Rent Rises a Myth ? (For Some)

[ainsworth74]

Without landlords, where would the renters live ?

Presumably the houses aren't going to be knocked down and so the landlords exiting the market will have to put them up to sell which will increase supply and an increase in supply tends to have downward pressure on prices...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably the houses aren't going to be knocked down and so the landlords exiting the market will have to put them up to sell which will increase supply and an increase in supply tends to have downward pressure on prices...

Indeed. There are people who want to rent, e.g. young people trying a new location for the first time or only planning to live somewhere for a short time, but most families would choose to buy given the viable option because of the stability it provides and because it means when you get to retirement you're usually paying nothing at all as you've paid it off.

 

[Butts]

I'm currently paying £350 for a 1 bed flat too, hasn't increased in 14 years, but not for much longer as the landlord has got his Section 21 notice in just in time and is selling up. We are looking at our rent more than doubling as a result - we are looking at small 1 bed flats at around £750 or 2 beds at around £900. I'm lucky in that my wage has also more than doubled since we moved in, but it will still be a huge financial shock.

That's incredible 14 years without a rise !! You've had a good run for your money.

What part of the country are you in ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Presumably the houses aren't going to be knocked down and so the landlords exiting the market will have to put them up to sell which will increase supply and an increase in supply tends to have downward pressure on prices...

This calls out one of the dilemmas with renting houses out: On the one hand, there is definitely a market for people who for whatever reason would prefer to rent rather than buy their homes (for example, students or people who only want to live somewhere temporarily). But on the other hand, there does seem to be something ethically questionable if someone has bought lots of houses and is then renting them out to people who themselves want to buy but can't because so many houses have been bought as buy-to-lets. The former form of letting arguably should be encouraged but the latter discouraged, but I don't see any way the Government can plausibly distinguish between them or what action they could reasonably take to do so. (Of course if they ensured enough houses were built to end the shortage of housing, that problem might to a large extent vanish anyway).

Worth pointing out though that if a landlord exits the market and sells up, the reduces the pool of houses to rent and increases the pool of houses to buy. It doesn't however have any direct impact on the total supply of houses.

 

[simonw]

And, of course, who gets the fees for finding a new tenant if the existing one decides to move out as a result of the rent hike? It is a win-win for the agents, if not for anybody else.

do agents charge a few for finding a tenant? Certainly not a thing round here.

 

[Gloster]

do agents charge a few for finding a tenant? Certainly not a thing round here.

They don’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts…if they have hearts.

 

[Elwyn]

do agents charge a few for finding a tenant? Certainly not a thing round here.

I think its illegal to charge the tenant a fee, so they have to charge the landlord. My agents vet the clients, do credit checks, and show them around the property. They also hold the tenants security deposit (in aa special account). They are entitled to a fee for all that work.

 

[simonw]

They don’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts…if they have hearts.

Well my agent doesn't charge me a finder's fee for tenants.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2023 ==

I think its illegal to charge the tenant a fee, so they have to charge the landlord. My agents vet the clients, do credit checks, and show them around the property. They also hold the tenants security deposit (in aa special account). They are entitled to a fee for all that work.

I don't get charged a finder's fee. The tenants deposit shouldn't be being held by the agent, it needs to be held in one of the 3 deposit schemes.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well my agent doesn't charge me a finder's fee for tenants.

It will definitely vary according to the agent. At the moment I have a house that's let out to students through an agent, and that particular agent just takes a % of the rent as its fees for doing all day-to-day management including finding tenants, so there are no other fees (As an aside, this particular agent is very professional and does clearly put in a lot of work - I have no complaints about them - so you do get some good agents!).

On the other hand, a few years ago, when it was still legal to charge tenants for finding a place, I made the mistake of going through a different company - one of the national 'High street' estate agents - to ask them to find me a tenant. They charged me £several hundred for doing that, which I thought was steep but acceptable. It was only a month later that I found out they'd also charged the tenant the same fee, and not told either of us that they were charging the other person too - giving us each the impression that we were covering the entire fee for their services. Honestly, I would have gone back to the agency at that point and kicked up such a huge fuss - I was quite ready to explore trading standards and whatever legal options were available to put as much pressure as I could to get them to refund the tenant, except that the tenant for some reason was really concerned that I shouldn't cause any 'trouble'. So I confined my action to, vowing that I'll never use that particular company again.

 

[Elwyn]

Well my agent doesn't charge me a finder's fee for tenants.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2023 ==


I don't get charged a finder's fee. The tenants deposit shouldn't be being held by the agent, it needs to be held in one of the 3 deposit schemes.

