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

seven-day-weekend

missbiggles1 wrote: »

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.

Yes, that is a good option.

Blue22

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?

As other people have said, the houses would still be there. If all those who are using housing as an investment got out of the market then at a guess I would think housing would be 50% cheaper thus increasing the level of owner occupation.

For others there would still be rental properties. Going back over 50 years, my Grandfather was a landlord, although he certainly did not call himself that, nor looked on his other property as an 'investment', but saw it as a responsibility. He inherited two semi-detached houses from his parents, lived in one and had tenants in the other. This was in the days of rent books, sitting tenancies and rent controls and he didn't make anything but pennies from the second home.

But his tenants, a local family with a couple of children, lived in that house for 30 odd years. They had security and paid a similar amount, if not less, than the local council houses.

When he went into a nursing home in the late 70's, both properties were sold and the tenanted house, although more or less identical, sold for roughly a third of what his house did.

Ok I accept that back then things were too far skewed in favour of the tenants but by introducing minimum term tenancies, either 3 or 5 years, you would immediately get rid of the leveraged, get rich quick landlords and help everyone in the country who wants an affordable home to live in rather than 'an investment'

mwpt

BobQ wrote: »

There are some BTL landlords who operate 10+ properties as a business. Are they any more exploitative than other business owners? I do not think so.

If the results of the landlord "business" were the same as other businesses in that it produced cheaper and better housing, no-one would have any issue with landlords at all. It wouldn't even be a "thing" to complain about.

silvercar

As other people have said, the houses would still be there. If all those who are using housing as an investment got out of the market then at a guess I would think housing would be 50% cheaper thus increasing the level of owner occupation.

Where does your figure of 50% come from?

missbiggles1

silvercar wrote: »

Where does your figure of 50% come from?

Wishful thinking.:D

BarryBlue

Blue22 wrote: »

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.

I fail to see why people who rent would hate BTL landlords. It would se a case of biting the hand that feeds them, since without them they would have few choices if unable to afford to buy. Nobody is going to start a mass building programme of council houses any time soon. Government housing policy has failed miserably, leaving landlords as the suppliers of affordable housing.

Many people have become property investors because it is the only way to get a secure return on your money. While banks are paying such miserable interest rates, people who have saved through their lives to have a return in retirement have had the rug pulled. Putting it into property is the only way forward so why should people not do it? People cannot moan about what others do simply because they have made no provision for their own retirement.

It is also a fact that good landlords attract good tenants and vice versa. It is far easier to vet out poor tenants now than it has ever been and they are invariably left with the landlords who don't care. Any tenant acting badly or mistreating a property will find themselves lumbered with the bottom end of the market, and deservedly so. If you want good landlords, be good tenants.

kinger101

BarryBlue wrote: »

Any tenant acting badly or mistreating a property will find themselves lumbered with the bottom end of the market, and deservedly so. If you want good landlords, be good tenants.

If you're on housing benefit, you don't really have much choice.

mumps

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...

So why do you think I should invest my £150k to provide you with a home for next to nothing?

mwpt

mumps wrote: »

So why do you think I should invest my £150k to provide you with a home for next to nothing?

You mean the banks £112k and your £38k.

What do you think will happen to this house if you don't "invest" in it? Stand empty? Someone will send the bulldozers over and it'll be demolished?

seven-day-weekend

mwpt wrote: »

You mean the banks £112k and your £38k.

What do you think will happen to this house if you don't "invest" in it? Stand empty? Someone will send the bulldozers over and it'll be demolished?

You're saying people can't afford to buy them, so it will just lay empty.

Anyway, there is no bank money in my BTL, it is all paid for (by me).