To Let or Sell, that is the question.

seven-day-weekend

Cakeguts wrote: »

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.

We did the first two through a local EA and the third one using the Tenancy Creation service (or whatever it is called) on Openrent.

Would you have known that one of your tenants, with a steady job, who passed his referencing, was going to go to prison a year and a half later, or that the social worker who passed all her referencing was going to leave two months later due to domestic violence (especially as the tenancy was supposed to be for her alone)?

How would you have known?

This third one is buying a house. Good luck to her.

AdrianC

Tiners wrote: »

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

How does how somebody chooses to arrange their finances make the slightest difference to anything?

"Borrow to leech". That's very clever. Did you think of it all by yourself, or did Mummy help you?

Cakeguts

Tiners wrote: »

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

Sorry I didn't realise that you were talking about build to rent companies. Well good luck with that because they charge much higher rents than most individual private landlords. In the area where we let property their rents are about £100 more per month for the same size property in worse areas. They probably won't have to sell their properties because they are all company owned. Right to buy would then only be private landlords so the end result would be very expensive rental properties for those that can afford them and cheap rentals in high crime poor areas with nothing in the middle.

kinger101

Tiners wrote: »

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

Your first post on the matter didn't mention leverage. You only introduced that on post #35 when you were attempting to back pedal having rightly been pulled up on the matter by OP.

The fact is, whether someone needs to borrow the money of not, the landlord is accepting all the risks to capital and income associated with owning and letting the property. The tenant isn't taking any of these risks.

It's no more correct that they should buy a property at a discount that it is that they should pay the landlord for any fall in the value of the property.

But I can't see this ever happening, as there there won't be a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn. He's not even popular in his own party. To the swing voters that matter, he's unelectable.

Crashy_Time

kinger101 wrote: »

Your first post on the matter didn't mention leverage. You only introduced that on post #35 when you were attempting to back pedal having rightly been pulled up on the matter by OP.

The fact is, whether someone needs to borrow the money of not, the landlord is accepting all the risks to capital and income associated with owning and letting the property. The tenant isn't taking any of these risks.

It's no more correct that they should buy a property at a discount that it is that they should pay the landlord for any fall in the value of the property.

But I can't see this ever happening, as there there won't be a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn. He's not even popular in his own party. To the swing voters that matter, he's unelectable.

It is about votes at the end of the day, whoever is elected, and there are votes in this sort of stuff, plus the Tories are already trying to outdo labour on Living Wage etc. (If that happens it will be about propping the debt bubble though, not helping HWF`s) Who says they won`t try to win some renter votes as well, let`s face it BJ needs all the support he can get just now?