The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
You may not realise it, but you were in effect suggesting that it should have been.
I disagree.
I suspect that CR's property was quite nice and located in south-east commuter land.
Such places are always in demand whereas 'firesale' prices are those well below 'normal' market prices.
Mr. Cookie, humans are capable of huge amounts of cognitive dissonance.
I recall Mr. T posting about some young friends (20s) he had, who were drinking expensive champagne and extolling the virtues of Corbynism, as if the rich were not themselves.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
/blockquote>
Agreed, there is a space for a private rental market but it should be much smaller than it has become. It has reached this stage through government subsidies via housing benefit, QE, state run and subsidised mortgage banks creating an almost religious belief in property prices being guaranteed to increase, combined with a complete lack of education about investment alternatives such as shares and bonds.
Landlord benefit - don't get me started on that one !
At least those overpriced shitty Persimmon newbuilds (with all their issues) start to solve the rental nightmare the UK has become.
For those we have help to buy which basically means you have to pay 20% more or (40% more in London), to buy a new home. Thanks a lot for the "help". The Persimmon CEO and directors thanks might be a lot more genuine.
Those kind of millionaires, guess one or two might be billionaires, paid for within a decade of state subsidy, are the ones Corbyn should be targetting, not the ones who have started genuine transformative businesses.
How does Help to Buy make a property 20% more expensive? New builds are in the same property market as the rest of the market and make a small percentage of the overall market. Supply and demand determines prices and we have ever more households and need more properties or prices must rise. More new builds = more supply of homes = lower prices.
Eliminating help to buy would not cause prices to drop 20% and if fewer homes got built as a result would likely send prices up not down. That's basic economics!
In a supply constrained market, prices are set by what the marginal seller is willing to pay. If you are subsiding someone’s purchase cost then they can pay more.
Hence prices rise - help to buy was designed to support the property market.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places landlords and Tennants in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
I've rented all my life (with a brief exception) and nearly always had excellent landlords and I've been a landlord too - I'm by no means against buy-to-let if they do the job properly as Casino did. We need a good rental market! Just not a master-and-slave relationship. My proposal would allow everyone to behave reasonably - I've no objection to the requirement for a deeper clean at the end of tenancy if you've had pets. As someone said on the last thread, often the process is driven not by concerned landlords but by indifferent agents making life easy for themselves.
FPT - after having let to multiple tenants in the past, always stipulating no pets, I let my property out to one who did in 2018 during a particularly dry time in the rental market.
While I understand that some tenants can be really terrible, I think it's bad form for landlords to complain about tenants in public, especially if you're going to generalise like in the last paragraph.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
Of course you could sell it. Just not at the price you wanted or at a price you thought it would be more profitable to rent out at instead.
Ditch the pretence that you did not make a decision and were forced to become a landlord.
Wanker. As are those who “liked” this (triple wankers). You know nothing about my property or circumstance. We couldn’t find a single buyer at the time and had already dropped the price £40k.
And, I made no profit on renting it out at all. It just covered the mortgage.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
...
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Accidental landlords do happen. My wife’s mother’s aunt had to go into care. Her flat was rented out to help pay for that. There was a religious dimension to the care and a tennant was found via the church. Ultimately the aunt died, meanwhile the tennant stopped paying the rent and vacated the flat as a wreck. All that happened at the same time they were grieving. The stress was unimaginable.
The market is a cesspit.
Just discovered that a friend of mine - who is ceaselessly posting pro-Corbyn tropes on facebook - is in the midst of starting her rented property empire. People are endlessly surprising.
I wouldnt find that surprising at all. A quarter of the shadow cabinet own second homes. Of course the numbers are worse in the cabinet but being a Corbynista doesnt stop someone from wanting to get rich quick.
Anyone taken a look at Ladbrokes' "buzzword bingo" as regards which words/sayings might be spoken during tonight's debate? "Marxist" at evens looked like the value bet to me.
Btw Laddies are also running a book on who will win tonight's debate, based on YouGov's poll findings. The current odds are: Corbyn ...... 8/11 Johnson .... Evens
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights andrevious thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I hav are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interestingntals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Accidental landlords do happen.
The market is a cesspit.
But the Aunt or her power of attorney could have sold the flat to fund the care. It was a choice, even if it was in difficult circumstances.
