BTL'ers are not evil are they??

Generali

I have never seen an Australian bath with an overflow but then all Australian bathrooms need to be wet rooms so it doesn't matter if the bathroom floods.

Frankly, if you have a bath or a sink without an overflow you can guarantee that it will cause a flood at some point. People are fallible.

chucky

fordcapri2000 wrote: »

I cannot think of any nice way we are going to sort the UK housing crisis out, but we need to be focusing on looking after people who pay their way in life, and we also need to stop most of the £25 Billion housing benefit a year ending up in property speculators pockets.

What are you doing about it to help the situation?

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

Properties with protected tenants in place gradually became worth less and less compared to those without.

That then drew in criminals (most famously Peter Rachmann) who made money by buying houses with protected tenants in place and then made life progressively more uncomfortable for the tenants until they left. In at least one case he had the roof of the house removed. Others would employ 'heavies' to threaten and beat tenants until they left.

The thing is, you can't have security of tenure without rent controls and you can't have rent controls without security of tenure. If BTL becomes an ever larger part of the housing market then it'll come IMO.

Thanks, but I knew that Gen, but what I really wanted to know is, was the legislation brought in overnight or with some warning (so investors had a chance to get out). I must admit that I haven't spent much time looking at it, but I think rents had been controlled under one form of control or another for some time and it just morphed. What I would really would like to know (but we could only guess at) is, if in the unlikely event that rent controls combined with lifetime tenancies were introduced, would it be overnight or with some notice? Even with notice it might not help if that notice is less than the duration left on a tenancy agreement. It appears that the last change was to immediately make all tenancies protected tenancies, but as I said above, they were already subject to a form of rent control, any change now would be much more of a drastic change from the current unregulated system.


Even though I think that this is unlikely, I do think there will be a growing call for it to happen, it is something that I need to keep an eye on.

JencParker

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:
...

No, they are not to blame for the wrongs of thee world, they simply play the game for self interest.

They are like parasites that feed on the host for their own survival, except it is not for their survival but their own financial gain and greed.

Of course, they are not the only sector to do this in this broken system.

JencParker

chucknorris wrote: »

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 £2m.

Would cost you 2m personally?

chucknorris

JencParker wrote: »

Would cost you 2m personally?

Us (my wife and I) not just myself, but actually it wouldn't be that much, it slipped my mind that our most expensive property, one of my wife's properties, has her mother in it living rent free. But it would be over £1.5m.


I'll go back and edit my previous posts accordingly.

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

Thanks, but I knew that Gen, but what I really wanted to know is, was the legislation brought in overnight or with some warning (so investors had a chance to get out).

Oh, I see. No idea.

Given those post war Governments and the power happy way that they tried to continue the controls needed for an economy during a time of Total War I would imagine they were simply announced and that was that.

Contract law and its importance means little to Socialists as a rule.

chucknorris wrote: »

I must admit that I haven't spent much time looking at it, but I think rents had been controlled under one form of control or another for some time and it just morphed. What I would really would like to know (but we could only guess at) is, if in the unlikely event that rent controls combined with lifetime tenancies were introduced, would it be overnight or with some notice? Even with notice it might not help if that notice is less than the duration left on a tenancy agreement. It appears that the last change was to immediately make all tenancies protected tenancies, but as I said above, they were already subject to a form of rent control, any change now would be much more of a drastic change from the current unregulated system.


Even though I think that this is unlikely, I do think there will be a growing call for it to happen, it is something that I need to keep an eye on.

The Tories introduced the AST (Assured Shorthold Tenancy) in about 1989/1990. Anecdotally I can say that in my opinion it resulted in much better quality accommodation becoming available and a wider range of qualities at varying prices being available.

It would be relatively simple to pass a law stating that if notice wasn't given at the end of the AST then the contract would revert to the New Standard Contract (the NSC would contain clauses on rent tribunals, which local councils still run, and protect tenure) and if it was then the new tenants would have to use the NSC as the AST was no longer available to be used.

wymondham

JencParker wrote: »

No, they are not to blame for the wrongs of thee world, they simply play the game for self interest.

They are like parasites that feed on the host for their own survival, except it is not for their survival but their own financial gain and greed.

Of course, they are not the only sector to do this in this broken system.

Thanks, don't forget I'm talking about BTL as an investment.....what they are like as landlords is entirely different...


Business is not greed, its the way of the world is it not??

Bantex_2

Generali wrote: »

Oh, I see. No idea.

Given those post war Governments and the power happy way that they tried to continue the controls needed for an economy during a time of Total War I would imagine they were simply announced and that was that.

Contract law and its importance means little to Socialists as a rule.



The Tories introduced the AST (Assured Shorthold Tenancy) in about 1989/1990. Anecdotally I can say that in my opinion it resulted in much better quality accommodation becoming available and a wider range of qualities at varying prices being available.

It would be relatively simple to pass a law stating that if notice wasn't given at the end of the AST then the contract would revert to the New Standard Contract (the NSC would contain clauses on rent tribunals, which local councils still run, and protect tenure) and if it was then the new tenants would have to use the NSC as the AST was no longer available to be used.

I believe most lenders insist on 6 month ASTs so they can reposes quickly.

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

I believe most lenders insist on 6 month ASTs so they can reposes quickly.

The Government can move the goalposts for banks as easily as they can for you and I.

There is quite a process of that going on right now. I understand that it has quite a lot of popular support in the UK apart of course from the side-effects where you can't borrow money any more unless you are a virgin teetotaler who has never missed a repayment by as much as a nanosecond.

If Parliament changes the law so that ASTs are no longer available then banks can't insist that ASTs are in place. Parliament trumps contract law AIUI.