Time to Quit Being a Landlord especially in Scotland

varghesejim

Missko wrote: »

Hey all,

Was at a conference yesterday and it appears that the plans afoot for housing in Nippy Nicola's new Scotland involve the following:
(i) rent control; and
(ii) removal of "no fault" evictions.
The new Housing Bill will come out in the Autumn.

So there we have it.
Get out now.
Happy to Help.
:T

Great news! Bring it on to England too.

dktreesea

As I understand the proposals, if a lease was for, say, six months, then rather than rolling into a month by month tenancy at the end of the lease, it would roll into a six months by six months tenancy. So while the landlord may not be able to get their home back wuthout effectively giving the tenant six months notice, the tenant would also have to give the landlord 8 weeks, rather than 4 weeks, notice to quit.


There is also a plan to give councils more power to require landlords to do any necessary repairs in a timely and proper manner, not just glossing over the repairs or evicting the tenants because it didn't suit the landlord to fund such repairs. This is a good thing in places like Edinburgh because in many of the older style tenements you have a mixture of rented and privately owned homes, and what can sometimes happen is the tenant knows repairs need to be done, repairs which will or are already having an impact on their neighbours, but won't request them, because firstly they are afraid of being evicted - or their rent being put up - if they make a fuss, and secondly have a work around themselves even if the greater structural damage is not being addressed.


The current proposals would allow neighbours to intervene by approaching the council who would then compel the landlord to make the necessary repairs, and at the same time protect the tenant for having their rents hiked up beyond the current rate of inflation to cover the cost of the repairs.


One big problem that landlords are poor at addressing, presumably because it would be such an expensive repair, is rising damp. For social housing there's no such problem up in Scotland - if it's too expensive to fix the council usually demolishes the housing and rebuilds, but for privately rented accommodation this can be a problem. I've seen houses where walls are damp to the touch, the landlord won't fix the problem and the council can't even impose a fine, let alone require the landlord to fix the problem at the risk of having their property taken over.


It's about time rogue landlords were forced to get their houses in good repair. Rotting window frames, leaking roofs, damp walls, - our place has carpet over rotting floorboards, and an agent who has been on at our landlord to fix it for years, but they won't - I for one can't wait for the Housing Act to go through . I just wish the SNP would strengthen their proposals.

JencParker

LateStarter wrote: »

Up front I'll say I'm in favour of tenant's rights, and I think landlords should be regulated. But by definition most renters are people who currently cannot afford to own their own home (note I said MOST). Somebody has to build/own those houses (and let's not get into the argument that it should be the government).

Why should I (as an individual, or a company) invest in housing if there's a chance that an asset where I've invested hundreds of thousands can be made unavilable to me when I require that asset?

Banking shares anyone?

I'm not sure that is true. Here in London and SE, many people are paying more in rent than they would in mortgage repayments, the difficulty is getting together a big enough deposit and being offered a mortgage.

Missko

Error.
Error.

dktreesea

jjlandlord wrote: »

The catch is that if no-one invest then people have nowhere to live.

Or the government will be forced to build a lot more housing than they currently provide. 330,000 privately rented homes in Scotland, but the SNP are only building 30,000 new homes over the current 5 year period (they're already partly through this plan but not sure how many years they are into it).


This is the other side of the coin, isn't it. If you want private individuals to provide homes, then fair enough they have to be in good repair at all times, but it also has to be worth the landlord's while to make their property available to others.


It will be interesting to see, if mortgage rates go up to 6 or 7%, what will happen to the property market up here. Under current proposals, the landlords will neither be able to evict their current tenants nor put up the rents enough to cover the interest shortfall (assuming "rent control" means no increases over the inflation rate).

Missko

Error.
Error.

Missko

Error.
Error.

Missko

Error.
Error.

Thrugelmir

jjlandlord wrote: »

The catch is that if no-one invest then people have nowhere to live.

There's always an opportunity somewhere for someone. May not be BTL as we know it. In Germany some companies own upwards of 90,000 units. With it comes economy of scale in terms of property management, tenant vetting etc. Owning an entire block is far more cost effective than a single unit.

JencParker

Missko wrote: »

Gaz - I'm with you all the way. Hope it does work out with your girlfriend.


So Jenc, should Gaz here, who has been a responsible guy, buying his own place, if he splits with his girlfriend, what SHOULD he do? Rent somewhere else? Until when? Until the TENANTS have a relationship breakdown and chuck in the tenancy?!!

He can do what he wants, but he needs to see this as an investment if he is renting it out. I have already said there is a market for short term rentals and maybe he will come under that, but that is not the case for most BTL investment landlords. They do it purely as a financial investment. The reason why it has been so popular is because is has had huge returns, and security. But they want it all their own way and the ability to kick someone out of their home when they want to.


Gaz didn't have to rent it out, he chose to turn it into a financial business by doing so.