Why do people resent buy-to-letters so much?

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Personally I think that view is at best a massive oversimplification. While there are people for whom it's true, I don't think that's by any means the main reason that many people feel an element of disdain towards BTL landlords.

The reality is that for many people, the way BTL works fundementally offends their sense of "fair play". Mwpt has it right when he points out the huge and unhealthy transfer of wealth that is benefiting older people at a direct cost to those younger than them. BTL is probably the most visible example of it.

At its core, BTL involves people who already have a secure home buying up other homes and in doing so preventing other people enjoying the security and asset ownership that they already enjoy. Having done so, they then extract profit from people who in some cases are frozen out of home ownership in part by their actions.

Now of course the situation in individual cases is more nuanced than that, not least as there will always be a need for some form of private rented sector, and some landlords are doutbtless very decent people (Chuck Norris on here always seems like a good example of just that). But it's a simple statement of fact that the paragraph above broadly has a large element of truth to it given the current size of the BTL sector, and it's something that disturbs many people. That number includes many like me, who as homeowners do not lose out personally from BTL, but see the inherent unfairness in it.

To dismiss all of the above as just jealousy is a long way wide of the mark imho.

doubtless your point of view is widely shared although it doesn't make it correct,
the reason why we have a housing issue is we have too few houses for the population
our population is 'too big' because we allow almost unlimited immigration.

easier to 'blame' BTLers than to address the issues of immigration and house building.
curiously it seems that the young are in favour of unlimited immigration although they suffer the consequences in a massive hit on their standard of living;
whereas the old object to immigration although they benefit from the enormous house price inflation and so their increase in wealth

but who needs to be logical about things.

kinger101

mwpt wrote: »

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread, probably from BTL landlords, multi property owners or simply people who now feel rich from their property.

Did you actually read and think about the article or did you just do it on autopilot letting your predisposed view shape the content?

If there has been a bigger transfer of wealth in generations, I'd like to know what it is. People see this as incredibly unfair. They then tend to resent the recipients of this transfer of wealth, particularly the foremost face of it, BTL landlords. I am not sure this view is particularly helpful but it does seem as though politicians are starting to listen (obviously will do increasingly as demographics change).

Ad hominems and ergo decedos do not add to the debate. I have sympathy for people who cannot afford to buy in areas where they grew up. But you've not acknowledged that private ownership of rental property is not a new phenomemon, or explained who else is supposed to provide the rental properties where councils have sold off their housing stock.

For large parts of my life, I've needed to be geographically mobile. The social sector has not been willing to provide me with a rental property, so I've rented from a private landlord. Why should I resent someone who is providing me with something I need? It's completely irrational.

The rents and house prices are high in places like London because lots of people up sticks and move their for higher paid jobs, better career opportunities, and a richer cultural life. If housing supply does not meet demand, then people are going to bid each other up. Consider it this way. If someone is outbid on a London property by a BTL landlord, why instead don't they direct their anger at the tenants from the regions who have effectively priced them out. The truth is that in London, the SE and places like Oxford and Cambridge, prices have increased because graduates (British and foreign) have moved there in large numbers. It's not their fault; it's where the jobs (and lifestyle) are. But the real problem is the lack of new houses being built in the right place, or the failure of governments to provide a more geographically balanced economy.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread, probably from BTL landlords, multi property owners or simply people who now feel rich from their property.

Did you actually read and think about the article or did you just do it on autopilot letting your predisposed view shape the content?

If there has been a bigger transfer of wealth in generations, I'd like to know what it is. People see this as incredibly unfair. They then tend to resent the recipients of this transfer of wealth, particularly the foremost face of it, BTL landlords. I am not sure this view is particularly helpful but it does seem as though politicians are starting to listen (obviously will do increasingly as demographics change).

If there has been a transfer of wealth from young to old, something I am unconvinced of, there has been an effective transfer of income from old to young as a result of very low interest rates as young people tend to be debtors and old people creditors.

mwpt

kinger101 wrote: »

Ad hominems and ergo decedos do not add to the debate. I have sympathy for people who cannot afford to buy in areas where they grew up. But you've not acknowledged that private ownership of rental property is not a new phenomemon, or explained who else is supposed to provide the rental properties where councils have sold off their housing stock.

For large parts of my life, I've needed to be geographically mobile. The social sector has not been willing to provide me with a rental property, so I've rented from a private landlord. Why should I resent someone who is providing me with something I need? It's completely irrational.

The rents and house prices are high in places like London because lots of people up sticks and move their for higher paid jobs, better career opportunities, and a richer cultural life. If housing supply does not meet demand, then people are going to bid each other up. Consider it this way. If someone is outbid on a London property by a BTL landlord, why instead don't they direct their anger at the tenants from the regions who have effectively priced them out. The truth is that in London, the SE and places like Oxford and Cambridge, prices have increased because graduates (British and foreign) have moved there in large numbers. It's not their fault; it's where the jobs (and lifestyle) are. But the real problem is the lack of new houses being built in the right place, or the failure of governments to provide a more geographically balanced economy.