Sometimes you need to raise cash quickly. It may have been a choice, but not an unreasonable one not knowing the market and having church approved Tennant ready to go.
Your experience sounds horrific.
There have always been bad landlords and bad tenants - since time began. Renting is a managed risk l, I think, by both parties.
Unfortunately government can never legislate away human nature, or indeed personal living habits.
Well quite, with domestic renting you’re playing with lots of deep human nature and emotions. The setup of the UK market seams to amplify rather than mitigate these effects. It’s really something to avoid wherever possible IMO. You end up posting about how your curtains smell. 😀
FPT - after having let to multiple tenants in the past, always stipulating no pets, I let my property out to one who did in 2018 during a particularly dry time in the rental market.
Now, I’ve put the property on the market for sale. If you want a pet (which is a privilege, not a right) you first need to be able to afford to keep one and look after it, and I’d recommend you get your own place too.
While I understand that some tenants can be really terrible, I think it's bad form for landlords to complain about tenants in public,.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
Not ideology, just experience. For example, my last rental I had to take the agent to court and engage bailiffs to recover my deposit.
The market is utterly failing and needs serious reform. I feel sorry for you.
FPT - after having let to multiple tenants in the past, always stipulating no pets, I let my property out to one who did in 2018 during a particularly dry time in the rental market.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
Of course you could sell it. Just not at the price you wanted or at a price you thought it would be more profitable to rent out at instead.
Ditch the pretence that you did not make a decision and were forced to become a landlord.
Wanker. As are those who “liked” this (triple wankers). You know nothing about my property or circumstance. We couldn’t find a single buyer at the time and had already dropped the price £40k.
And, I made no profit on renting it out at all. It just covered the mortgage.
Mind your own business, dickhead.
No, its a forum, you make a point, it is open to others to reply.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Bullocks. Our neighbour had submitted a planning application for a major extension and were requesting a deed of easement over our land too. No-one would buy it as a result. My wife was expecting a baby and we had to move as the house was far too small.
The only choice we had was to turn our house into a let to buy so we could release equity and move.
There are other examples too. Such as when people lose a job or have to move geographies and they can’t sell.
Yes, you could knock 50% off the price of your property and sell it (and take a massive loss) but funnily enough few people are that keen on that, and you wouldn’t be too.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
Where are the 15 Conservative losses to the LibDems ?
Its a lot easier to find the 31 Conservative gains from Labour.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
Exactly.
Some remarkable dickheadery and ignorance on here this morning.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
Do you know Casino, that's precisely what worries me. I suppose that should those double digit leads remain it place then lots of Tory seat gains will result, as surely as night follows day. But if the Tory lead narrows very appreciably, as it did in 2017, not only do Labour hold onto far more seats, but the LibDems win many more also ... awkward. Such a scenario may not be very likely, but it does seems entirely possible. Which of Ladbrokes' bets would you then prefer to be on: the Tories to win 250-299 seats at 18/1* or the Tories to win 400+ seats at 4.2/1*? More realistically an evens money bet on them winning between 300-349 seats looks pretty good value to me.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Bullocks. Our neighbour had submitted a planning application for a major extension and were requesting a deed of easement over our land too. No-one would buy it as a result. My wife was expecting a baby and we had to move as the house was far too small.
The only choice we had was to turn our house into a let to buy so we could release equity and move.
There are other examples too. Such as when people lose a job or have to move geographies and they can’t sell.
Yes, you could knock 50% off the price of your property and sell it (and take a massive loss) but funnily enough few people are that keen on that, and you wouldn’t be too.
In that case you did have a genuine reason for not selling.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
If the LDs do gain just 3 Tory seats the Tories only need 16 gains from Labour assuming the SNP gain 5 Tory seats for a majority, a swing of just 1% from Labour on 2017 would do that
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
Yes it was, you nob.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
I thought the last thread was all about why Boris will be the debate loser? Does nobody read these threads?
Fun fact, I'm completely illiterate. So no.
Here's expecting an overreaction to the debate, whatever happens. I expect corbyn will land some blows and Boris will bluster, and people will say he looks terrible and corbynites will share many vital clips. But the tory share will probably stay the same and the labour one increase only a little.
