CGT Changes

BobProperty

SquatNow wrote: »

So why do you get paid if you're not doing any work?

Sweet passive income

SquatNow wrote: »

I understand that sometimes you have to sort problems out, but surely if you are called upon to arrange for a boiler to be fixed etc you should be paid per hour (say, £10?) for carrying out that service,

I take it you mean £10 per hour for organising getting a boiler fixed, because if you mean £10 per hour to fix a boiler I think you need to get out more.

SquatNow wrote: »

rather than £500+ per month whether you work or not?

Yeah right, why should tenants pay for using the place all the time when they only need a landlord for emergencies. Does your employer only pay you when you are actually working (not taking a coffee break, having a smoke, going to the toilet, being off sick, on holiday etc. etc.)? Thought not.

clutton_2

""If you don't add value, why should you, morally be entitled to payment?""

i sincerely dont understand your argument here - please can you expand on it. thanks

""The homes were already there, you simply turn up once a month and demand people pay you hundreds of pounds if they don't want to be thrown out into the gutter"

the homes were there already, i did not build them - you are quite right.

But a tenant and a landlord both sign a mutually protective agreement for one to provide a house and one to pay to live there. no one forces a tenant to live there - they choose to do so.

I know you dont want to hear this, but, in our society, housing has become a commodity - a product for sale/rent. It may not be how you want our society to be, but, it is like that.

even if i were to offer my tenants the chance to buy these houses off them, the majority of them would say no EVEN tho the mortgage would be less than the rent they pay me. Some of them just don't WANT to be house owners and to take on board all the responsibility that incurs.

Many of them just do not have the financial acumen to be able to cope with mortgages and loans etc. Sadly the majority of repossessees these days are ex-council house owners, who bough under the RTB , then simply did not have the financial wherewithall to manage their own affairs. Unscrupulous lenders took advantge in their droves - these institutions should also be the target of your wrath.

SquatNow

BobProperty wrote: »

Sweet passive income

Parasitic income... smoeone else is productive and you get the benefits. You seem pretty smug about it too. Basically you're getting paid for doing nothing... if you died, society wouldn't miss you.

BobProperty wrote: »

Sweet passive income
I take it you mean £10 per hour for organising getting a boiler fixed, because if you mean £10 per hour to fix a boiler I think you need to get out more.

Well yes obviously unless your fixing the boiler yourself, in which case you'de be entitled to whatever a plumber charges per hour.

BobProperty wrote: »

Sweet passive income
Yeah right, why should tenants pay for using the place all the time when they only need a landlord for emergencies. Does your employer only pay you when you are actually working (not taking a coffee break, having a smoke, going to the toilet, being off sick, on holiday etc. etc.)? Thought not.

My employer doesn't pay for me when I'm at home. My pay is comensurate to the service I provide.

SquatNow

clutton wrote: »

""If you don't add value, why should you, morally be entitled to payment?""

i sincerely dont understand your argument here - please can you expand on it. thanks

You receive payment for doing nothing. Why are you entitled to this payment. Justify it morally.

clutton wrote: »

""The homes were already there, you simply turn up once a month and demand people pay you hundreds of pounds if they don't want to be thrown out into the gutter"

the homes were there already, i did not build them - you are quite right.

But a tenant and a landlord both sign a mutually protective agreement for one to provide a house and one to pay to live there. no one forces a tenant to live there - they choose to do so.

But why should the tennant pay you... why shouldn't they just be able to move in and stay there?

clutton wrote: »

I know you dont want to hear this, but, in our society, housing has become a commodity - a product for sale/rent. It may not be how you want our society to be, but, it is like that.

And you consider it to be morally acceptable because "that's the way it is"???

clutton wrote: »

even if i were to offer my tenants the chance to buy these houses off them, the majority of them would say no EVEN tho the mortgage would be less than the rent they pay me. Some of them just don't WANT to be house owners and to take on board all the responsibility that incurs.

What about if you offered they the houses at the price YOU paid for them rather than at the currently over-inflated market value?

clutton wrote: »

Many of them just do not have the financial acumen to be able to cope with mortgages and loans etc. Sadly the majority of repossessees these days are ex-council house owners, who bough under the RTB , then simply did not have the financial wherewithall to manage their own affairs. Unscrupulous lenders took advantge in their droves - these institutions should also be the target of your wrath.

They generally get them repossessed because they can't afford the payments... because the original price they had to pay was too high because they had to BID AGAINST speculators such as yourself. If speculators hadn't been bidding against them then the price would have been much lower, as would have the payments.

