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

POPPYOSCAR

I am not quite sure how I feel about this really.


When we built our house we could not sell the house we were living in so ended up after a few months renting it out.


We only wanted to cover the mortgage costs and have ended up renting it out ever since.


We have not put the rent up or stepped inside for the last 10 years.


When they move out in the next couple of months our daughter is going to live there and we will be subsidising the rent.


I am not sure if something as vital as housing should be run as a business though but with the lack of social housing I cannot see the alternative.

Cakeguts

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I am not sure if something as vital as housing should be run as a business though but with the lack of social housing I cannot see the alternative.

Housing associations provide social housing and are also businesses.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

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)

Who's surprised people try to portray themselves positively when talking to people? Don't you see that's a human trait but you've determined this trait as being something typically BTL. I suspect a bias and emotional influence but if you say that's a misrepresentation air enough.

It's looking increasingly likely that I, and a couple of other family members, will be buying a house for the MIL to live in for free for the rest of her life. She lives on benefits, has a hole of bungalow run by the UK's worst housing association which is poorly located and has neighbours I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Obviously we want to do this at lowest cost and considered just renting her somewhere nice and topping up her HB. However, that side of the family are very long lived so it could end up being a long and unknown cost commitment.

That's why we're probably going to buy. It's complicated to take on a tenant being housed by the taxpayer if they're related to the landlord (because of concerns about milking the system) so we're going to save the taxpayer a load of money and house a tenant for free.

Now, I'm not after a nice person award or anything but I reckon most people when presented with those facts wouldn't assume I was some sort of ogre. However, call it BTL and, I bet, people's bias and prejudice would kick in and influence their thoughts on the matter.

mwpt wrote: »

Say hi to Pavlov for me.

Woof.

Mrs_pbradley936

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

If it would suit both tenant and landlord then 3 years would become de rigueur rather than the current 6 months. Lots of tenancies begin as a 6 month let and become periodic for years precisely because it suits both parties. Those that want long term tenancies could look for them, that does not happen now.

Likely to be sold would be where a person is not a committed landlord but rather is abroad and intends to return or has another reason for not seeking a longer rental period.

CLAPTON

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

If it would suit both tenant and landlord then 3 years would become de rigueur rather than the current 6 months. Lots of tenancies begin as a 6 month let and become periodic for years precisely because it suits both parties. Those that want long term tenancies could look for them, that does not happen now.

Likely to be sold would be where a person is not a committed landlord but rather is abroad and intends to return or has another reason for not seeking a longer rental period.

nothing to stop that now if both parties agree

missbiggles1

CLAPTON wrote: »

nothing to stop that now if both parties agree

Landlords don't want to let go of the power and control that makes the letting relationship so unequal - making longer tenancies the norm (combined with making it easier to evict non paying or destructive tenants) would balance things a little and make renting in the private sector a more attractive, long term solution.

Cakeguts

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Landlords don't want to let go of the power and control that makes the letting relationship so unequal - making longer tenancies the norm (combined with making it easier to evict non paying or destructive tenants) would balance things a little and make renting in the private sector a more attractive, long term solution.

Which landlords and which tenants? Many landlords will tell you that they don't evict good tenants just for the sake of it and that it is mostly tenants who end tenancies so which tenants want longer tenancies? I think you are confusing tenants who would prefer social housing if they could get it and tenants who want to rent somewhere because it suits how they want to live at that time. Someone who is renting after a relocation for a job and is looking to buy probably doesn't want to be tied into a 3 year tenancy.

missbiggles1

Cakeguts wrote: »

Which landlords and which tenants? Many landlords will tell you that they don't evict good tenants just for the sake of it and that it is mostly tenants who end tenancies so which tenants want longer tenancies? I think you are confusing tenants who would prefer social housing if they could get it and tenants who want to rent somewhere because it suits how they want to live at that time. Someone who is renting after a relocation for a job and is looking to buy probably doesn't want to be tied into a 3 year tenancy.

Tenants, in general, want security and a choice - they may not want to be tied to a 3 year tenancy but that doesn't mean they want to run the risk of having to move every 6 months either.

Many tenants don't actually want social housing - what they do want is the security that it offers and, if they could get greater security than applies at present in the private sector then they'd be happy with that - exactly as they are in other EU countries.

seven-day-weekend

I assume that with these longer tenancies, that there if the tenant decides not to pay you any rent, or decides to trash the place, then you wouldn't have to wait three years to evict them?

Cakeguts

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Tenants, in general, want security and a choice - they may not want to be tied to a 3 year tenancy but that doesn't mean they want to run the risk of having to move every 6 months either.

Many tenants don't actually want social housing - what they do want is the security that it offers and, if they could get greater security than applies at present in the private sector then they'd be happy with that - exactly as they are in other EU countries.

I think you need to explain why you think that most tenants want the security of social housing but that it is mostly the tenants who end tenancies not the landlords. A landlord is not going to evict a good tenant. There is no point in them doing this. This suggests that the tenancies are already long enough for most tenants.