Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Buy-to-let Landlords - filling a need or evil capitalists?
Comments
-
You missed the bit about providing a roof over their head. Never heard of a landlord changing a lightbulb.
I've been contacted a few times over the years, by tenants expecting me to do that.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
I dont care about any of that, I just want to pay close to nothing because most of the time the landlord does nothing...
I am not a Landlord, but I keep in mind they are not charities, they are there to make money. They have mortgage, insurance, maintenance to pay. It is a business and like any other business the landlords also take risk in BTL decision.
If a person want to pay close to nothing then he has a choice to live with his parents and/or his relatives. Alternatively, he could apply for social housing if he is eligible.
Landlords will not be able to force people to live in their property. And certainly the renters have the option to leave and the landlord will be happy to let the renters go if they just want to pay close to nothing.0 -
I'm not a BTL landlord or a renter.
I agree with the posts on here, that people are jealous of what other people have and worked hard at.0 -
I dont care about any of that, I just want to pay close to nothing because most of the time the landlord does nothing...
There are risks of high costs on some items, for example boiler, roof etc.
We are just dealing here with a bunch of people who don't understand the costs of running a certain business and shouldn't really give them more of our time.
If they want to dwell at the bottom of society and hate then that's really their problem.
I don't condone bad landlords but there is nothin wrong with BTL.0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Maybe after the sensible tenants and landlords have found each other it just leaves the not so sensible tenants (who can't express what they want) and dumb landlords (who for some reason don't repair their properties). I've been a landlord for over 25 years with an average of about 6 properties (currently 8), I've always had good landlord and tenant relationships with my tenants. Apart from one tenant who I evicted, but that was back in the early days when I wasn't as thorough with the initial checks on tenants, she would never get though our vetting procedure now.
Ok, so they want a nanny state - which might negatively affect people who don't have the same goals as them (as an economically mobile worker I don"t have the same needs as a family).
Some of us don't want a nanny state, but I can see the need to protect those not bright enough to protect themselves.
Some people seem to have a lot of time to moan/hate but not enough to sort out their own affairs or improve their own situation.0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »What would tenants like to see in tenancy legislation?
And I repeat, where is rented housing going to come from if people don't invest in it?
I rented until well into my 30s and I would have liked much longer leases (as they have on the Continent) combined with the ability for LLs to evict non paying or destructive tenants more easily. When tenants have a greater degree of security of tenure I'd then like to see an element of rent control applied with rises limited to one of the cost of living indices.
Changing the rules in these ways would provide greater stability and fairness for both LL and tenant.0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »On the whole I agree with this except for the 'no fault' eviction. The landlord might want to sell their house, have it for a relative or indeed live in it Maybe the AST could last for a minimum of twelve months, after an initial six.
Also, some mortgage lenders don't allow LLs to rent to people on Benefits, so that's not really the LL's fault.
I think leases of at least 3 years should be the norm. If BTL LLs want the financial perks of being considered a business then they need to let go of the idea of kicking out tenants on a personal whim. I don't think they can have it both ways.0 -
missbiggles1 wrote: »I think leases of at least 3 years should be the norm. If BTL LLs want the financial perks of being considered a business then they need to let go of the idea of kicking out tenants on a personal whim. I don't think they can have it both ways.
I think this would reduce the rental stock substantially as many landlords will not want to, or be able to, commit to three years. They might be , say, out of the country for twelve months and would have to leave their house empty rather than rent it for twelve months.(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »I think this would reduce the rental stock substantially as many landlords will not want to, or be able to, commit to three years. They might be , say, out of the country for twelve months and would have to leave their house empty rather than rent it for twelve months.
An alternative (which would fit well with that situation) would be to have shorter leases (say a year) for furnished properties, which again exists in some Continental countries. Furnished properties might well suit the more transient tenants as well as LLs in the position you describe.0 -
Yes I do think more needs doing.
I believe it should be easy for tenants to remain in a home long term, be able to carry out minor alterations (eg decorating to their taste) and have any issues dealt with in a timely manner.
In exchange I believe a landlord should be able to force a change of decoration on vacating if decoration is conisdered extreme. Where problem tenants are concerned I do think we need a more official evidence based system to avoid personal evictions, it would also reduce sham evictions to gain council housing.
Of course this would come as a cost, however being a landlord is effectively running a business, if you don't want the cost and time associated with the business, then you need to get out. I would be happy to pay a yearly fee for a decent body who could adequately protect tenants and landlords, and also appropriately deal with bad tenants and rogue landlords.
In our rental property our tenant decorates whenever she wishes, as we would normally paint every couple of years etc the cost of this is given to her as actually shes doing us a favour. Our only rules are no structural changes and permission to be sought for any alterations to kitchen units/bathroom suite. When we replaced the kitchen four years ago we all sat down together and largely provided the design etc that our tenant wanted.
A tenant is a client, people seem to forget that. Good clients should have their needs met where possible, no clients no business.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 240.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 254K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards