Owner Occupiers > BTL Landlord

mwpt

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's not always about price. A BTL LL with a local reputation with the agents of buying property in the past is more likely to be promoted as the "offer to accept".

The OO and the BTL LL might be offering the same amount, but the BTL LL might indicate they can complete quicker and with less hoops to jump through to get a mortgage. A seller might be lead to believe, by the EA, that the OO will be slower and "might change their mind".

BTL LLs are often "tipped off" ahead of the pack when properties are about to come onto the market. "Hello John, got another for you in .... Ave, I know you've got a couple round the corner already. I'll be there this afternoon to get the contract signed... are you interested in viewing it tomorrow?"

Every time a BTL buys a property they either outbid an OO, or they got it at a discount due to being a BTL and having connections.

CLAPTON

HENRY78 wrote: »

The problem is the EA will push a Landlord as the preferred buyer to the Vendor, in fact in many cases an offer made by an OO is not even put in front of the vendor.


Not cheap at all. Ridiculously expensive.

If what you say is true then surely those same evil EA will push the vendor to wait 2 months to get the best price.

And if rentals are expensive, then surely that means there is a shortage of rental property and removal of such property will increase the price of the remaining.

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

good to know that renting in Hertfordshire is easy and presumably cheap

Good to know that the landed gentry are still in touch with the real world.

HENRY78

CLAPTON wrote: »

If what you say is true then surely those same evil EA will push the vendor to wait 2 months to get the best price.

And if rentals are expensive, then surely that means there is a shortage of rental property and removal of such property will increase the price of the remaining.

EA have an awful reputation and need to be regulated. This would need to be policed by a governing authority. But I think it would be relatively straight forward to implement and it would be down to the governing authorities to prevent this from happening.


There is no shortage of rented accommodation where I live as per my previous post. An individual or couple could move into a privately rented property very quickly... If they can and want to pay an extortionate monthly rent and had around £2k to throw down the toilet for a deposit and fees.

CLAPTON

HENRY78 wrote: »

EA have an awful reputation and need to be regulated. This would need to be policed by a governing authority. But I think it would be relatively straight forward to implement and it would be down to the governing authorities to prevent this from happening.


There is no shortage of rented accommodation where I live as per my previous post. An individual or couple could move into a privately rented property very quickly... If they can and want to pay an extortionate monthly rent and had around £2k to throw down the toilet for a deposit and fees.

so you want the law changed so a EA must not under any circumstances get the best price for their clients.

if rentals were plentiful in relation to demand then they would be cheap. the fact you say they are expensive seems to imply there is a shortage.4

antrobus

purch wrote: »

The Government can bring about any legislation it thinks fit. I doubt it could be workable, but that probably wouldn't stop them....

Well, it hasn't stopped them before. Unbeknownst to me, I have been committing a criminal offence for years on end by failing to report the presence of grey squirrels on my land. OK the fine was only £5, but there are a lot of bl00dy squirrels about, and I'm sure that all those fivers would have mounted up. Fortunately for me, no one seems to have even tried to have got that bit of legislation to work, and they abolished it last year anyway.

HENRY78 wrote: »

...I would of thought that it would be relatively easy to police to ensure any properties that are put on the market were for OO only. eg individuals and families who will be living in the said property. ...

I'd have thought it would be much easier to legislate that all rental properties require a license. It's much easier to police a house (they are very big, don't move about, and are hard to hide) than it is to police people (they are much smaller, very mobile, etc and so forth).

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

so you want the law changed so a EA must not under any circumstances get the best price for their clients.

if rentals were plentiful in relation to demand then they would be cheap. the fact you say they are expensive seems to imply there is a shortage.4

The problem in the Home Counties right now is that London prices are out of control to such an extent that ordinary-earning workers from London base themselves there through necessity. The Hertfordshire housing stock is proportionate to jobs within the county with a significant surplus, but the level of commuting into London has a domino effect. Luton (in another county) and Stevenage (not the most accessible place from the other major Hertfordshire towns) are the only places where a modest-earning family could conceivably afford to live.

As to my earlier comment, I've always taken the view that in a properly functioning market, house prices should be proportionate to supply and demand, while median rents should be proportionate to median earnings, and state support should be limited to those who haven't got a hope in hell of putting a roof over their heads in the free market. The problem in the Home Counties towns (rural Hertfordshire is a lovely place to live and therefore should of course attract the premium it does) is that demand is so high for housing in London that people who would not ordinarily occupy the sort of homes that single people and young families alike need, but are doing so, hence the high prices. Furthermore, those people are obviously preferable tenants from a risk management point of view, meaning that not only are rents pricey, but difficult to come by.

Apologies for the snippy nature of my last post, but I take grave offence to the suggestion that Hertfordshire rents are either easy to come by or cheap.

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

The problem in the Home Counties right now is that London prices are out of control to such an extent that ordinary-earning workers from London base themselves there through necessity. The Hertfordshire housing stock is proportionate to jobs within the county with a significant surplus, but the level of commuting into London has a domino effect. Luton (in another county) and Stevenage (not the most accessible place from the other major Hertfordshire towns) are the only places where a modest-earning family could conceivably afford to live.

As to my earlier comment, I've always taken the view that in a properly functioning market, house prices should be proportionate to supply and demand, while median rents should be proportionate to median earnings, and state support should be limited to those who haven't got a hope in hell of putting a roof over their heads in the free market. The problem in the Home Counties towns (rural Hertfordshire is a lovely place to live and therefore should of course attract the premium it does) is that demand is so high for housing in London that people who would not ordinarily occupy the sort of homes that single people and young families alike need, but are doing so, hence the high prices. Furthermore, those people are obviously preferable tenants from a risk management point of view, meaning that not only are rents pricey, but difficult to come by.

Apologies for the snippy nature of my last post, but I take grave offence to the suggestion that Hertfordshire rents are either easy to come by or cheap.

Price is a result of supply and demand : either rentals in Herts are cheap and plentiful or they are scarce and expensive : you can be offended if you wish.

We all understand the problem about high prices in London and its knock on effects all over that SE. Passionate concern doesn't however, translate in effective ideas for change.

movilogo

Luton (in another county) and Stevenage (not the most accessible place from the other major Hertfordshire towns) are the only places where a modest-earning family could conceivably afford to live.

Now the problem is high earners from London are flocking to these places and priced out locally working residents who can't compete with London salaried people

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

Price is a result of supply and demand

True

...either rentals in Herts are cheap and plentiful or they are scarce and expensive

False.

Affordability and supply and demand are two distinct concepts. Rentals in Hertfordshire are plentiful though gradually becoming less so (as there is a high housing stock relative to jobs located within the county, meaning that there are always rentals on offer but population shift from London is on the rise) but expensive (because the costs to wages ratio in Hertfordshire is high even by London Commuter Belt standards).