Buy-to-let Landlords - filling a need or evil capitalists?

missbiggles1

BarryBlue wrote: »

That's not how it happens in the real world though. Landlords want good tenants and actually strive to keep hold of them. Far better than chopping and changing for the sake of it and risking having someone less conscientious in their property. Apart from that, if you use an agent it costs money every time you have to find a new tenant, typically £250-300, and may lead to voids.

Much of the time, tenants who are given notice because there is good reason to do so. The vetting processes by a good agent normally root out the undesirables before they even view your property. There is normally no reason to evict good tenants. It is possible that someone wants to sell a property and the buyer wants vacant possession rather than a tenant.

It's a good while since I rented but 3 moves in 18 months was one of the deciding factors in our decision to buy. We were excellent tenants with decent incomes but one LL was returning to the UK, another wanted to sell and the third wanted the place for a child returning from university - all of which are situations just as likely to occur today.

If LLs want to keep good, steady tenants and the provision for getting rid of bad ones is simplified and speeded up, I really cannot see why any good LL wouldn't support 3 or 5 year tenancies. At the moment, even if a long tenancy is the intention, there's no guarantee of it for the tenant and anybody with any sense is going to feel insecure.

The reason that there's the great demand for social housing has nothing to do with people's burning desire to live on a council estate but with people's desire for security in their homes, with lower rents being a factor, of course, for some. Whilst I wouldn't want to give that level of security to private sector tenants, I can see no reason not to introduce longer leases as the norm.

If we want to see a healthy private sector as there is on the Continent we need to replicate the conditions that exist there, ie. if you pay your rent in a timely fashion and look after the property, you can sleep soundly knowing your home won't be snatched away from you to suit your LLs personal agenda.

missbiggles1

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

I know what you are saying but I do not think that individual landlords are to blame. They are simply taking advantage of the system and it will be very interesting to see what changes the new legislation will make.

I predict that it will not be as lucrative for younger people but those in SDW's situation will remain unaffected.

If any investment becomes less attractive the money moves elsewhere. I am not sure that all of a sudden those unable to afford to buy now will be helped.

The only thing stopping many youngsters from buying these days is a £40k plus deposit. It is the money supply that is to blame not those that do not depend upon the money supply.

I don't necessarily blame the LLs, I blame the system, would like to see it changed and can see no reason why it shouldn't be.

I've seen both sides of this having once owned a BTL and we would've loved to get good tenants in for several years at a time. Unfortunately the only way we could do this was by subletting through the council at such a greatly reduced rent as for it not to be financially viable.

chucknorris

We have given up trying to let for longer periods, none of our tenants want to be tied in for much longer than a year. In the past 3 years tenancies (or possibly even longer) would have suited us. That said though most of our tenants do continue to stay for a number of years, the longest one was 12 years. I am probably going to sell up in a few years, so I wouldn't want to let for longer than a year now.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't understand why it's hard for tenants to find the right lanlord

Maybe that's because property letting is in essence unregulated. It's populated by many amateurs whose only aim is to maximise their profit. In any other line of business , the business would fail through a lack of custom. Unfortunately renting a property from a bad LL doesn't have an easy exit route either.

Mrs_pbradley936

We have gone from one extreme to the other in terms if security of tenure. At one time you could never get vacant possession and now you can very easily. I would suggest that properties not likely to be sold soon or needed for self/family be offered at a 3 year term.

CLAPTON

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

We have gone from one extreme to the other in terms if security of tenure. At one time you could never get vacant possession and now you can very easily. I would suggest that properties not likely to be sold soon or needed for self/family be offered at a 3 year term.

what would that mean?
a law that says you must let for 3 years ?
would tenants be tied to 3 years
what does 'likely to be sold' mean

chucknorris

CLAPTON wrote: »

what would that mean?
a law that says you must let for 3 years ?
would tenants be tied to 3 years
what does 'likely to be sold' mean

Labour were proposing this prior to the last election, 3 year tenancies, but tenants are not tied in (only landlords), rent increases capped during the tenancy, but the landlord can regain possession if selling (or moving back in, I think? this didn't affect me so I didn't take a lot of notice). I thought that it was a good idea, it would certainly have suited me. It makes absolutely no sense for long term landlords to create work for themselves by changing tenants more often than they have too, a change of tenancy creates a lot of work, and as Barry pointed out, also the risk of a void.

Can someone remind me, have they done anything about the stupid fees letting agents charge? We don't use them, and I can't remember if it was merely a muted proposal or an actual change that was introduced.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

You've made up your mind that BTL is synonymous with people farming and outbidding the young. Your bias won't allow you to believe the ratio of nice to nasty BTL owners is probably the same as the population at large.

No, you misrepresent my views again. Please stop that.

The other side of the coin is that BTLers portraying themselves as humanitarians, only in it to provide homes for poor people who otherwise would be living under a bridge. It's an obviously stupid position to try and take, so I point it out when I see it. Say hi to Pavlov for me.

(EDIT: mumps has shown their are exceptions of course)

mwpt

chucknorris wrote: »

Labour were proposing this prior to the last election, 3 year tenancies, but tenants are not tied in (only landlords), rent increases capped during the tenancy, but the landlord can regain possession if selling (or moving back in, I think? this didn't affect me so I didn't take a lot of notice). I thought that it was a good idea, it would certainly have suited me.

Can someone remind me, have they done anything about the stupid fees letting agents charge? We don't use them, and I can't remember if it was merely a muted proposal or an actual change that was introduced.

For some reason, many BTL landlords I cross paths with on forums are against those proposed changes.

I advocate:
- Letting fees to be paid for by landlords because they will have incentive to suppress them or use another agent. They can pass on the costs in the rent but at least they'll have more leverage than a tenant does.

- Mandatory long term (5+ years) tenancies on landlord side if they wish to claim the 20% interest tax credit. Make lenders comply. Short term tenancies will be allowed for people who need to, but no tax benefits (interest, improvements) in this case.

- Only some form of inflation related rent increases allowed during the tenancy. Can set rents at whatever rate they wish when placing a new tenant.

- Tenants may give two months notice to vacate.

- Much easier to evict troublesome tenants.

- Landlords may take possession if they need to move in or sell.

Cakeguts

One of the shortest tenancies that we have ever had which was a year was for a property in France. The tenants had a 3 year tenancy which is normal for France but after one year they decided to buy a property closer to work and used the break clause to move out. That tenancy was one of the shortest we have ever had. All the ones in England last for far longer than that. Most of the English ones are on periodic tenancies because that is what the tenants want. There are a couple on fixed terms because that is what those tenants want. None of the properties are the kind that most people would think of as first time buyers houses either because of the value or because of where they are.

We only ever have to evict if there is a problem. Vacant properties are not what we want. I think we may only have ended 3 tenancies since 1992. All other times the tenancies have been ended by the tenants. We offer a service that means that people can rent a property for a period of time that suits them. That is our business model.