Not a time to be a buy-to-let landlord

antrobus

lisyloo wrote: »

...If the suggestion was sheltered accomodation with various levels of assistance then this already exists in the private sector.

Yes, that was basically the point of my comment.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

REITs are a type of company, eg land securities in the uk is a reit but it existed before reits. ....

I know exactly what constitutes a REIT. It's a tax driven definition. They didn't exist before 2007 in either Germany or the UK.

cells wrote: »

...A lot of the stock especially the rental stock must have been built by the german state especially east germany which was communist controlled for over 40 years

Houisng stock built by the old GDR would not have originally been in the private rental sector, now would it?

antrobus

lisyloo wrote: »

No, it's not an arbitrary decision at all.
.....

Irrespective of your opinions regarding the morality of the state somehow 'rationing' owner occupied housing, it would be electotal suicide for any party to even suggest such a thing.

System

lisyloo wrote: »

So what are you and your fellow tenants doing about it?
Are the single/more mobile individuals looking to move elsewhere? Or is the supply in your town so constrained that the landlord has carte Blanche to do as they wish?

Where do I start....

It's a bit early to be doing something about it.

1. I assume we will end up with a cleaner. But I would not be surprised if we are told that we have to clean the house ourselves. Which won't work as some people in this house can't even empty the kitchen bin.

2. The rent hasn't gone up yet. And if it goes up by a small amount say less than £10 per month - I don't think that is going to push anyone over the edge. Yes -
if it is announced that the rent is going up over £10 then I'm sure people will consider moving out.

3. The Living Room being turned into a bedroom is a rumour for now. And this would annoy people if it happend.

4. The garage is only used by 1 person in the house - so we don't care about it. As-long as whoever rents it is renting it for storage and not going to be coming round every week.


Basically - the point I was making was nothing to do with us moving out. I was pointing out that this could be a sign that our landlord is trying to get as much money out of the property whilst/before the government clamp down on landlords. And this could be happening throughout the UK.


But if you must know each of our circumstances...

Tenant A: (Me) I am going to be trying to get a mortgage this year so I will be moving out sometime in the next 6 months anyway.

Tenant B: Is talking of moving out as they are strongly against more than a £10 rise in rent + if the living room goes - they will definitely be off.

Tenant C: Is already moving out next month.

Tenant Will probably cry if rent goes up.

Tenant E: Has a massive double room with en suite and pays £40+ less than what the room is worth. But still - this tenant is moaning about a rent rise - which is unbelievable. They are getting a bargain and have done for 2 years. Tenant C who is going to be moving out, is in a small double room and pays £580, this Tenant E is paying £560 for their massive double room and en suite. Go figure! and they are complaining about a rent rise! They should be paying £600+ for that room.

Tenant F: Not a clue what their feelings are as they are away right now.


At the end of the day, my personal wishes are that the government get on and build houses, masses of them. But they won't. Overall I don't believe this clampdown on landlords is going to make much difference (if any) to people getting on the property ladder.


Isn't that what all this clamping down on landlords is all about? to make it less desirable to become a buy-to-let landlord and possibly make landlords sell-up? Will these extra rules/charges/taxes actually cause those things to happen?

lisyloo

antrobus wrote: »

Irrespective of your opinions regarding the morality of the state somehow 'rationing' owner occupied housing, it would be electotal suicide for any party to even suggest such a thing.

I agree with you.

lisyloo

I was pointing out that this could be a sign that our landlord is trying to get as much money out of the property whilst/before the government clamp down on landlords. And this could be happening throughout the UK.

I don't believe that will be the case. I don't believe government policy will dictate the morality of landlords. The majority will review their business and some may decide to leave or perhaps lower their profit expectations or perhaps restructure their assets e.g. into a ltd company? The majority won't suddenly become immoral.

BTW - it's normal for adults to clean up after themselves AND go further e.g. keep the property in good shape wrt ventilation, mould etc.

But if you must know each of our circumstances...

I am not being nosey. I am trying to get a handle on whether supply/demand is so bad that people have little choice. Circumstances dictate how easy it is I.e. harder with a family in tow, or children at schools getting close to exams. I wouldn't stay in such a place unless there was a specific reason, such as lower than market rent for what was on offer.

Isn't that what all this clamping down on landlords is all about? to make it less desirable to become a buy-to-let landlord and possibly make landlords sell-up? Will these extra rules/charges/taxes actually cause those things to happen?

I'd say it's about 3 things.
Stopping the boom in BTL for financial stability reasons.
Getting rid of amateurs (opinion is split in whether that would improve service to tenants).
A tax grab.

