BTL'ers are not evil are they??

Bantex_2

Generali wrote: »

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.

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%.

LydiaJ

Generali wrote: »

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.

That sounds plausible. What do you think would most likely happen to ASTs that had already gone onto a rolling contract?

Bantex wrote: »

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

So presumably if the 6 month AST no longer existed, then banks would be much less willing to lend on BTL properties. It raises the possibility of a landlord owning a mortgaged property with a tenant who had moved onto the NSC as envisaged by Generali, unable to raise the rent, unable to evict the tenant (or not for ages anyway), unable to remortgage, and unable to sell because in negative equity because of the drop in value due to the protected tenant.

At present I don't think we have any parties who would be remotely likely to put large numbers of amateur landlords in that position, but of course nobody knows how the political or economic landscape may change in the future.

[X-posted with Gen and Bantex]

Generali

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 agree, it's what makes this such a terrible idea.

I still think it may happen. The Dangerous Dogs Act was a rubbish law but it still went through.

Generali

LydiaJ wrote: »

That sounds plausible. What do you think would most likely happen to ASTs that had already gone onto a rolling contract?

After a period (6-12 months?) they go onto a NSC. Either that or simply let the old ASTs atrophy away.

Gingernutty

BTLers aren't evil for the most part, idiots, naive and optimistic, perhaps but not evil in the main.

mayonnaise

Old_Git wrote: »

my tenants first request was the electrician for the light bulb .She seemed surprised I suggested changing the bulb as she didnt think it would work .

Second request was to change a fuse ,but she refused to let me do it as the childrens christmas presents where in the cupboard ..That cost me £20 .

Third request was a new front door as her hall was cold .
I told her partner he could buy her thermal knickers for xmas but no chance off a new door .The door is not the problem there is a flat roof over the front hall .

fourth request to clear a blocked drain ,She said she had tried to clear it .
I put my hand down the drain and pulled out two leaves .

fifth request wanted a pump for the back boiler replaced .There never was a pump but she wouldnt believe it until I got the floor lifted .

sixth request broken toilet but refused to the the plumber in as she wasnt putting herself out for anyone. Finally let plumber in on christmas eve .

seventh request blew another fuse ,this time I replaced it .

Eighth request wanted a hedge removed and replaced with a fence ,to removed the hedge alone would cost £300 .Thats not happening

All this since August

You've been very patient.
I suppose you've served her with a Section 21 by now?

TickersPlaysPop

wymondham wrote: »

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??

House profiteering is not a constructive growth based business, it is just sucking the value out of a limited resource. It doesn't create jobs, or improve our economy. Housing is not a commodity, it is a precious resource for people to live their lives in and to invest their money in for a better more secure future.

House profiteering has pumped the house prices to such a level that many people can now not purchase their home. This is social suppression and exploitation.

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.

Landlords here will disagree with me, but I think they are slowly realising the realities of what will happen in the near future. It has gone too far, and politics will be the instrument for change as political parties will get a lot of votes for pledging to reform the current broken system.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

House profiteering is not a constructive growth based business, it is just sucking the value out of a limited resource. It doesn't create jobs, or improve our economy. Housing is not a commodity, it is a precious resource for people to live their lives in and to invest their money in for a better more secure future.

House profiteering has pumped the house prices to such a level that many people can now not purchase their home. This is social suppression and exploitation.

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.

Landlords here will disagree with me, but I think they are slowly realising the realities of what will happen in the near future. It has gone too far, and politics will be the instrument for change as political parties will get a lot of votes for pledging to reform the current broken system.

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.

wymondham

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.

I suppose BTL has taken off also due to the poor social housing we have... the Government probably likes the private landlord taking on this role??

ukcarper

wymondham wrote: »

I suppose BTL has taken off also due to the poor social housing we have... the Government probably likes the private landlord taking on this role??

I think there are many reasons BTL has taken off the lack of social housing being one of them. But TickersPlaysPop moans about BTL and offers no solution to the lack of rental properties if BTL was band.