Why do people pay such high rent?

SouthLondonUser

Callie22 wrote: »

The laws and regulations surrounding renting are very different there though. A good chunk of the British obsession comes from the fact that in general, renting is pretty insecure over here. Things are changing but very slowly, and we're a long, long way from having the kind of rights and security of tenure enjoyed by German tenants.

Couldn’t agree more.

Many landlords would like to see themselves as the unsung heroes providing a fundamental social service despite a system working against them, but the truth is that the laws in England (and I specifically mean England, not the whole of the UK) are incredibly often shamefully, pro-landlord. There is still, practically, little to no recourse against revenge evictions, and long-term, secure tenancies are rare if not impossible to find.

Scotland seems to have found a more reasonable compromise; tenancies are longer and more secure, and, if I understand correctly, tenants are protected from unreasonable price hikes while at the same time the initial price is fully open to negotiation, so it’s not a rent control type of system, which is known to limit supply (most landlords don’t want to let if the price is too low).

phoenix1837

sal_III wrote: »

- Not enough income to pass Lender affordability, but enough to pass LA affordability

This is me unfortunately

newsgroup_monkey

I'm disappointed that most people in here have had bad experiences with renting.
Are you renting through private landlords or via agents?


I've been renting since my divorce 13 years ago and I've mostly had positive experiences.

I have never met my LL, nor do I expect to. We became friends with our previous landlords (admittedly, they became "accidental landlords"). We only moved because they made their move permanent and decided to sell their house.



My folks are Landlords too and they never ever get involved in their houses - they trust their agents to do that work.

I did have one agent who was absolutely useless (hence why we got to know our Landlords on a personal level). They ripped all of us off with huge fees (I was warned about their behaviour by another agent, but thought it was just sour grapes). It didn't sour our time in that house though - we have great memories.

SouthLondonUser

Bad apples are everywhere. There will always be good landlords, bad landlords, good tenants and bad tenants. Any attempt at generalising is childish. The point is not if all landlords are good or bad, the point is: what can a bad landlord or a bad tenant get away with under the English system, which they couldn’t get away with elsewhere?

Again, the differences between England and Scotland are striking.

A bad landlord in England can refuse to let for periods longer than 12 months, can hike the rent by crazy amounts every year, can do revenge evictions if the tenants dare complain he doesn’t fix stuff, etc etc etc. In the past, he could also steal deposits – luckily that’s almost impossible now.

A bad tenant can of course damage the property and his deposit may easily be insufficient to repair the damage. That’s just the business risk of letting out a property – other than, say, whipping bad tenants in a public square I am not sure any country has come up with a bulletproof way to avoid this risk altogether. A bad tenant can refuse to pay – but luckily the English system allows for much quicker evictions than in many other countries.

[Deleted User]

JackeeBoy wrote: »

Out of curiosity, I. Checked what a house like mine in my area (East London) would get on the rental market. Rent alone, it was costing £1,250 a month. My mortgage, which is higher than usual as we cut down on the years, cost £1,400 a month. I'm just thinking, if you could afford to rent a place (two bedroom terraced house) for that money, surely you should somewhat be in a position to buy? Especially if you're around 30 or younger.

I've always been curious what is the main reason people don't buy. Deposits being an obvious factor but is there more to that? I have a friend who's on £70k a year and chooses to rent near Central London despite being in a position to move in with her mum for less that a year, have a more than decent deposit, buy a house and pay less than what she's already paying each month.

What makes you think your friend is in a position to move in with her mum? Maybe the mum doesn't want a boomerang child moving back or perhaps your friend enjoys the freedom of having her own place instead of living in her childhood bedroom. The latter can't do much for one's sex life.

SouthLondonUser

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Bad apples are everywhere. There will always be good landlords, bad landlords, good tenants and bad tenants. Any attempt at generalising is childish. The point is not if all landlords are good or bad, the point is: what can a bad landlord or a bad tenant get away with under the English system, which they couldn’t get away with elsewhere?

I forgot to mention: in England there is practically no recourse against a landlord who refuses to carry out essential repairs.
In New York, which is not exactly a socialist paradise, tenants can withdraw rent as long as they show the funds are available and deposited in a separate account. Not so in England, AFAIK.

sal_III

eddddy wrote: »

I know a number of people renting in central London. They would love to buy, because...

• Monthly mortgage payments would be much less than their monthly rent payments

But they can't because...

• They don't have the deposit, and/or
• They don't pass mortgage lender's affordability criteria (i.e. 5 times their income plus a deposit isn't enough money to buy a central London flat.)

Ironically, they do pass landlord's affordability criteria, even though the rent is much higher than mortgage payments would be

The cookie cutter x4.5 gross income affordability is particularly unsuitable for high earners, which have much more "disposable" income after rent/mortgage bills and groceries.

That and central London prices are just bonkers.