Making landlords sell up to owner occupiers won't make there be more homes, in fact the housing is generally less efficiently occupied by oo's as they like yo have spare bedrooms whereas landlords will rent out every broom cupboard/garage. So it will do nothing to solve the housing crises overall as it's merely transferring ownership.

cells

dburford9 wrote: »

Where do I start....

It's a bit early to be doing something about it.

1. I assume we will end up with a cleaner. But I would not be surprised if we are told that we have to clean the house ourselves. Which won't work as some people in this house can't even empty the kitchen bin.

2. The rent hasn't gone up yet. And if it goes up by a small amount say less than £10 per month - I don't think that is going to push anyone over the edge. Yes -
if it is announced that the rent is going up over £10 then I'm sure people will consider moving out.

3. The Living Room being turned into a bedroom is a rumour for now. And this would annoy people if it happend.

4. The garage is only used by 1 person in the house - so we don't care about it. As-long as whoever rents it is renting it for storage and not going to be coming round every week.


Basically - the point I was making was nothing to do with us moving out. I was pointing out that this could be a sign that our landlord is trying to get as much money out of the property whilst/before the government clamp down on landlords. And this could be happening throughout the UK.


But if you must know each of our circumstances...

Tenant A: (Me) I am going to be trying to get a mortgage this year so I will be moving out sometime in the next 6 months anyway.

Tenant B: Is talking of moving out as they are strongly against more than a £10 rise in rent + if the living room goes - they will definitely be off.

Tenant C: Is already moving out next month.

Tenant Will probably cry if rent goes up.

Tenant E: Has a massive double room with en suite and pays £40+ less than what the room is worth. But still - this tenant is moaning about a rent rise - which is unbelievable. They are getting a bargain and have done for 2 years. Tenant C who is going to be moving out, is in a small double room and pays £580, this Tenant E is paying £560 for their massive double room and en suite. Go figure! and they are complaining about a rent rise! They should be paying £600+ for that room.

Tenant F: Not a clue what their feelings are as they are away right now.


At the end of the day, my personal wishes are that the government get on and build houses, masses of them. But they won't. Overall I don't believe this clampdown on landlords is going to make much difference (if any) to people getting on the property ladder.


Isn't that what all this clamping down on landlords is all about? to make it less desirable to become a buy-to-let landlord and possibly make landlords sell-up? Will these extra rules/charges/taxes actually cause those things to happen?

your landlord I dont know so he/she may be good or bad

However I do feel that HMOs have been overall a good development for the rental sector especially HMOs that are converted so each room is an en-suit.

I dont see how a tenant can get a better deal than that, if HMOs did not exist the next lowest priced would be a 1 bed or a studio (but these are rare). If you look at the cost of a good HMO room with en-suit vs a 1 bed flat in most instances you are looking at twice the price when you include the bills.

The councils should convert some of their stock to HMOs and let them out privately to try and help ease the shortage a bit

cells

dburford9 wrote: »

Isn't that what all this clamping down on landlords is all about? to make it less desirable to become a buy-to-let landlord and possibly make landlords sell-up? Will these extra rules/charges/taxes actually cause those things to happen?

possibly some but its not likely to see a net shrinking of rentals imo

house building is just far too low. until that changes how can a landlord like your one sell a house with 6 people in it, to say a couple, where will the other 4 displaced go?

taxes are going up, the rental sector is expected to pay ~£2 billion pounds more per year. Surely some of that will fall on landlords and some of it on tenants.

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

No, it's not an arbitrary decision at all.
The principle is that people who need it to live in have more right to it than people that don't need to live in it

So you favour state theft.

Rights in a property belong to the owner. These are called property rights. They're quite an important principle.

lisyloo

westernpromise wrote: »

So you favour state theft.

Rights in a property belong to the owner. These are called property rights. They're quite an important principle.

No to theft.
I favour taxes to incentive/penalise behaviour (this goes on all the time for example tobacco, alchohol, higher road tax for gas guzzlers and yes I favour all that).

I agree we should maintain the principle of property rights.
So how about taxes can be rolled up on death/sale for those who genuinely can't afford to pay the tax?
That happens already e.g. Nursing home fees, can be rolled up and taken on death.
This implements the tax I want but maintains property rights.

Do you think the current system of the "haves" amassing property and keeping from the "have nots" is perfectly fine? Even if the haves are Chinese owners leaving the property empty.
If yes then can you not see this is unfair to the young?
If no then what would you propose?