A Boris win is on the cards, simply because his team will adjust quickly after yesterday's performance. Quite often we see that dominance in one debate does not carry forward to the next leg. Regardless of who is adjudged the winner, the social media teams in both campaigns will distribute short video clips of their man's highlights and his opponent's pratfalls.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an idditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
Yes it was, you nob.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
It's obviously a very sensitive subject for you but whatever the reason, people weren't or wouldn't be buying your house because of the price.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
Exactly.
Some remarkable dickheadery and ignorance on here this morning.
I'm sorry but there is no such thing as an accidental landlord. Anyone who is a landlord has made a decision to be one based on the circumstances they found themselves in.
FPT - after having let to multiple tenants in the past, always stipulating no pets, I let my property out to one who did in 2018 during a particularly dry time in the rental market.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
Of course you could sell it. Just not at the price you wanted or at a price you thought it would be more profitable to rent out at instead.
Ditch the pretence that you did not make a decision and were forced to become a landlord.
Wanker. As are those who “liked” this (triple wankers). You know nothing about my property or circumstance. We couldn’t find a single buyer at the time and had already dropped the price £40k.
And, I made no profit on renting it out at all. It just covered the mortgage.
Mind your own business, dickhead.
No, its a forum, you make a point, it is open to others to reply.
Then don’t presume to lecture me on my sincerity or question my integrity knowing precisely nothing of my circumstances.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
If the LDs do gain just 3 Tory seats the Tories only need 16 gains from Labour assuming the SNP gain 5 Tory seats for a majority, a swing of just 1% from Labour on 2017 would do that
I think the LDs will gain far more from the Tories than that
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
.
Agreed, there is a space for a private rental market but it should be much smaller than it has become. It has reached this stage through government subsidies via housing benefit, QE, state run and subsidised mortgage banks creating an almost religious belief in property prices being guaranteed to increase, combined with a complete lack of education about investment alternatives such as shares and bonds.
Landlord benefit - don't get me started on that one !
At least those overpriced shitty Persimmon newbuilds (with all their issues) start to solve the rental nightmare the UK has become.
For those we have help to buy which basically means you have to pay 20% more or (40% more in London), to buy a new home. Thanks a lot for the "help". The Persimmon CEO and directors thanks might be a lot more genuine.
Those kind of millionaires, guess one or two might be billionaires, paid for within a decade of state subsidy, are the ones Corbyn should be targetting, not the ones who have started genuine transformative businesses.
Help to buy and shared ownership have actually helped a lot of people get on the housing ladder who would otherwise not have done so
Just calling it help to buy does not mean it helps the buyers. It clearly helps the seller.
The govt provides ultra cheap subsidised loans to the purchaser on top of (not replacing) what the banks are loaning. With an undersupply of new homes, buyers are forced to spend this additional credit to compete with other potential buyers. It just moves up the price by the amount of the government builder subsidy (aka help to buy). Buyers have to eventually pay this extra 20-40% back (along with their student loans and forced pensions which no previous generations have been asked to do).
By which time they are then property owners, have private pensions and no previous generation had more than 10% going to university.
Plus through local plans new homes are being built anyway increasing supply
On landlord subject, not one anymore. Had a flat, decent tenant, no issues etc. He had to move. Greek mother & teenage sons moved in, became tenants from hell. They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
By so we could release equity and move.
There are other examples too. Such as when people lose a job or have to move geographies and they can’t sell.
Yes, you could knock 50% off the price of your property and sell it (and take a massive loss) but funnily enough few people are that keen on that, and you wouldn’t be too.
In that case you did have a genuine reason for not selling.
Did your neighbour get his extension ?
Thank you.
Yes, it was a genuinely stressful time for us.
I really really didn’t want to be a landlord. Too much time and hassle and it cost me money.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
If the LDs do gain just 3 Tory seats the Tories only need 16 gains from Labour assuming the SNP gain 5 Tory seats for a majority, a swing of just 1% from Labour on 2017 would do that
I think the LDs will gain far more from the Tories than that
The latest ICM and Deltapoll and Survation have a swing of just 3% from Tory to LD meaning just 3 LD gains from the Tories
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
If the LDs do gain just 3 Tory seats the Tories only need 16 gains from Labour assuming the SNP gain 5 Tory seats for a majority, a swing of just 1% from Labour on 2017 would do that
I think the LDs will gain far more from the Tories than that
The latest ICM and Deltapoll and Survation have a swing of just 3% from Tory to LD meaning just 3 LD gains from the Tories
"meaning" no such thing. Of all the contests, the Tory to LibDem ones will likely be the least reflective of any uniform swing.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
Bullocks. Our neighbour had submitted a planning application for a major extension and were requesting a deed of easement over our land too. No-one would buy it as a result. My wife was expecting a baby and we had to move as the house was far too small.
