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

Cakeguts

mwpt wrote: »

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.

Hear the stories from where? How many stories? The stories I hear are all about landlords not being paid rent by tenants because the tenants have spent the money that they should have used for rent on something else that they wanted.

mwpt

Cakeguts wrote: »

Hear the stories from where? How many stories? The stories I hear are all about landlords not being paid rent by tenants because the tenants have spent the money that they should have used for rent on something else that they wanted.

Exhibit A ladies and gentleman.

Cakeguts

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But the fact is - he can and it's that fact that leads to the insecurity.

I have no idea where you get the idea that all tenants feel insecurity about their tenancies and that no one else feels insecure about losing their house from not being able to pay a mortgage for whatever reason? The only people who have security are those who have paid off their mortgages and those who live in social housing on secure tenancies. In fact I would guess that having your home repossessed by a bank or building society is far more stressful than a tenancy ending?

Cakeguts

wotsthat wrote: »

I know. Making a profit from housing is morally different. It just is.

Anyone who has a building society account that is earning interest is making a profit from housing. Housing associations make profits from housing. Builders make a profit from housing. I can't see why BTL landlords are any different from the above.

What I think confuses a lot of people is the fact that they only hear stories about tenants who have to rent a home because it is the only way to get somewhere to live. However there are a large number of tenants who are not in this situation. They are renting from choice. Either because they have moved jobs and renting a house is cheaper than staying in a hotel or they are renting while they look at areas to buy or they are renting because they don't want to buy in case they have to move with their job. Some people rent when they retire because they don't want to bother with upkeep on a house. This is all from choice not necessity.


The arguments on here all seem to be from the basis that all tenants are renting because that is the only way they can get somewhere to live. This is just not true.

mwpt

Cakeguts wrote: »

Anyone who has a building society account that is earning interest is making a profit from housing. Housing associations make profits from housing. Builders make a profit from housing. I can't see why BTL landlords are any different from the above.

What I think confuses a lot of people is the fact that they only hear stories about tenants who have to rent a home because it is the only way to get somewhere to live. However there are a large number of tenants who are not in this situation. They are renting from choice. Either because they have moved jobs and renting a house is cheaper than staying in a hotel or they are renting while they look at areas to buy or they are renting because they don't want to buy in case they have to move with their job. Some people rent when they retire because they don't want to bother with upkeep on a house. This is all from choice not necessity.


The arguments on here all seem to be from the basis that all tenants are renting because that is the only way they can get somewhere to live. This is just not true.

Welcome to the forum, we could use another BTL landlord around these parts, they were a bit under represented. The renter scum were starting to get a bit uppity.

Cakeguts

mwpt wrote: »

Welcome to the forum, we could use another BTL landlord around these parts, they were a bit under represented. The renter scum were starting to get a bit uppity.

I have customers.

mwpt

Cakeguts wrote: »

I have customers.

Potayto, potahto

cells

I got into buy to let to make a profit but I also treat my tenants well.

On a national level we either need private landlords or we need the state to offer anyone and everyone who wants a council home to be able to get one. Some might like the idea of that but the result would be plenty of single people demanding a home of their own rather than sharing. Thats all good and well but imagine for the exact same population we need to build another 10 million homes. Where is the state going to get the ~£1.5 trillion to go and build 10 million new council homes let alone where will they actually build them?

We also need a return of self cert mortgages. I believe the removal of self cert mortgages is the #1 reason for the rapid growth in rentals since the crash. That sector of the market probably does resent to some degree renting because they can be owners and want to be owners but the regulator says no. (some will argue that its high prices that are forcing renting to increase but that is BS because in about half the country prices are lower than they were 10 years ago yet renting has increased lots so its down to mortgage availability and mostly the removal of self cert)

missbiggles1

Cakeguts wrote: »

I have no idea where you get the idea that all tenants feel insecurity about their tenancies and that no one else feels insecure about losing their house from not being able to pay a mortgage for whatever reason? The only people who have security are those who have paid off their mortgages and those who live in social housing on secure tenancies. In fact I would guess that having your home repossessed by a bank or building society is far more stressful than a tenancy ending?

Oh dear....

People with mortgages feel secure as long as they're paying it regularly - private tenants feel insecure even if they pay their rent every month on the dot.

seven-day-weekend

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Oh dear....

People with mortgages feel secure as long as they're paying it regularly - private tenants feel insecure even if they pay their rent every month on the dot.

The mortgage payer can still worry about sickness or redundancy. Unlike the rent payer they won't get it paid straightaway by the Government. (I know LHA doesn't usually cover all the rent, but at least it covers some of it).

I agree with the poster who said that the only people who can feel secure are those who own their home outright or those with a social property paid for by Housing Benefit.