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

mwpt

Cakeguts wrote: »

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.

We hear enough stories about families going through no fault evictions and excessive rent increases that I think the measures are necessary even if they only direct help a small portion of tenants. See the model I proposed, I think it works quite well for all sides.

Blue22

BarryBlue wrote: »

Many people have become property investors because it is the only way to get a secure return on your money.

So you agree their motive is greed rather than an altruistic desire to provide housing? So why do so many Landlords try to convince themselves (and anyone else prepared to listen) otherwise?

Blue22

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Part of it is from an unexpected inheritance, but the rest is from arranging our affairs correctly and not living outside our means.. We were mortgage-free in our forties just by paying the mortgage for twenty years, no-one gave us anything.
.

That's another Boomer myth that annoys me. For the majority, including me, surely the largest contributing factor of accumulated personal wealth is house price inflation and luck at being born at the right time?

wotsthat

Blue22 wrote: »

So you agree their motive is greed rather than an altruistic desire to provide housing? So why do so many Landlords try to convince themselves (and anyone else prepared to listen) otherwise?

On Homes Under the Hammer most of the buyers of rentals say they're motivated by poor returns on cash savings. They make no secret of the fact they want to improve on these returns rather than do charitable works.

Greed is a word designed to get the emotional juices going. Everyone wants to make a return on investment - even you probably.

I reckon rising interest rates (if/ when they happen) would see a lot of BTL's exit - BTL would seem a hassle to a lot of people compared to say, getting 4% on cash in the bank.

silvercar

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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?

Correct. 2 months of arrears and a landlord can start eviction process. Take tenant to court and securing an eviction can take months, but certainly not 3 years.

silvercar

Blue22 wrote: »

That's another Boomer myth that annoys me. For the majority, including me, surely the largest contributing factor of accumulated personal wealth is house price inflation and luck at being born at the right time?

True, though bear in mind that general inflation has had an effect on incomes too.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

I'm not surprised but why is that an argument against me pointing out the foolishness when I come across it? Most BTLers are just quietly getting on with their affairs and I have no clue about their feelings. But the majority that I come across on forums (with exceptions, eg. chuck) are obviously the more vocal ones, and seem to have a chip on their shoulder evident because they try to frame their 'business' with a humanitarian angle. Why bother? They're in it to make money, would sell up if they needed to or if there was better money elsewhere.

seven-day-weekend

Blue22 wrote: »

That's another Boomer myth that annoys me. For the majority, including me, surely the largest contributing factor of accumulated personal wealth is house price inflation and luck at being born at the right time?

Partly, but I know plenty of home-owning boomers who are on their uppers. And indeed, some who have rented all their lives.

We lived in our first home for nearly forty years. We didn't 'climb the ladder'. We didn't have new cars or go on expensive holidays. We downsized (but upgraded) last year to a property of similar value to the house we sold, so made no money on the downsize.

So I think some of it was due to prudence, as well as partly to house price inflation, and in my case, an unexpected inheritance (so therefore not catered for in our plans).

I have never made any secret of the fact that we have a BTL property because we get a better return for our money than in the bank. However, we take our responsibilities seriously and it so therefore it is also a nice home for a person who wishes to rent. I would live in it myself if necessary,so I'm not asking someone to live anywhere I wouldn't.

westernpromise

Cakeguts wrote: »

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.

Same here. I have let out four different properties since 1995 and in that time I have given to notice to two tenants. One was failing to pay the rent, and the other was a probate sale where I had let the property out for one year only and needed it to be vacant on completion - but I had made clear from the outset that it was to be a 1-year tenancy.

The ony property I still have is the one with high ceilings in a white stucco house in a nice part of town. This is the one that always lets to professional couples on £200k a year household income and they typically stay 3.4 years. The last change of tenancy was last year, when the tenants asked if they could leave mid-year as they'd found somewhere they wanted to buy. As they'd been there a few years I couldn't see a reason to be difficult about notice, so I agreed to that.

That was also the longest void I've had, about 4 weeks I think, but for 3 weeks of that the place was having the 15-year major works done to the outside and was being redecorated inside. So it wasn't actually lettable anyway.

The key takeaway for me has been that if you don't look after your property properly, you can't expect the tenants to do so. If it is A1 when they move in and you keep it that way by immediately fixing anything that breaks etc, they will tend to keep their end up too. Thus you keep your tenants for a long time, it re-lets easily and you don't need to do much refurb between tenancies. So stinting on the upkeep just costs you more money than it ever saves you, by making voids longer and more frequent.

westernpromise

Blue22 wrote: »

That's another Boomer myth that annoys me. For the majority, including me, surely the largest contributing factor of accumulated personal wealth is house price inflation and luck at being born at the right time?

I think we need a reciprocal insulting term for landlords to use of their greedy, entitled tenants.

How about "rentards"?