The only choice we had was to turn our house into a let to buy so we could release equity and move.
There are other examples too. Such as when people lose a job or have to move geographies and they can’t sell.
Yes, you could knock 50% off the price of your property and sell it (and take a massive loss) but funnily enough few people are that keen on that, and you wouldn’t be too.
In that case you did have a genuine reason for not selling.
Did your neighbour get his extension ?
But still you made a decision to let rather than sell and you were lucky that the surveyor "ignored" the value reducing information when revaluing your house.
On landlord subject, not one anymore. Had a flat, decent tenant, no issues etc. He had to move. Greek mother & teenage sons moved in, became tenants from hell. They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
The idea that the current legal arrangements for the rental market are "completely stacked against landlords" is utterly laughable. I suggest you go research the position in other European countries.
On landlord subject, not one anymore. Had a flat, decent tenant, no issues etc. He had to move. Greek mother & teenage sons moved in, became tenants from hell. They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
Yes it was, you nob.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
Assumptions are made because you didn't give any details.
There's nothing wrong with making rational assumptions to fill in gaps of missing information.
So you are the nob for not providing proper information.
On landlord subject, not one anymore. Had a flat, decent tenant, no issues etc. He had to move. Greek mother & teenage sons moved in, became tenants from hell. They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
The idea that the current legal arrangements for the rental market are "completely stacked against landlords" is utterly laughable. I suggest you go research the position in other European countries.
It can be, if you encounter a tenant from hell. It can take you months to get them out, and you'll never recover the legal fees or rent arrears.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
Far from it, any increase in Labour share has mainly come from the LDs while the Tories have no Brexit Party in Tory seats meaning the Tories hold more seats from the LDs and need to gain fewer Labour seats
On landlord subject, not one anymore. Had a flat, decent tenant, no issues etc. He had to move. Greek mother & teenage sons moved in, became tenants from hell. They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
The idea that the current legal arrangements for the rental market are "completely stacked against landlords" is utterly laughable. I suggest you go research the position in other European countries.
It can be, if you encounter a tenant from hell. It can take you months to get them out, and you'll never recover the legal fees or rent arrears.
You make the assumption that turfing someone from their home in less than "months" is somehow reasonable.
FPT - after having let to multiple tenants in the past, always stipulating no pets, I let my property out to one who did in 2018 during a particularly dry time in the rental market.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
Of course you could sell it. Just not at the price you wanted or at a price you thought it would be more profitable to rent out at instead.
Ditch the pretence that you did not make a decision and were forced to become a landlord.
Wanker. As are those who “liked” this (triple wankers). You know nothing about my property or circumstance. We couldn’t find a single buyer at the time and had already dropped the price £40k.
And, I made no profit on renting it out at all. It just covered the mortgage.
Mind your own business, dickhead.
No, its a forum, you make a point, it is open to others to reply.
Then don’t presume to lecture me on my sincerity or question my integrity knowing precisely nothing of my circumstances.
I don’t like it and I don’t react well to it.
It’s deeply personal.
My last post on this as it is obviously upsetting you and that is not my intention. If you dont like the topic and situation being discussed freely then dont raise it.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
Of course you could sell it. Just not at the price you wanted or at a price you thought it would be more profitable to rent out at instead.
Ditch the pretence that you did not make a decision and were forced to become a landlord.
Wanker. As are those who “liked” this (triple wankers). You know nothing about my property or circumstance. We couldn’t find a single buyer at the time and had already dropped the price £40k.
And, I made no profit on renting it out at all. It just covered the mortgage.
Mind your own business, dickhead.
No, its a forum, you make a point, it is open to others to reply.
Then don’t presume to lecture me on my sincerity or question my integrity knowing precisely nothing of my circumstances.
I don’t like it and I don’t react well to it.
It’s deeply personal.
If something is deeply personal then I wouldn't bring it up in an online discussion of an issue people have strong feelings about.
