply to new tenancies, and not to tenants on existing ASTs. If that were to happen, though, there would be a lot of LLs all trying to get out at the same time, which would make it a very bad time to be trying to sell ex-rental properties.

chucknorris

LydiaJ wrote: »

I think that's unlikely

I've also already said that I think it is unlikely, but only a fool would completely ignore something that would cost them well over £1.5m.

Bantex_2

LydiaJ wrote: »

Well, there's a debate to be had about the wider effect of parents choosing to send their kids to the good schools and leaving the other schools to sink with none of the bright kids or motivated parents.

However, even without opening that can of worms, a young person educated at a good school ends up (usually) better educated than a young person educated at a not so good school. A young person growing up in a BTL often ends up with a worse education (because it's fragmented by several house moves at inconvenient times) than a young person growing up in a house that their parents own.

Or to put it another way, good schools provide a benefit to the young people attending them, and to society as a whole. BTL transfers money from the tenant to the LL while providing no benefit to society that would not equally well be provided by the same house being owner-occupied.

I'm not anti-LL. Clearly there are always going to be some people who either need or want to rent, and we need enough LLs to provide rental accommodation for those people, and we want those LLs to be responsible. What I find regrettable is that so many people see no way of making decent provision for their old age than to own a second property, leaving others unable to buy at all, who would, in previous generations, have been able to buy without undue difficulty.



This is fine if you happen to get a buyer who wants to let it. Most vendors, however, want to offer their property to the widest possible market by selling it with vacant possession.



I think that's unlikely. I don't know what happened last time tenants got more rights, but I do know what happened last time landlords got more rights. The existing protected tenancies continued according to the terms of their contracts, and whenever new tenancies were set up, they went onto the new rules. There are still a few protected tenants out there, living where they're lived since before the Local Government and Housing Act of 1989.

If some government ever brings in major changes giving greater security of tenure for tenants, I think it's likely that the new rules will only apply to new tenancies, and not to tenants on existing ASTs. If that were to happen, though, there would be a lot of LLs all trying to get out at the same time, which would make it a very bad time to be trying to sell ex-rental properties.

A neighbour of mine had a flat a few years ago which was over hil business (shop). The tenants were on a protected tenancy which meant he could not get them out. They were in their 80s and had been there for decades. The rent was £24.00 per week when adjacent flats were going for around £800 per month.

chucknorris

Bantex wrote: »

A neighbour of mine had a flat a few years ago which was over hil business (shop). The tenants were on a protected tenancy which meant he could not get them out. They were in their 80s and had been there for decades. The rent was £24.00 per week when adjacent flats were going for around £800 per month.

They tend to sell for about 30-40% of the vacant possession value, but much of that price is based upon eventual reversion, which can be tricky to value and of course in the meantime as time goes on (as you said) the rental income seriously declines in real terms.

Old_Git

I have two tenants since last year .
One is high maintenance ( asked me to get an electrician round because the light bulb was flickering among other things )
The other I have little dealing with ,no major problems rent paid on time .

The first one I will increase the rent on in July the second I wont .
The first one needs to realise I am not the council and do not subsidise their housing ,if they want me to change a bulb they will pay via increased rent.