What value do landlords add/provide?

antrobus

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Antrobus - yes insurance is mostly there for what you can't afford to self insure, so buildings insurance - you expect to make a loss, but need it. Contents or car insurance - not worthwhile (though car is forced)....

Most people can't 'afford' to self insure, in the sense that the potential loss could wipe them out.

P.S. If your house burns down, your contents go the same way as your house. The average house has contents worth £45,000 which is a lot of money to lose in one go.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/do-you-need-contents-insurance

P.S.S If you think it's "not worthwhile" taking out car insurance, you are an utter fool. Driving a car involves taking the risk of suffering the highest potential loss, potentially millions.

For example; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9688388/Girl-17-wins-record-23-million-payout-for-car-crash-injuries.html

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

...Landlords very business model is made on the expectation of a return - its only a gamble because its not guaranteed (interest rates, service charges)

So being a landlord is just like operating any other kind of business.

Good to know.

Grumpy170

I think there are various 'types' of private landlord, 'good' and 'bad'.
Investing in BTL properties offers a better bet than current savings interest rates, cheap mortgage interest rates and (very likely) capital growth.
Our - upper-mid market - properties are agent-managed, always well maintained and any maintenance issues are immediately dealt with.
We offer very decent homes to families who cannot yet afford to buy; perhaps they're saving up or post-divorce.
We make a modest profit and see the properties more as long term investments. Sad (infuriating!) that small, private landlords are painted as bad guys by many in the media and increasingly seen as such - and as a cash cow - by the present government.

System

Antrobus - oxfam have kitted me out and can do so again! Lol

Really though my position is a bit because I live with a hoarder and I'm reluctant to even pay for a removals van when we move out (but have to), I've already thrown out most of my stuff to make it better. In our case it was all cheaply sourced "homeware" which in my opinion doesn't pay its rent. Can't burn it, can't chuck it. Its part of the pressure I've been feeling to upsize - which is why I've been cutting corners on contents and life insurance, to desperately beat the rise in prices.

Cars - I suppose it could bankrupt, but I suppose they could kill anyway, it is a risk - a risk insurers deem worthwhile taking, even after business costs. I am insured, not worth losing licence over

Life insurance - I'm gambling, and it is a big gamble admitedly, but im less likely to die than most - avoid motorways, foreign travel, etc - need every penny I can get to make up for the fact I can't borrow much

Crashy_Time

PasturesNew wrote: »

Homes under the Hammer, on the telly.


I spend far too long on here .... full of woes it is! Not good for one.



It's just the process, the procedure. If you do a check-out (costing often £75 or so too), the reporter then reports back to the office, who then speak to the landlord, who then signs off the deposit return, then the agent's office have to make the payment.
It's not a case of a landlord turning up with a pocket of cash or a cheque on check out day and it happens straight away.


Single person, living in a high rent area. It's hard to save - easy to have unexpected expenses.

Also, if you do have to move a couple of times in 2-3 years it can entirely wipe you out for a long time.

As a single person, even a loss of a job with just one month until you find a new one (often at a lower salary) can take you months to "catch up" due to one month's loss of income. £2500 can easily be two whole months' pay.



6 weeks is more the norm, through agents.



I'm sure, in the olden days, there were no such fees. Agents existed by having enough properties on their books and taking 10%/month from a landlord.

Nowadays there are too many agents with too few properties. None can "make a living" solely from a cut of the rent - so they all started charging more and more bizarre charges.

They banned agents fees in Scotland but most of the agents I know of in Edinburgh are still puttering along. Your notion of people being "wiped out" if they have to move two or three times is just nonsense, what are you talking about?

Crashy_Time

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And in return, you have bought them a house.

Thanks.

Not if I leave to go to another landlord and they have a void, in that case they are back to buying it themselves, or do you still believe that tenants are just held in cold storage/suspended animation to miraculously pop into the empty property? With what is happening on your doorstep I would have thought you would have moved beyond this simplistic nonsense.

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Not if I leave to go to another landlord and they have a void, in that case they are back to buying it themselves, or do you still believe that tenants are just held in cold storage/suspended animation to miraculously pop into the empty property? With what is happening on your doorstep I would have thought you would have moved beyond this simplistic nonsense.

How many voids did your last landlord have in the 7 years you lived there? £34k cash on the hush hush - he must have been gutted when you left for the next rung down.

Voids are in the same category as boilers being replaced and the roof being blown off - yes it happens but the frequency is probably over estimated.

danothy

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Not if I leave to go to another landlord and they have a void, in that case they are back to buying it themselves,

If we're talking about a house as an investment, paying for one 25th of it for someone else is still very generous of you.

MARTYM8`

cells wrote: »

I have a lot of sympathy for people in that sort of situation but I think its more often the case of earning too little and spending too much rather than the cost of life being extreme

Or maybe just being the wrong side of 35?
My parents bought a house in London on one average salary with a mortgage of 1.5 times salary in the 1970s.

They wouldn’t be able to afford a studio flat in Dagenham if they were first time buyers today.

If only all those young people weren’t spending £300 on an iphone they could afford to buy a one bed flat for £350k – yes we get it……….:D

System

I think it was higher interest rates back then that made prices a lower multiple of income, and made it more of a savers game rather than a borrowers. Now with low rates prices can grow faster and we're fools if we don't borrow to speculate

ukcarper

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Or maybe just being the wrong side of 35?
My parents bought a house in London on one average salary with a mortgage of 1.5 times salary in the 1970s.

They wouldn’t be able to afford a studio flat in Dagenham if they were first time buyers today.

If only all those young people weren’t spending £300 on an iphone they could afford to buy a one bed flat for £350k – yes we get it……….:D

I bought my first house in the 70s it was over 5x my above average earnings and I had to move out to Surrey Hampshire borders to do it as I couldn't afford to buy in London. It was a 3 bed terrace.