Renting - are nicer properties more likely to lead to shorter lets?

uktenant2020

Hello - have just received my 3rd Section 21 in just over two years, in all cases this has been because the landlord is selling. I've been wondering if I'm just unlucky or whether I've been unknowingly picking the type of property that results in the landlord selling up early.

I'm still relatively new to renting properly, started in 2017 after living in a couple of houseshares after graduating. Whenever I've had to find a new property I've done what I presume most people do and pick the nicest place for my budget - the first was a newly renovated one bed flat in a converted mansion, the second a two bed semi on a leafy 2000's estate, and the current one is a two bed barn conversion in a small village. The flat was furnished, the two houses unfurnished. All three were tastefully decorated and up to date, and had an instant "home" feeling to them. Importantly, they were on the market for the same price as multiple generic identikit rental flats with magnolia walls and cut-price kitchens, so to me it was a no-brainer which property to choose.

However I am now wondering if I've been falling into an obvious trap of continually picking places that are more likely to be put up for sale as soon as possible. I'm guessing that the nicer properties are less likely to be BTL owned, and more likely to be owned by "accidental landlords" who have no intention of letting out their property long term? Looking at the current market, it seems to be a similar situation as before - nicer looking houses and shabby looking flats on for similar prices. While before I'd completely ignore the not so nice places, I'm wondering if they would be a safer bet in the end - I really do not want to have to blow another grand on moving fees again so would ultimately be willing to compromise on the quality of the property in exchange for a higher chance of security. As I will not be in the position to buy for at least a few more years, I'd be looking to stay for as long as possible. I will of course ask whether any potential properties will be available for a longer period, however it will be hard to trust this as my current landlord said that he wasn't planning to sell, yet here I am with another Section 21 after just a year.

princeofpounds

Not really - you've just been unlucky. The average rental contract in this country is shorter than a gym membership, a phone contract, a pregnancy or a school year. Landlords have all sorts of reasons for terminating tenancies.

When you do find one you like, although it's hard to get a long contract up front, you can always ask to move into one at the first opportunity. Even before the first tenancy is concluded, if you like - as long as both sides agree. 

A lot of landlords would love a long term reliable tenant and are out there hoping you'll rent their property next.

Picking a worse property hoping to stay for longer is a bit nuts, although I can see where the frustration is. 

greatcrested

Just bad luck.

Quite a few LLs are selling due to changes in tax law, and increased regulations, making it less profitable.

I doubt it makes any difference whether your property is high end or low end - the LL in question might sell either way. Or not.

dimbo61

Your right about the tenancy length.
We normally offer a 6 months tenancy to new tenants and then see what they want.
Just had a tenant ask for another 12 months tenancy which we are happy to offer.
I also offered a 3 year tenancy or they could just go onto a periodic tenancy but they wanted the security of 12 months.
Not changed the rent since they moved in either.
Happy Tenants and Happy Landlord.
PS we have a BTL mortgage and bought the property as a long term rental however the changes over the last 10 years is making life more difficult