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

Mrs_pbradley936

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think many private sector tenants feel very vulnerable with so little security or control over rent rises and this creates bad feeling. A degree of rent control and more security of tenure would make for a more balanced relationship between tenant and landlord.

The only reason Buy to Let became a lucrative investment was precisely because there is little security of tenure. It means that people can get their property back quickly and legally should they decide to sell. Quite the opposite to Social landlords that never intend to sell - if one tenant dies or decides to move another one takes their place.

Buy to Let landlords are not doing it because they care about the plight of renters. If controls came in, the properties would vanish from the housing stock.

seven-day-weekend

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

The only reason Buy to Let became a lucrative investment was precisely because there is little security of tenure. It means that people can get their property back quickly and legally should they decide to sell. Quite the opposite to Social landlords that never intend to sell - if one tenant dies or decides to move another one takes their place.

Buy to Let landlords are not doing it because they care about the plight of renters. If controls came in, the properties would vanish from the housing stock.

I agree with this - but where will the rented houses come from if this happens?

missbiggles1

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

The only reason Buy to Let became a lucrative investment was precisely because there is little security of tenure. It means that people can get their property back quickly and legally should they decide to sell. Quite the opposite to Social landlords that never intend to sell - if one tenant dies or decides to move another one takes their place.

Buy to Let landlords are not doing it because they care about the plight of renters. If controls came in, the properties would vanish from the housing stock.

Well, unless they actually knock them down or leave them sitting empty, that won't be the case. If BTL LLs liquidate their portfolios, the properties will still form part of the housing stock.

Thrugelmir

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I have noticed there is a lot of venom directed towards BTL landlords on this site.

Really? There's plenty of viewpoints as with any topic. No venom that I've seen.

Cakeguts

Not all rented houses are the kind that first time buyers could afford. Some are more expensive because of size or where they are situated. In this case people rent from choice as they could afford to buy a house if they bought in a not so expensive area. Some people rent from choice no one seems to consider this as even being a possibility.

Thrugelmir

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

You will be taxed on turnover rather than profit.

Still taxed on profit. What's allowable against profit as a deduction is open to variation. Trouble with BTL landlords is that they are amateurs. Any other business simply gets on with the new tax rules and adapts accordingly. Capital allowances for example.

cells

Cakeguts wrote: »

Not all rented houses are the kind that first time buyers could afford. Some are more expensive because of size or where they are situated. In this case people rent from choice as they could afford to buy a house if they bought in a not so expensive area. Some people rent from choice no one seems to consider this as even being a possibility.

At least 3 million households rent from choice or they have to (eg students with no income/savings so impossible for them to buy even if houses were half the Price)

BarryBlue

mumps wrote: »

That isn't very realistic, if I have 150,000 invested in a property I would expect to see some return on the investment, I would if it was invested in savings bonds or something. Then I have insurance to pay, just like they would if they owned the property, I have to have gas and electric certificates so that all has to be paid for. Any maintenance that needs to be done which might be alot more than a bulb being changed and a wall painted. Last year I spent about £10k on my houses installing a new kitchen in one, changing some old radiators, upgrading electrics to new standards as well as some decorating. Couldn't have done it on £1k for the year. Oh and of course the tax man wants his 20% as well so you £1k would actually turn into £800.

Thinking about it my BTL houses have better fire and carbon monoxide detectors than my house, mine are just battery jobs there's are hardwired with repeaters upstairs, and one has a newer kitchen than I do. I think you will find that not all landlords are robbing people.

Of course we expect a return on our investment. We currently own three BTL properties in addition to our own house. They are all owned outright, no mortgages required. We plan to have a couple more in due course. It is to be our retirement income in addition to our state and public sector pensions. We have worked hard for what we have.

We completed on our latest one in January. It was purchased because we found someone desperate to sell and got it for far less than its current market value. It needed very little doing to it but we still redecorated throughout. It is a lovely property and will be, in our view, a sound investment. There is little point in leaving the cash in the bank when interest rates are so low. We are getting a return of around 7% over our properties.

The other side of the coin is that we are providing good quality homes for professional people who choose to rent and are happy to pay the going rate. So why should anyone be upset by this? Everyone is happy.

cells wrote: »

I dont care about any of that, I just want to pay close to nothing because most of the time the landlord does nothing...

You live in some sort of fantasy world. Your landlord has presumably worked hard to earn the money to buy the property you live in and maintain it in a decent state. Now you want him to treat you as some sort of charity case and use the fruit of his labours to supply you with virtually free accommodation, meaning that you wouldn't need to do a day's work in order to live. Do you expect free food from the supermarket too?

Blue22

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I have noticed there is a lot of venom directed towards BTL landlords on this site.

I ask myself, why is this? Surely they are fulfilling a need for rented housing at a time when social housing is scarce and in decline?

Why the hatred then?

Your contribution welcomed.

(To declare my interest, I have one BTL property, without a mortgage, which is let at market rent).

I don't hate BTL landlords, nor am I envious, but I do think that 'investing' in property is morally wrong. One person doing it is not a problem but it is the cumulative effect of all BTLers that causes the problem, by increasing demand and therefore prices. This article, from a few years back, more or less sums up my objections.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/04/buy-to-let-housing-morally-wrong.

A paragraph from that article says,

A safe, secure place to live – a home – is a basic human need. It's essential. Can you imagine water being regarded not as a precious, vital resource, but simply as valuable, with amateurs not only investing in it, but monopolising access, able to decree from on high precisely who is permitted use of the dwindling supply?

So I'll ask you what you would do if water suddenly became the new recommended investment for your retirement income. Would you invest?

Blue22

And here's another article that may make you look at BTL differently

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/feb/03/why-quite-buy-to-let

"I wouldn't describe myself as left wing but, increasingly, I feel housing provision in Britain is deeply unfair. The only reason I could buy when I did, and become a landlord, was down to luck and timing. I couldn't afford the house I'm living in if I had to start now.
"I didn't really need the rental income as I already earn a good salary. And, basically, my views changed.
"I think housing provision should be more regulated and not a free-for-all. It's not nice to profit from someone else's need to sleep somewhere. I think it's wrong some landlords have strings of properties. It restricts supply, and tenants have very few rights, or aren't aware of rights they do have.