BTL to be reviewed

CYBERCIDERSAVER

eco-friendly wrote: »

Not as rare as you believe! you won't see posts on this site like =


I phoned my LL today (sunday)because my roof was leaking , the LL appeared in an hour.


My WM broke down, when I phoned my LL on his mobile he was in Spain, he called a guy who was by co-incidence round the corner, fixed in 30 mins.


My heating broke down xmas eve, my kids and I were freezing, LL said there was NOTHING that could be done because of the holiday period but, supplied temporary elec heaters.


Tenants on this site, post only the NEGATIVES. Think about it! ...........I'm the above LL.

I am a tenant and I have a ratio of 3/1 on bad/good LLs

My first LL conned me into signing for a further six months when I simply wanted to leave at the end of the first 6 month AST

My second rented out the property because they couldn't sell. They took it off the market yet just 4 months later put it back on.

My third was actually the best

And my fourth, well... I am still living there so I'll say no more

lynzpower

I think the principle idea of BTL is quite clever.
Rather than councils supplying endless rows of affordable social housing, get the private investor to do it. They get tax breaks and can turn a profit, the "homeless" get housed.

Historically, the idea behind RTB was that in fact the private sector is better to provide housing for the masses than the government.

If people buy thier council houses then the driving force behind this, was driven by a) not having to spend out on maintainence & contracting etc for as many properties. It was soold to us as a way to get those on a lower income who can buy to buy something, take pride etc, move up through the social strata (!) but predominantly it was based on a thatcherite idea that the market can do better than government and that a varied market is better than government, and lets not regulate it as we dont want the "nanny state". Citizens under this ideal, do much better without the government interfering.

UNfortunately, ( who knew :rolleyes:) this has not happened. What this has meant is that

a) a reduction of public sector stock so homeless families leaving less resources
SO
b) the private sector slumlord can bang in HB tenants wherever they can find, and believe me, some of those places were not pretty at all, and some of them simply not fit for habitation.
c) lack of regualtion simply means that anyone can produce a property- and let it out regardless of condition.

RHemmings

wolvoman wrote: »

In what way is HP (and I assume you mean house prices not hire purchase) detrimental to the economy?

More and more disposable income is taken up paying for housing (in various ways) meaning that less and less of this is used to pay for goods and services that keep people in gainful employment.

Gorgeous_George

I disagreed with RTB but the great British public only have themselves to blame to some extent.

The prime reason that the RTB scheme was introduced by the Tories was to buy votes (with taxpayers' money) but there were contributory reasons.

So many council tenants chose not to pay their rent, many more chose to pay only when chased and many did nothing to look after the council's housing. It cost the taxpayer too much in admin and repair charges.

When my worst tenant's kids broke a window that cost £320 to replace while playing darts in the garden, their defence for not paying for the window was that if the house had been a council house, the council would have fixed it for free. Seems the old council tenant that contributed to RTB is alive and well. Fortunately, they no longer live in my property.

GG

Gorgeous_George

RHemmings wrote: »

More and more disposable income is taken up paying for housing (in various ways) meaning that less and less of this is used to pay for goods and services that keep people in gainful employment.

Agreed but then some of the money is returned to the economy through equity withdrawal or when tyhe houses are passed on after death.

Seems odd that most houses have been bought and paid for at least once (and subsequently sold) but are still mortgaged. Where has the money gone?

Foreign holidays and fast cars I guess.

GG

Fergie73

i soon realised that just because you are decent people dont believe renters are, on the whole they are lazy lying cheating scum and that is how you should treat them.

The problem with thinking like this is that it will become self-fulfilling. If you treat people like !!!! and assume they're all cheating, lying scum, that's exactly who you'll attract and even if they're decent to start with, they'll soon lose interest in caring about the property. People tend to behave as they're treated. If you genuinely think anyone whose a renter is scum, have you considered you might be in the wrong business?

THere are good and bad tennents, as there are good and bad landlords.

In general the British system is broken badly. There's is a huge shortage of affordable, decent rental places here and BTL isn't addressing that. BTL is providing a huge amount of stupidly overpriced places, owned by idiots who have no interest in th eproperty or the tenents, only in the precieved rise in value they're getting. The price FTBers out because the amount they can get goes on the rental income and deposit, not what they earn. My situation last year was that for a personal mortgage, I could get around £70,000, but if I went with a BTL, I could have had £400,000. This is just crazy.

The system abroad is way better. Large, professional property companies who owned entire blocks. Well run, well managed, live-in caretakers who fixed problems straight away, no problems with neighbours because the caretakers were on-site sorting problems as they arose. Many of the blocks had gyms and swimming pools attatched, and they were about half the price of a scummy BTL here!

Over there, they accept that young professionals want to rent and are better off renting for a while, they cater to that market and provide what it needs and wants, and they don't make the assumption that they're renting therefore they must be "scum" and "losers" as appears to be the assumption here.

If something massive doesn't change in the UK, most young professionals will be out of here, off somewhere better - believe it or not, if you're young and decently qualified, you don't have to accept being treated as scum and ripped off for simple lifestyle choices and needs.

Gorgeous_George

pickles110564 wrote: »

... i soon realised that just because you are decent people dont believe renters are, on the whole they are lazy lying cheating scum and that is how you should treat them.

I always treat people in the manner that I would wish to be treated. I've only had one bad tenant but they started off good. Once they turned it was only a matter of a few weeks before they left, thankfully. They both worked.

All my other tenants have been better. The last two, including the current one, were on HB and were/are model tenants. Paid on time and kept the house perfectly.

Many homeowners and BTL LLs are probably lazy lying cheating scum too.

GG

Fergie73

I think there's certainly a hell of a lot more lying and cheating going on among people who've taken out mortgages in the past year or two than there is with people deciding to rent. Those renting have generally decided they can't afford to buy and are saving a bit, while many who've bought have lied to do it, encouraged by banks like Northern Rock.

subjecttocontract

Many homeowners and BTL LLs are probably lazy lying cheating scum too.

Do you know......thats right on the nail.......sums me up perfectly.

I'm sure everyone at some time in their life has been lazy, has lied, and has cheated.....I certainly have......and I'm a homeowner ......and a BTL LL.

Looks like there is no hope for me then eh ?

Gorgeous_George

All interest stuff but we really should try to keep on topic. If we've forgotten it was to discuss the proposed review of the rental sector.

Thanks.

GG