Expensive flats and houses on rental market

IRememberItWell

On the look-out for a flat for our final move (God, this sounds like Parky's "final expenses"!) we tend towards blocks which do not permit sub-letting. When asked about this, estate agents would always reply, "No one would buy this as a buy-to-let because it's too expensive - an investor would not get a decent return." Fair enough, yet in recent months I've noticed expensive detached houses and flats being offered as rental properties - and I'm not talking about London. I wonder whether these have been inherited and because of low interest rates beneficiaries are not selling. Is this a trend or my imagination.
IRIW

tightasagnats

There's often a general reality about the point at which it's unlikely that a rental income would cover a mortgage repayment but a cash buyer who has made a stash from another property may not be affected by that for example. Be careful of your judgements however about tenants as opposed to owners if this is your concern. We've had renters as neighbours and always been great. I lived next door to owners who were bankers and argued almost every night.

tealady

I lived next door to owners who were bankers and argued almost every night.

Sure they were bankers? :rotfl:

AdrianC

Some properties have a restriction on letting in the lease - a leaseholder cannot let without the freeholder's consent, which they may be unwilling to give.

We looked at a flat a few years ago, which had this restriction. The freeholder flatly refused to grant consent, so we didn't buy it. It lingered on the market, and eventually sold at a much lower price.

You may think that your ideal flat - but the other two flats within the building were both owned by the freeholder - and were let by them.

The freehold, and two flats, are currently on the market. A new freeholder may have a more relaxed atmosphere to that third flat being let.

IRememberItWell

Thanks for the replies.
I accept that my initial posting was vague: it was something that had crossed my mind based on what I've seen in the windows of letting agents. I do think this might be fuelled by beneficiaries in wills.
The other comments about leases and sub-letting are also greatly appreciated.
IRIW

glasgowdan

I imagine some people just have mad ideas! This one's been reduced from £78k per year to a measly £66k but still won't shift. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-57276934.html

I can't imagine the situation where someone owns a house of that assumed value and decides to rent it instead of selling. It's not a main residence for them.

The only people I can imagine who might rent it would be footballers looking to spend cash and not have any ties due to short contracts.