BobProperty

BobProperty wrote: »

Sweet passive income

SquatNow wrote: »

Parasitic income... smoeone else is productive and you get the benefits. You seem pretty smug about it too. Basically you're getting paid for doing nothing... if you died, society wouldn't miss you.

You do need to get out a bit more. One, note the smilie. Two, it's a Casey Serin related comment, it's what he was always searching for (He's back blogging by the way, anyone who is interested). Three, if I was only able to live off "passive income", but wasn't allowed to in your world, is it OK if my children starve? Four, you don't bother to get interest on your savings or bank accounts then presumably? Not very money saving.

clutton_2

""They generally get them repossessed because they can't afford the payments... because the original price they had to pay was too high because they had to BID AGAINST speculators such as yourself.""

Lenders will not lend to folks who they think dont earn enough to make the repayments.

i have spoken to many repossessees, and they generally get themselves repossessed because in addition to the mortgage loan, they have remortgaged and remortgaged and remortgaged to get "free" money (as they see it) and when interest rates go they cannot afford the higher repayments.

getting repoed from an ex-council house is nothing whatsoever to do with the market forces and BTL speculators - council tenants were allowed to buy their homes at Huge discounts - and so had incredibly cheap mortgage monthly repayments - if they had not remortgaged they would not then be in the financial doo.


"but why should the tenant pay you - why shouldn't they just be able to move in and stay there"

everyone (except squatters - and i have mates who squatted, and i actually agree with it, particularly in boroughs where there are no social housing schemes available) has to pay for where they live. i really don't understand your view on this.

Gorgeous_George

My BTL had been on the market for over two years. Six months of this had been at an asking price of just £20K after it was repossessed. Some people couldn't get a mortgage on it because of the condition it was in and their credit rating. Mostly, people wanted to move into a home that didn't need a lot of work. I got the keys in May 2001 after offering £15.5K cash and it wasn't ready for rent until January 2002. It took a lot of work in spare time.

I always do whatever I can to keep my tenants happy. For example, despite having a perfectly serviceable front gate, my tenant said she'd like a wrought iron gate and asked if I minded her fitting one. I looked on-line at Cannock Gates and showed her what they had. She chose one and I ordered/paid for it on a Saturday. It arrived Tuesday and was fitted on Thursday.

Like Clutton, I treat everybody how I would like to be treated. It's an attitude that serves me well. SquatNow would obviously like people to squat in any property he may own. Maybe they could use his car if it was parked up or borrow his missus for 15 minutes.

This thread has been somewhat hijacked - apologies GM. I promise to stay on topic if I add any further comment.

GG

pickles110564

Squit Now

If all the BTL's sold up, how much stock would be back on the market?

How much would all this stock lower the For Sale Prices?

If we did not offer a service, why do HA's rent our stock?

Some of my tenant's rent because they do not want the burden of owning/paying a mortgage of their own.
They like it that they can call me out at any time to correct their mistakes that they have made, like continually tipping chip fat oil down the sink and wondering why the water will no longer disappear.
Most of them would struggle trying to balance the books so as to keep their own roof above their heads.
You hate LL's, I hate scum like yourself. This is why we live in the lovely coulorful place that Britain is.
I think that other poster said it all, if you hate what Britain is now get of your @rse and sling your hook

andrew8018

An interesting debate and whilst I think Squatnow's opinion's are a touch extreme, the essence of what he says has great validity. BTL investors have done huge damage to the social fabric of this country in recent years through nothing but sheer greed. I use myself as an example.

Myself and my wife started looking for a 2 bed flat to buy about this time last year in our area of SE London where we had lived for 3 years. We had our first baby in may last year and were starting to outgrow our rented one bed flat. We could afford a mortgage of about 170000 which would have got us the most basic flat with no Garden but were told explicitly by every estate agent that we'd have to be quick as every property was being snapped up by 'investors'.

To cut a long story short, after chasing many properties that seemed to disapear within days of being on the market by cash buyers offering over asking price we found that prices had climbed about £40000 out of our reach by spring this year. Tragic really. I viewed so many flats that would have made a lovely home for our family, only to turn up with 30 other viewers, many of them ranting excitedly about what a great investment the property would make.

We have now had to move over 70 miles away from our home of three years to afford some space to live in. We have no social network here and have left many old friends and family behind. My son's grandparents do not get to see him as often as they did which they miss very much.

However, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I have many single friends in London their thirty's who are in well paid jobs in the media and marketing who earn far more money than me and are still house-sharing like they were students. It's a ridiculous situation and whist this kind of situation is not created solely by BTL speculation, it plays a large part in pricing FTB out of the market completely.

Clutton, I appreciate your point that BTL provides a service and social groups such as young migrant workers/students etc will always be in need of a place to rent but the rampant speculation on what is a limited and essential resource which this country has seen over the years is simply immoral. It has driven house prices to their most unaffordable in living memory and has priced out a whole generation of FTB and is tearing families apart such as my own.

Your argument that BTL has taken over from the provision of the councils is a week and hollow one because the service you provide is only a pale immitation of what councils provide. It is not a social service but a self interested service and you provide your tenants with no security whatsoever. If I am lucky enough to rent a council or houing association property then I have security of tenure with rights and with little chance of ever being evicted unless I am running a crackhouse or brothel. This security of tenure enables tenents to call their rented property a home. There is no such security of tenure when dealing with people such as yourselves; a six month shorthold tenancy agreement provides rights exclusively in the landlord's favour, and some tenants will be lucky even to bang a few nails in the wall of their temporary 'home'. Unfortunately, BTL has created a rootless, drifting class with nowhere to call home.

Squatnow, you really shouldn't be so angry. Despite all of the above, the fact remains that the housing market will tank over the next 3-4 years and anybody who's got into BTL in the last couple is in for a very rough ride. I'll be extremely shocked to see anything less than 15-20% nominal falls over that period after which you may have a change of heart and decide to build your BTL empire......:rotfl:

clutton_2

andrew - i do agree with much of what you have said. I think you are right that house prices have increased beyond a sustainable level - but only Partly because of increased demand by investors.

I believe that other factors were also involved : -

the lack of trust in government pension policy and private industry pensions - (Maxwell pensions scandal etc) - has meant that more folks do not trust the government to provide a living pension - hence the many thousands of ordinary folk who have bought one or two houses for their pension;

the reduction in credit-worthiness for mortgage applicants by lenders - allowing more folks to be able to buy who simply cannot afford any increase in mortgage interest rate;

the astonishingly immoral upward valuation almost on a daily basis by estate agents;

the refusal of central government to radically alter the planning system so that more land can be released for the building of new houses (especially in the FTB range);

the refusal of FSA to regulate BTL products - this means that totally unsuitable products are sold to unsuitable applicants with huge interest rates with no redress whatsoever for the dreadful consequences of repossession;

local governments planning officers refusing to implement social housing policies, but rather persuading property developers to build roundabouts or playgrounds, which they should be funding from the community charge.

i believe house price increases are not as simple as you claim.

i utterly acknowledge that BTL investors like myself have played our part in an upward price structure = but we are not solely responsible.

house prices went thru the roof in the late 1980's and then several years of minimal growth were experienced - maybe the same will happen now.

"""It is not a social service but a self interested service and you provide your tenants with no security whatsoever"""

i provide my tenants with as much security as the law and my Lender will allow. i have single parent mums whose children are just starting school, and who are already talking about them going to secondary school round the corner. Landlords prefer long long term tenants - why wouldn't we ? voids are expensive.


you also say

""If I am lucky enough to rent a council or houing association property then I have security of tenure with rights and with little chance of ever being evicted unless I am running a crackhouse or brothel""

i am not aware that ANY different legislation which applies to councils or housing associations over private landlords' tenancies. If you dont pay your rent all landlords will evict you - like wise if you run a crack house or brothel.


""a six month shorthold tenancy agreement provides rights exclusively in the landlord's favour""

this is a delicate bone of contention as landlords and tenants will always see that the law offers the other party more rights.

an AST gives landlords the compulsion to provide housing for the term of the agreement and compulsion to the tenant to pay for that full term. i think this is equal rights - in this aspect alone. there are, i grant you, differing terms for notice (landlords having to give twice as much notice as tenants - which i think is only fair, as it takes a while to find new housing).


""the rampant speculation on what is a limited and essential resource which this country has seen over the years is simply immoral."" -

You could say exactly the same about water and petrol. i consider it grossly immoral that water companies waste such stunningly huge amounts of water and then pay share-holders high profits whilst wasting the worlds MOST precious resource.

i would not argue with you that my being a landlord is a self-interested situation - but i also like to think that my tenants are also in a Win-Win situation - we each get something out of this.