Actually, I think pointing out the cognitive dissonance does bring something to the debate. I believe you've just shown it again. You're trying (and failing) to convince me that BTL landlords do not skew the market, and you're trying to use a straw man argument "who will provide rental accommodation" when I never said anything about eliminating private landlords.

mwpt

Generali wrote: »

If there has been a transfer of wealth from young to old, something I am unconvinced of, there has been an effective transfer of income from old to young as a result of very low interest rates as young people tend to be debtors and old people creditors.

I'm not too keen on framing it as young vs old because it tends to emotionally cloud the debate. I'd rather frame it as transfer from future (have nots) to present (haves).

Here is an article on the issue:
http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2015/12/19/almost-half-of-britains-private-wealth-owned-by-top-10-of-househ/

Please note, I only speak in terms of my locality, which happens to be London. It's not that helpful to people living in London to speak in terms of national averages.

I take your point about elder being creditors but I'm not sure how significant that is (if at all) in the face of asset price inflation.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Actually, I think pointing out the cognitive dissonance does bring something to the debate. I believe you've just shown it again. You're trying (and failing) to convince me that BTL landlords do not skew the market, and you're trying to use a straw man argument "who will provide rental accommodation" when I never said anything about eliminating private landlords.

BTLers are indeed part of the market as are all the other participants and government agencies.

it is a prejudice and value judgement to that is it 'skewed' : what does an 'unskewed ' market look like ?

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

I'm not too keen on framing it as young vs old because it tends to emotionally cloud the debate. I'd rather frame it as transfer from future (have nots) to present (haves).

Here is an article on the issue:
http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2015/12/19/almost-half-of-britains-private-wealth-owned-by-top-10-of-househ/

Please note, I only speak in terms of my locality, which happens to be London. It's not that helpful to people living in London to speak in terms of national averages.

I take your point about elder being creditors but I'm not sure how significant that is (if at all) in the face of asset price inflation.

It will be interesting to see what happens to household wealth when interest rates rise. There are plenty of assets around, not just houses and perhaps not even houses, that are only attractive at the current price at current rates of interest.

I very strongly suspect, and with good reason, that a lot of the gains of the top 10%/1%/0.01% (delete according to desired level of opprobrium) over the last decade or so will reverse pretty quickly once interest rates rise. Lots of assets are looking very bond-like at the moment (low interest rates = high price, high interest rates = low price). Rich people have lots of assets by definition and so have done 'well' out of falling rates.

kabayiri

We need a system which encourages good quality landlords and good quality renters.

The "who hates who" topic is just an opportunity to vent off from both sides.

When it comes to landlords, is it really fair to say that a landlord with a larger operation is somehow better than a smaller enterprise?

Take our frequent topic Fergus Wilson. Not everyone who had dealt with him was singing his praises, yet you would probably put him in the "professional landlord" bracket.

When it comes to property letting is bigger really better?

BobQ

p00hsticks wrote: »

Personally, I have no problem with what I would call 'professional' BTL people who treat it as a full time business, recognise what their obligations are and charge a fair market rent for the property that gives them an acceptable but not extortionate return.

The ones that I (and I suspect many others) take issue with are the many 'amateurs' who often seem to have fallen into it almost by accident (e.g. by not selling an existing home when they move).

Many of these people seem to treat BTL just as an 'investment' to be viewed on the same lines as stocks and shares or savings account- you simply stick your money in and do nothing but wait the return, ignoring the fact that you are dealing with providing homes for real human beings who you should provide with a good service and treat decently.

How bitter and twisted can you get. A "professional landlord" is motivated by a wish to make income and capital gains. They are not doing it for the benefit of the tenants and while there are some tenants who have poor landlords they can also be professional landlords. Owning lots of houses is no guarantee that they are all well maintained and comply with every standard.

I am what you call an amateur landlord. I became one when circumstances required me live elsewhere for an uncertain period. My motivation was not to be out of the property market. As an "amateur" I entrusted the problem to a reputable letting agent. My current tenant has been there for four years has just asked to renew for a further year. Should I evict them and sell when they are content to rent and want to remain there at a rate set proposed by the letting agent? Does this make me a bad landlord? Does their continuing wish to remain indicate that my amateur ways make me a bad landlord?

Your generalisations are quite absurd!

BobQ

Corona wrote: »

I would have agreed with you until I've seen the experience of friends of ours - nearly 60 who have always rented (for all sorts of reasons). They are now paying out £700 pcm in rent for a flat whereas other friends who have bought their houses have mainly paid off their mortgages and are really feeling the benefit. Unless your income is so small that your rent is paid for you (via housing benefit) then it's going to continue to be a real drain on income. They're really panicking about it now.

So who is to blame if you do not invest in a pension during your life?

Who is to blame if you do not buy a house in your life?

Who is to blame if you choose not to save for retirement?

Who is to blame if you spend spare income on new cars, holidays, etc?

Life is about choices and I understand that some people approaching retirement are in a better position than others. But why blame landlords.