To Let or Sell, that is the question.

Tiners

Why is Right To Buy for private tenants such a ''crazy idea''?

Doesn't sound any more crazy or distasteful or morally dubious than the whole notion of being able to borrow money to buy a property then get someone else (who can't afford to borrow as much, therefor can't afford to buy) to pay that mortgage for you.

tom9980

Tiners wrote: »

Why is Right To Buy for private tenants such a ''crazy idea''?

Doesn't sound any more crazy or distasteful or morally dubious than the whole notion of being able to borrow money to buy a property then get someone else (who can't afford to borrow as much, therefor can't afford to buy) to pay that mortgage for you.

Is it morally wrong if the Landlord is good and decent and owns the property outright?

Maybe if right to buy discounts did not exist and Social housing rents were closer to private landlord rents then housing associations would have the money to build more properties without being at risk of having to give large discounts to existing tenants.

seven-day-weekend

Tiners wrote: »

Why is Right To Buy for private tenants such a ''crazy idea''?

Doesn't sound any more crazy or distasteful or morally dubious than the whole notion of being able to borrow money to buy a property then get someone else (who can't afford to borrow as much, therefor can't afford to buy) to pay that mortgage for you.

Firstly, I did not borrow any money to buy my property, secondly it was £85k and tbh anyone who can't afford to borrow enough to buy an £85k property cannot afford to buy a house and thirdly that property is mine and why should someone else be able to buy it from me at a discount.

Tiners

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Firstly, I did not borrow any money to buy my property, secondly it was £85k and tbh anyone who can't afford to borrow enough to buy an £85k property cannot afford to buy a house and thirdly that property is mine and why should someone else be able to buy it from me at a discount.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, just making a general observation that, to my mind, private Right To Buy would be no more unfair, immoral or iniquitous than leveraged Buy To Let (or ''Borrow To Leech'' as some may refer to it as)

seven-day-weekend

Tiners wrote: »

I wasn't referring to you specifically, just making a general observation that, to my mind, private Right To Buy would be no more unfair, immoral or iniquitous than leveraged Buy To Let (or ''Borrow To Leech'' as some may refer to it as)

Well we will have to agree to differ. It is no different to me taking your car off you because I hadn't got one. In other contexts, this is called theft.

Mickygg

Retired_Mortgage_Adviser wrote: »

440 profit/month = 5,280/year
paid about 87k for the flat

Ignoring other factors, that's a proven annual return of 6% before tax, which (to me) is more than enough reason to continue letting it out. You could potentially get 6% return on some P2P investments, but the risk of capital loss would be far higher.

But you haven’t taken into account maintenance costs, repair bills, agency costs if applicable, hassle, house price fall potential (also house price increase as well of course). That alone could easily knock 1% off. Then you are talking possibly under 5% which doesn’t sound great to me.

They had a great tenant before, that could all change with the next.

If OP doesn’t need the money I would cut the stress out and sell and enjoy the money as they are pensioners.

Oh I’ve just read they have decided to rent. Oh well good luck.

Cakeguts

Tiners wrote: »

I wasn't referring to you specifically, just making a general observation that, to my mind, private Right To Buy would be no more unfair, immoral or iniquitous than leveraged Buy To Let (or ''Borrow To Leech'' as some may refer to it as)

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that all landlords have mortgages. They don't. The problem isn't that Right to Buy should be extended to private rentals but that Right to Buy exists at all. What would solve a lot of problems would be to stop Right to Buy social housing or any other housing.



The other thing about private rentals is that Right to Buy would only work once. Once tenants had all bought their privately rented properties that would be the end of anything nice that was privately rented because private landlords are not going to buy more houses to let that tenants could then buy at a discount they would put their money into something else. The only outcome of Right to Buy private rentals would be a massive reduction in available privately rented property. That of course wouldn't hurt people who could get a mortgage but those who can't and those who can't get social housing would be chasing fewer and fewer properties and they would all be in poor, high crime areas because no landlord would be wanting to buy a nice property in a nice area.

AdrianC

Anybody else thinking private-sector RtB could result in the same thing as ex-LA and ex-HA RtB...?

A lot of tenants buying, then letting out...?

Cakeguts

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Well the first one went to prison and the second one left due to domestic violence. The present one is moving hundreds of miles away so that she can help an aging relative and is buying a house. So I don't think that is anything to do with my flat!

It is to do with your flat. I don't know why though. We have several rented properties and we never have the kind of high turnover of tenants that you are getting. It might be how you are finding the tenants. Our properties are let and managed by an agent.

Tiners

Cakeguts wrote: »

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that all landlords have mortgages..

No I haven't, that's why I said leveraged Buy To Let. (or Borrow To Leech if you prefer)