I only use an agent to find my tenants. I don’t pay them to manage the properties, so they don’t get a percentage of the rent. In the circumstances they are hardly going to find and vet prospective tenants, as well show them round the property for nothing. My approach means I manage the properties myself. I have saved a lot over the years by doing that.

The deposit is held by one of the 3 deposit schemes but the agents are responsible for collecting it and refunding it, so it’s not unreasonable for them to get some payment for that.

 

[ABB125]

I wonder whether there is a larger than ever differential between locations with universities and those without, although there has always been some. Anecdotally, I have heard that nowadays students now want the ‘experience’ and that includes far better quality accommodation than those of twenty-five or so years ago who mainly wanted a qualification would put up with.

I would argue that you get much more of an "experience" living in a crummy, slightly dodgy Victorian terrace than you do in a sterile, modern tower block purpose-built to extort money from students...

I would agree with various other posters that some student accommodation is an absolute rip-off, and I really don't understand why someone would want to spend £170-£200 per week on rent for a tiny box room. (And then no doubt moan that they don't have any money, university should be free, etc.)

 

[ainsworth74]

But on the other hand, there does seem to be something ethically questionable if someone has bought lots of houses and is then renting them out to people who themselves want to buy but can't because so many houses have been bought as buy-to-lets. The former form of letting arguably should be encouraged but the latter discouraged, but I don't see any way the Government can plausibly distinguish between them or what action they could reasonably take to do so.

Personally I question the need for buy-to-let mortgages, it feels like something which shouldn't exist. If you wish to go into renting properties as a business then you should surely raise capital as anyone else would do so wishing to establish a business. Not use a special product which allows you to compete potentially at an advantage, in this case, with the group of people who wish to buy a house to live in it? Therefore I'd be removing buy-to-let mortgages from the market full stop (for new ones, if you've already got one I'm not about to suggest we go around forcing people to sell up!) and if you wish to become a landlord you can either raise capital to build new housing stock for you to rent out or if you buying existing stock you have not significant advantage over someone who wishes to buy a house to live in it. It may also help keep small time one or two property landlords out of the market (though I suspect that the numbers of people in this situation is already declining) who see being a landlord as a retirement plan or similar.

I'd also want to increase the regulation of the sector (and the power of local authorities to enforce it) particularly with regards to disrepair. One of things I'm seeing a lot of at the moment is damp, mould and just general disrepair and, to be honest, there's precious little you can do about a private landlord who won't fix problems properly.

Then finally it would be to increase renters rights in general. Section 21 "no fault" evictions should be ditched as this makes basically all private rented property extremely precarious (and dissuades people from bringing problems like damp to the landlord attention, they could just evict you). To be fair the Government are talking about removing Section 21 in the nearish future but we'll see.

I suppose my more more general problem is that we treat houses far more as an asset which should produce a return rather than somewhere fundamental to our wellbeing (we all need somewhere to live!). We can see it somewhat on this thread where people are talking about being asked to put up rent "because that's what the market says" even though they have no need to do so! So why are we skewing the market with products and rules which make it easier for people to make money out of housing than protecting the ability of people to have some affordable to live?

Worth pointing out though that if a landlord exits the market and sells up, the reduces the pool of houses to rent and increases the pool of houses to buy. It doesn't however have any direct impact on the total supply of houses.

Absolutely agree on this point, it is somewhat like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Fundamentally we do not have enough housing stock so just changing the fractions between owned and rented might help in some respects but it certainly doesn't address the underlying problem of there just not being enough housing to meet the demand that we have in general for housing.

 

[duncanp]

I'd also want to increase the regulation of the sector (and the power of local authorities to enforce it) particularly with regards to disrepair. One of things I'm seeing a lot of at the moment is damp, mould and just general disrepair and, to be honest, there's precious little you can do about a private landlord who won't fix problems properly.

I agree with you about buy to let mortgages, it is a product of the extremely low interest rates that we have had until recently.

I see Andy Burnham wants local authorities to have powers to seize housing from "rogue landlords" in order to protect renters.

All well and good, but in many cases the worst housing is provided by local authorities and public sector housing associations.

The article below contains a reference to a small boy who died as a result of being exposed to mould in a flat owned by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, which describes itself as a "...tenant and employee co-owned mutual housing society.."

About RBH

Find out more about RBH, the UK's first tenant and employee co-owned mutual housing society.

www.rbh.org.uk

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing (RBH) is the UK’s first tenant and employee co-owned mutual housing society, with over 12,000 homes throughout the local area.

Mayor's plan to seize unsafe housing from rogue landlords

Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham wants to introduce a raft of new powers to help protect tenants.

www.bbc.co.uk

Mayor's plan to seize unsafe housing from rogue landlords​

Andy Burnham wants to give councils the power to seize unsafe or poor housing from rogue landlords to protect renters.
The Greater Manchester mayor's new housing sector plans include inspection teams to make landlords carry out repairs in a new deal by autumn 2024.
He called on the government to back his Good Landlord Charter.
Mr Burnham said: "Our national mission should be to give all people a good, secure home."
The moves comes following the case of toddler Awaab Ishak, who death after he was exposed to mould in his flat in Rochdale.
Mr Burnham outlined a 15-year timetable to provide a "healthy home for all" in the city region by 2038.
He said: "In simple terms, that means a home that doesn't damage your physical health through damp, mould and other physical hazards and doesn't harm your mental health because you live in fear of eviction.
"To achieve this, we are proposing a complete re-wiring of the system to put power in the hands of tenants.
"But, in doing so, we want to make it work better for everyone - tenants, landlords and local communities."
The plans also propose a "property improvement plan" for every rented home, to help connect landlords to funding and skilled contractors.

There would also be the ability to acquire properties from landlords who are unable or unwilling to meet standards.
Councils would be given enhanced enforcement teams to further protect tenants, and there would be a mandatory register of landlords - a measure proposed within the Renters Reform Bill
Mr Burnham hopes his plans will be in place by autumn 2024 if they are given the green light by the government.
Figures from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities recently revealed in 2019 almost 12% of all homes in Greater Manchester had a serious health and safety hazard.
The death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak caused national outrage after it emerged his family had repeatedly complained about mould in their flat but no action was taken before his death in 2020.
A government regulator found "widespread failings" at the housing association that rented out the mouldy flat to his family.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I rented for a few years when I became single again. There was a clause in the tenancy agreement allowing the rent to be increased by CPI on each anniversary, but it was never applied and my rent never changed.

After I left, I noticed the rent being asked was 29% higher than what I’d been paying, so the landlord wasn’t going hungry

 

[Simon11]

Personally I question the need for buy-to-let mortgages, it feels like something which shouldn't exist. If you wish to go into renting properties as a business then you should surely raise capital as anyone else would do so wishing to establish a business. Not use a special product which allows you to compete potentially at an advantage, in this case, with the group of people who wish to buy a house to live in it? Therefore I'd be removing buy-to-let mortgages from the market full stop (for new ones, if you've already got one I'm not about to suggest we go around forcing people to sell up!) and if you wish to become a landlord you can either raise capital to build new housing stock for you to rent out or if you buying existing stock you have not significant advantage over someone who wishes to buy a house to live in it. It may also help keep small time one or two property landlords out of the market (though I suspect that the numbers of people in this situation is already declining) who see being a landlord as a retirement plan or similar.

I'd also want to increase the regulation of the sector (and the power of local authorities to enforce it) particularly with regards to disrepair. One of things I'm seeing a lot of at the moment is damp, mould and just general disrepair and, to be honest, there's precious little you can do about a private landlord who won't fix problems properly.

Then finally it would be to increase renters rights in general. Section 21 "no fault" evictions should be ditched as this makes basically all private rented property extremely precarious (and dissuades people from bringing problems like damp to the landlord attention, they could just evict you). To be fair the Government are talking about removing Section 21 in the nearish future but we'll see.

I suppose my more more general problem is that we treat houses far more as an asset which should produce a return rather than somewhere fundamental to our wellbeing (we all need somewhere to live!). We can see it somewhat on this thread where people are talking about being asked to put up rent "because that's what the market says" even though they have no need to do so! So why are we skewing the market with products and rules which make it easier for people to make money out of housing than protecting the ability of people to have some affordable to live?

You post is very biased and one sided.

As a B2L investor with one flat....

Firstly on B2L mortgages, I am scratching my head with your thought. B2L mortgages have a far higher interest rate and higher capital requirements than home owners. Thus a B2L investor is already having to put a decent chunk of capital into a property to purchase it. If you remove this, say farewell to any family wishing to rent a family home as there will be very little investors with capital to purchase £500k homes up front and would get far better returns in the markets.

I agree that they should increase regulation of the sector in respect to disrepair, however if the tenant is not looking after the property and not using bathroom fans/ windows available to reduce damp/ mold then the tenant should take some of the blame/ costs to repair. For myself, I keep my flat in the best condition and I expect the tenant to return it in the same condition (respecting general wear and tear of course).

Finally, on increasing renters rights I completely disagree with you there. Tenants already have far, far too much rights than they should really have and can get away with not paying rent for over six months before landlords get the chance to evict them. The landlords are then faced with huge court fees, no income and may well end up with getting a damaged property afterwards. Potential to have a £10k cost to the landlord while the tenant does a runner with no consequences.

As an example, I had a student rent my flat out but suddenly left mid-way through the 1 year contract. As a landlord, this left me with no income and due to renters rights, I wasn't able to re-let the property for the remaining six months even when the tenant was not paying and property empty! Thankfully, the tenant had the courtesy to let me know they wish to leave via e-mail and gave the keys back. That action at least allowed me to re-let the property however it still left me with three months of no income after retaining the deposit from the tenant. Now that tenant will face no action and be free to do as they wish without any regards.

If anyone asks for tips on B2Ls, I advise them not to bother. There are far easier ways to get a better return on investment after considering capital is locked up, having to pay huge amount of tax and dealing with tenants.

 

[nlogax]

If anyone asks for tips on B2Ls, I advise them not to bother. There are far easier ways to get a better return on investment after considering capital is locked up, having to pay huge amount of tax and dealing with tenants.

If a BTL landlord would rather not deal with tenants then yes, they should absolutely explore other ways of earning an income. Ultimately these are people who are paying for a roof over their head...more than that, a home. I'd hate to be renting from someone who either has no interest or resents dealing with me as a tenant. Surely there's a human factor to being a landlord?

 

[Butts]

You post is very biased and one sided.

As a B2L investor with one flat....

Firstly on B2L mortgages, I am scratching my head with your thought. B2L mortgages have a far higher interest rate and higher capital requirements than home owners. Thus a B2L investor is already having to put a decent chunk of capital into a property to purchase it. If you remove this, say farewell to any family wishing to rent a family home as there will be very little investors with capital to purchase £500k homes up front and would get far better returns in the markets.

I agree that they should increase regulation of the sector in respect to disrepair, however if the tenant is not looking after the property and not using bathroom fans/ windows available to reduce damp/ mold then the tenant should take some of the blame/ costs to repair. For myself, I keep my flat in the best condition and I expect the tenant to return it in the same condition (respecting general wear and tear of course).

Finally, on increasing renters rights I completely disagree with you there. Tenants already have far, far too much rights than they should really have and can get away with not paying rent for over six months before landlords get the chance to evict them. The landlords are then faced with huge court fees, no income and may well end up with getting a damaged property afterwards. Potential to have a £10k cost to the landlord while the tenant does a runner with no consequences.

As an example, I had a student rent my flat out but suddenly left mid-way through the 1 year contract. As a landlord, this left me with no income and due to renters rights, I wasn't able to re-let the property for the remaining six months even when the tenant was not paying and property empty! Thankfully, the tenant had the courtesy to let me know they wish to leave via e-mail and gave the keys back. That action at least allowed me to re-let the property however it still left me with three months of no income after retaining the deposit from the tenant. Now that tenant will face no action and be free to do as they wish without any regards.

If anyone asks for tips on B2Ls, I advise them not to bother. There are far easier ways to get a better return on investment after considering capital is locked up, having to pay huge amount of tax and dealing with tenants.

What happens when the Tenant attempts to rent another property and requires a reference ?

Why don't you chase him for the money owing? Even if you don't end up getting the cash it will leave an indelible mark on their Credit File.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with you about buy to let mortgages, it is a product of the extremely low interest rates that we have had until recently.

I see Andy Burnham wants local authorities to have powers to seize housing from "rogue landlords" in order to protect renters.

All well and good, but in many cases the worst housing is provided by local authorities and public sector housing associations.

The article below contains a reference to a small boy who died as a result of being exposed to mould in a flat owned by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, which describes itself as a "...tenant and employee co-owned mutual housing society.."

About RBH

Find out more about RBH, the UK's first tenant and employee co-owned mutual housing society.

www.rbh.org.uk

Mayor's plan to seize unsafe housing from rogue landlords

Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham wants to introduce a raft of new powers to help protect tenants.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not all, but a lot of, mould is caused by tenants failing to ventilate properly, or having furniture pushed up against outside walls.

I don't have a bathroom extractor fan so always shower with the window open even in the dead of winter, and leave it open until the mirror is clear. I consequently don't have a mould problem. For a bit I had a lodger who despite being told repeatedly didn't do this. Guess what? Loads of mould started growing in the bathroom.

Similarly, if you don't have an extractor (most cooker hoods aren't extractors, they're just grease filters), particularly if using gas, you need a window open when cooking. And if you are drying clothes indoors in a smaller property.

The Germans are obsessed with lueften. We need to be too.

(That's not to say that some isn't caused by leaky roofs, windows, rising damp etc - it is, and those landlords need to fix it or face heavy penalties - but a lot of it isn't and is unfairly blamed on landlords)

 

[richw]

What happens when the Tenant attempts to rent another property and requires a reference ?

Why don't you chase him for the money owing? Even if you don't end up getting the cash it will leave an indelible mark on their Credit File.

My thoughts. Why can’t you get a CCJ on the tenant? Or does legislation prevent that?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My thoughts. Why can’t you get a CCJ on the tenant? Or does legislation prevent that?

Most likely, if you're the landlord in that situation, it may not be worth it. You'll spend more money and time getting the judgement, and there's still a good chance you won't get what you're owed back. The tenant might disappear once you've got them out of your property and just not tell you where they've moved to. In principle, justice says that you probably should get a CCJ - not least to discourage the person from doing the same thing to other people in the future. But hard practicalities say you may well be just throwing bad money after good money

 

[Simon11]

Most likely, if you're the landlord in that situation, it may not be worth it. You'll spend more money and time getting the judgement, and there's still a good chance you won't get what you're owed back. The tenant might disappear once you've got them out of your property and just not tell you where they've moved to. In principle, justice says that you probably should get a CCJ - not least to discourage the person from doing the same thing to other people in the future. But hard practicalities say you may well be just throwing bad money after good money

Agreed and I believe they now live abroad so absolutely pointless. At least they returned the keys and left the property in a good state unlike many other tenants you see on TV shows.

And another point to raise, is that during that year I made no profit according to the tax return* and thus the government owed and paid me money at the end of that tax year which ultimately comes from all our and your pockets due to our weak landlord rights.

* Worth highlighting that in your tax return, you aren't allow to include all your expenditure on managing the flat. Thus the government thinks you have made a profit when in reality it excludes mortgage costs and personal time, thus could actually have made a loss.

 

[ainsworth74]

I see Andy Burnham wants local authorities to have powers to seize housing from "rogue landlords" in order to protect renters.

Ironically, despite my previous pronouncements, I'm somewhat uncomfortable about the idea of just "seizing" properties off people, even rogue landlords! I'd rather they were put in the position where they either bring their housing up to a suitable standard or they have to sell up. Not entirely sure that the state should be going around seizing properties.

All well and good, but in many cases the worst housing is provided by local authorities and public sector housing associations.

The article below contains a reference to a small boy who died as a result of being exposed to mould in a flat owned by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, which describes itself as a "...tenant and employee co-owned mutual housing society.."

About RBH

Find out more about RBH, the UK's first tenant and employee co-owned mutual housing society.

www.rbh.org.uk

Mayor's plan to seize unsafe housing from rogue landlords

Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham wants to introduce a raft of new powers to help protect tenants.

www.bbc.co.uk

Absolutely true and that case in particular was horrific. I deal with housing associations and they're very much a mixed bag. Some are on the ball and deal with tenant complaints quickly and competently but unfortunately some don't (the large more corporatized ones seem to to be particularly prone to getting things wrong). I've often had people moaning that "my Housing Association is doing nothing about these issues!" and when you ring up you'll find that they've arranged people to come and deal with all the issues raised by the tenant...

That being said someone in a Housing Association or Council property at least has the advantage of a much greater security of tenure (no Section 21 "no fault" evictions) so they can feel confident that reporting issues, making complaints and potentially even taking court action (we have a local firm of solicitors around here will take disrepair and mould cases on a "no win no fee" basis) won't result in an eviction notice landing on the door mat. But you're spot on that it isn't just a private sector issue.

Fundamentally as much as some people and, it seems, the Government try to pretend otherwise (or at best just pay lip service) we have a housing crisis in this country. We don't have enough housing stock and a lot of the housing stock we have is clapped out.

You post is very biased and one sided.

As a B2L investor with one flat....

Though of course you haven't got a bias of your own

Firstly on B2L mortgages, I am scratching my head with your thought. B2L mortgages have a far higher interest rate and higher capital requirements than home owners. Thus a B2L investor is already having to put a decent chunk of capital into a property to purchase it. If you remove this, say farewell to any family wishing to rent a family home as there will be very little investors with capital to purchase £500k homes up front and would get far better returns in the markets.

Though, er, if you and others weren't there buying up homes then that family might well be able to afford to buy a house instead because there would be less pressure on the housing market. Unless you're suggesting that it was either a B2L landlord buy the property or it gets demolished?

I agree that they should increase regulation of the sector in respect to disrepair, however if the tenant is not looking after the property and not using bathroom fans/ windows available to reduce damp/ mold then the tenant should take some of the blame/ costs to repair. For myself, I keep my flat in the best condition and I expect the tenant to return it in the same condition (respecting general wear and tear of course).

I'm glad to hear it, if only it were the case that all private landlords were as conscientious as yourself but, sadly, that isn't the case! One thing I would note though that, especially this winter, it has, of course, been hard for some tenants as in order to air the property out (and I'm a big believer in open windows!) but also keep it warm enough with the cost of heating. Dunno if that might apply to your tenants but just something that I've seen a little bit of recently.

Finally, on increasing renters rights I completely disagree with you there. Tenants already have far, far too much rights than they should really have and can get away with not paying rent for over six months before landlords get the chance to evict them. The landlords are then faced with huge court fees, no income and may well end up with getting a damaged property afterwards. Potential to have a £10k cost to the landlord while the tenant does a runner with no consequences.

Why didn't you evict them under Section 8 Ground 8 (a ground where the Court has to give possession if proven?) once they were in two month arrears? Why did you give them six months to get into arrears? Presumably you were trying to negotiate during that time and it must have become clear they were not going to be paying up?

Fundamentally we're clearly going to disagree but I'm sad that you can't see how the looming threat of a Section 21 eviction (once the tenancy is four months old or the fixed term expires) causes serious issues for tenants and how short rolling tenancies also help to engender a feeling of precarity. I struggle to agree that, as long as landlords can evict someone without needing a reason, the odds are stacked against landlords.

As an example, I had a student rent my flat out but suddenly left mid-way through the 1 year contract. As a landlord, this left me with no income and due to renters rights, I wasn't able to re-let the property for the remaining six months even when the tenant was not paying and property empty! Thankfully, the tenant had the courtesy to let me know they wish to leave via e-mail and gave the keys back. That action at least allowed me to re-let the property however it still left me with three months of no income after retaining the deposit from the tenant. Now that tenant will face no action and be free to do as they wish without any regards.

I mean that sounds like the price of doing business. Sometimes "business" is going to be rubbish but I struggle to see that landlords have done particularly badly over the past decade or so in general. The market might be tightening on them now but it's still far tighter on tenants in the majority of places. Also the fact they told you makes it sound like there was an express agreement between you to bring the tenancy to an end early meaning you could have re-let the property immediately (obviously there may still be a delay finding a new tenant), you wouldn't need to wait the full six months of the remainder of the tenancy. Even if there had been no contact you could have brought possession proceedings against the tenant to regain possession and then re-let.

I don't dispute that it was a rubbish situation for you but I'm also not convinced that it's a sign that renters have excessive rights that you were out a few months rent whilst it was being sorted. Again, after four months you, as the landlord, have the power to evict them just because you feel like it. That's hardly secure...

If anyone asks for tips on B2Ls, I advise them not to bother. There are far easier ways to get a better return on investment after considering capital is locked up, having to pay huge amount of tax and dealing with tenants.

I mean my initial reaction to this is close to just "boohoo". Housing should be about ensuring people have someone to live. If you don't get a rate of return then frankly that's a problem for landlords who see tenants as cash machines rather than people who need somewhere to live which is a rather fundamental requirement. Again, unless the property that a B2L landlord was buying is going to be demolished then a B2L landlord is simply adding pressure to a market which is already overheated. Now if our landlord were raising capital to build say a new house somewhere to let out that would be a different matter. But buying up houses that already exist to then lease out to make money out of people, reduce the amount of housing available for purchase as homes (rather than investments) I have very little sympathy for.

B2L landlords exclaim that they're fulfilling a vital role in providing rental accommodation. But if they had never existed it's not like all those houses would have been demolished...

And another point to raise, is that during that year I made no profit according to the tax return* and thus the government owed and paid me money at the end of that tax year which ultimately comes from all our and your pockets due to our weak landlord rights.

* Worth highlighting that in your tax return, you aren't allow to include all your expenditure on managing the flat. Thus the government thinks you have made a profit when in reality it excludes mortgage costs and personal time, thus could actually have made a loss.

Sounds like the downsides of running a business to me. Sometimes you make a profit but sometimes you make a loss. No-one guarantees that you should make money just because you're renting a house out. If you're not making money then perhaps you should sell and realise the capital value of the asset and allow someone else to buy a home to live in rather than try and make money out of someone else meeting a basic requirement?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm glad to hear it, if only it were the case that all private landlords were as conscientious as yourself but, sadly, that isn't the case! One thing I would note though that, especially this winter, it has, of course, been hard for some tenants as in order to air the property out (and I'm a big believer in open windows!) but also keep it warm enough with the cost of heating. Dunno if that might apply to your tenants but just something that I've seen a little bit of recently.

And specifically on that, quite often landlords do not help themselves. Think poorly insulated properties, or ones where the only heating available is provided by expensive electric panel heaters (some without even simple controls like timers etc). Of course in those situations tenants are going to be less than willing to keep windows open in the cold! If those same landlords actually invested in their properties and improved the insulation and provided more affordable heating options, then it is likely tenants would feel more able to properly air the place out without it costing a bucketload in wasted heating!

 

[Gloster]

There are good and bad landlords, and good and bad tenants. If a good landlord has a bad tenant, well, I am afraid, to my mind that and how you deal with it is just one of the elements that you have to factor in to your calculations when you decide to invest your money in buy-to-let property. But a good tenant with a bad landlord has the problems coming right into his or her own home, their (to use the modern term) ‘safe space’.

Although I have been out of renting for almost twenty years, I do feel that the system has been skewed towards the landlord for some time and has, in recent years, particularly favoured the holders of large portfolios. The crocodile tears from a group that has done well out of other people’s desperation only raise my hackles. And, yes, I am aware that many landlords have been reasonable, even exceptionally so, but we see and hear all to many landlords crying out about the unfairness of how they won’t make so much money this and demanding that the government do something to protect their profits...even things that will mess up tenants’ lives even more.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

* Worth highlighting that in your tax return, you aren't allow to include all your expenditure on managing the flat. Thus the government thinks you have made a profit when in reality it excludes mortgage costs and personal time, thus could actually have made a loss.

Mortgage costs (or more precisely, mortgage interest), I agree with you. Any interest that you pay is a legitimate business expense. Not being able to include it in your tax calculation means you're being taxed on an amount that is greater than the profits you actually make, so you could be making a loss and then still having to pay tax. That's unfair and off the top of my head I can't think of any other business that applies to. But personal time you spend working on the business is not a legitimate expense in any business: There's no reason why that should be claimable in any way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2023 ==

Personally I question the need for buy-to-let mortgages, it feels like something which shouldn't exist. If you wish to go into renting properties as a business then you should surely raise capital as anyone else would do so wishing to establish a business.

I would say that if you take out a buy-to-let mortgage, that is raising capital in much the same way another business might. A mortgage gives you a lower interest rate than most other business loans purely because it's safer for the lender - because if you default, they can usually get their money back by repossessing the property (I would hope that for a buy-to-let, they would then be legally obliged to act as landlord and honour any existing tenancy agreements?). The ethical problem with trying to ban buy-to-let mortgages is this: If I want to borrow some money and you're willing to lend me the money, that's our basic freedom to enter into whatever business agreements we wish, and not really anyone else's business. I would say you need extremely good reasons before you start restricting people's freedom in that way.

I'd also want to increase the regulation of the sector (and the power of local authorities to enforce it) particularly with regards to disrepair. One of things I'm seeing a lot of at the moment is damp, mould and just general disrepair and, to be honest, there's precious little you can do about a private landlord who won't fix problems properly.

In general, I'd say that improving regulations to enforce a rental property being in good repair and decent habitable condition is a good thing. That seems to me to fall under basic consumer protection/requiring businesses/landlords to act ethically. But I do feel concerned that the narrative is very one sided: Ultimately, a bad landlord can ruin a tenant's life, and equally a bad tenant can ruin a landlord's life. Letting/renting a house is a high risk thing on both sides if the other party turns out to behave badly. But all we ever seem to hear about is how tenants need protecting from bad landlords, and nothing the other way round: For example, there do seem to be serious issues that if a tenant starts not paying rent/not looking after or even deliberately smashing up the property/etc. there's very little the landlord can do about it in any reasonable timeframe. I have a friend who rents out a house, who found out that the current tenant told her a total bunch of (arguably, malicious) lies to secure the tenancy - basically getting the house by what looks to me as a non-legal person like direct fraud. She's now understandably very worried about her house and desperately concerned to get the tenant out, but with a fixed 12 month agreement, powerless to do anything, unless she ventured into what would likely be prohibitively expensive legal action that would itself take many months.

I'd feel more comfortable if as a nation we were looking at how to better deal with rogue people on both sides.

 

[ainsworth74]

I would say that if you take out a buy-to-let mortgage, that is raising capital in much the same way another business might. A mortgage gives you a lower interest rate than most other business loans purely because it's safer for the lender - because if you default, they can usually get their money back by repossessing the property (I would hope that for a buy-to-let, they would then be legally obliged to act as landlord and honour any existing tenancy agreements?). The ethical problem with trying to ban buy-to-let mortgages is this: If I want to borrow some money and you're willing to lend me the money, that's our basic freedom to enter into whatever business agreements we wish, and not really anyone else's business. I would say you need extremely good reasons before you start restricting people's freedom in that way.

But the B2L is a specific product that gives advantages to those who wish buy houses to then let out? What is the benefit of allowing such a thing when one of the big impacts appears to be helping to heat up the housing market and making it harder for people who want to buy homes to live in to buy them (and arguably is making it harder in some respects for people to rent seeing as rising house prices will trickle down into higher rents?)? We seemed to manage until the 1980s without B2L mortgages? I'm not suggesting you couldn't go and get a commercial mortgage to purchase a property like a house to then let out that to me would truly be raising capital (in this specific situation). I would even be easy, actually, if there was a style of B2L mortgage which someone could use to fund the conversion of existing non-residential properties into residential properties for let (say one of those big Victorian warehouse type things). That at least is bringing more housing stock to market. Or if a B2L mortgage could be used to fund the construction of brand new housing stock designed for leasing. Again, that would be increasing the housing stock.

I appreciate your argument about it not being "anyone's business what agreements anyone else enters into" and I even broadly agree in general terms but I'm far from convinced that making it easier for people to buy up existing houses (which could otherwise be bought by people who actually want to live in them, not just make a return on their investment) isn't something which we, as a society, should be encouraging. Again, it's not as if a B2L landlord is saving a property from demolition. If they didn't exist the house/flat/etc would still be there...

In general, I'd say that improving regulations to enforce a rental property being in good repair and decent habitable condition is a good thing. That seems to me to fall under basic consumer protection/requiring businesses/landlords to act ethically. But I do feel concerned that the narrative is very one sided: Ultimately, a bad landlord can ruin a tenant's life, and equally a bad tenant can ruin a landlord's life. Letting/renting a house is a high risk thing on both sides if the other party turns out to behave badly. But all we ever seem to hear about is how tenants need protecting from bad landlords, and nothing the other way round: For example, there do seem to be serious issues that if a tenant starts not paying rent/not looking after or even deliberately smashing up the property/etc. there's very little the landlord can do about it in any reasonable timeframe. I have a friend who rents out a house, who found out that the current tenant told her a total bunch of (arguably, malicious) lies to secure the tenancy - basically getting the house by what looks to me as a non-legal person like direct fraud. She's now understandably very worried about her house and desperately concerned to get the tenant out, but with a fixed 12 month agreement, powerless to do anything, unless she ventured into what would likely be prohibitively expensive legal action that would itself take many months.

I'd feel more comfortable if as a nation we were looking at how to better deal with rogue people on both sides.

Sure but she's (and other landlords) are running a business at the end of the day. If damage and losses on one property is enough to "ruin a landlords life" they sound like they might be extremely over-exposed to risk! I would suggest that some landlord's insurance might have been a wise idea to help indemnify themselves against the costs of bad tenants. Fundamentally is it any different to anyone else who runs their own business? It may well sink, and it may well do so for reasons not of their own making. That's the risk you take by running a business and renting property is a business. Meanwhile if some who is evicted could very easily end up homeless and that certainly can ruin your life.

I'm not disputing the problems that nightmare tenants can cause so perhaps there is room to review the grounds available to a landlord. Though in your friend's case there is already the option of issuing a Section 8 notice seeking possession under Ground 17 (recovery of possession where where the tenancy was granted by a false statement) as well as Ground 13 (where the tenant has through action or inaction caused the condition of the property to deteriorate). Both require only two weeks notice before bringing proceedings in court. Cheap? No there will be a few hundred pounds in fees. But they are running a business and this is sometimes the price of doing business! But I think fundamentally where we've gone wrong here isn't in that we let tenants get away with too much (after four months or the expiration of your fixed term Section 21 allows a landlord to evict you, no reason required). But more that we have encouraged/allowed through things like B2L mortgages people who probably shouldn't be in the business of being a landlord to become a landlord.

 

[nlogax]

But more that we have encouraged/allowed through things like B2L mortgages people who probably shouldn't be in the business of being a landlord to become a landlord.

Absolutely agree with this. We have far too many BTL landlords who are all about 'maximising yield' with barely a thought for the tenants beyond the absolute bare minimum they can legally get away with.

 

[75A]

We have put the rent up on our tenanted property this year for first time since tenant moved in 5 years ago, had also not wanted to rock the boat, but too many costs (including mortgage) were going up.

We're just about to do exactly the same.