And if you do then you need to give sufficient details so that others can properly understand your situation.
I'm sure nobody wanted to upset you and hope you managed to sell the house eventually.
Have we found a topic that generates even more anger, division and discord than Brexit?
I too have had my bad experiences with landlords, and I do think that a government could do more to help private renters, and to make other forms of investment more attractive than the housing market.
I also think that Corbyn wants to stoke this division, in the same way that Johnson wants to stoke division over Brexit, and to benefit from casting landlords as a scapegoat, onto whom society can heap blame for societies ills.
Quite odd isn't it. Until the 50's renting, often Local Authority renting, was common and very often satisfactory for all concerned. Back in the thirties one set of my wife's grandparents used to move every couple of years on principle....... no, he had an excellent job, and no unemployment. My paternal grandparents did the same, although they were by no means as well off. I think they just wanted to be nearer whichever Chapel they were attending. We started off renting, back in the 60's, in a very pleasant little flat by a lake. Just right for a young couple, both of whom were working. My in-laws, a local government officer and a teacher, rented a Council house for many, many years.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
You may not realise it, but you were in effect suggesting that it should have been.
I disagree.
I suspect that CR's property was quite nice and located in south-east commuter land.
Such places are always in demand whereas 'firesale' prices are those well below 'normal' market prices.
Why do you suspect that?
And you have plainly never or hardly ever bought or sold a house. "always in demand" ffs.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
I’m g
The
Like many others
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
Yes it was, you nob.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
It's obviously a very sensitive subject for you but whatever the reason, people weren't or wouldn't be buying your house because of the price.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
Yes it was, you nob.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
Assumptions are made because you didn't give any details.
There's nothing wrong with making rational assumptions to fill in gaps of missing information.
So you are the nob for not providing proper information.
You are the nob for exercising your prejudices and not taking my post at face value.
Bullocks. Our neighbour had submitted a planning application for a major extension and were requesting a deed of easement over our land too. No-one would buy it as a result. My wife was expecting a baby and we had to move as the house was far too small.
The only choice we had was to turn our house into a let to buy so we could release equity and move.
There are other examples too. Such as when people lose a job or have to move geographies and they can’t sell.
Yes, you could knock 50% off the price of your property and sell it (and take a massive loss) but funnily enough few people are that keen on that, and you wouldn’t be too.
In that case you did have a genuine reason for not selling.
Did your neighbour get his extension ?
But still you made a decision to let rather than sell and you were lucky that the surveyor "ignored" the value reducing information when revaluing your house.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
You may not realise it, but you were in effect suggesting that it should have been.
I disagree.
I suspect that CR's property was quite nice and located in south-east commuter land.
Such places are always in demand whereas 'firesale' prices are those well below 'normal' market prices.
Why do you suspect that?
And you have plainly never or hardly ever bought or sold a house. "always in demand" ffs.
With prices drifting downwards in the better parts of London and possibly elsewhere, there will be such properties on the market where the owner is holding out for a price based on outdated expectations that probably aren't in much demand. Demand is dependent on price, as others have illustrated upthread.
I wonder if the Tories effectively start this election on about 295 seats, once you strip off 5 losses to the SNP in Scotland and about 15 losses to the LDs and one or two Labour Gain surprises.
So, they need 31 gains from Labour to get back up to an overall majority again.
Where (precisely) are these coming from, and how do we know the Labour vote isn’t very sticky in those seats?
The Tories need a swing of 3.39% to get 31 Labour seats, the latest poll from.ICM gives them a swing of 4% from Labour, the latest poll from Survation a swing of 5% and Deltapoll and Yougov higher still. The LDs are also only gaining 3 Tory seats with ICM with a swing of just 3% from the Tories
Far from it, any increase in Labour share has mainly come from the LDs while the Tories have no Brexit Party in Tory seats meaning the Tories hold more seats from the LDs and need to gain fewer Labour seats
Your optimism is welcome. Me, I'll be shi**ing bricks for the next 23 and a half days.
On landlord subject, not one anymore. Had a flat, decent tenant, no issues etc. He had to move. Greek mother & teenage sons moved in, became tenants from hell. They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
The idea that the current legal arrangements for the rental market are "completely stacked against landlords" is utterly laughable. I suggest you go research the position in other European countries.
How about the "you will install precisely the heating system we state" or you will taken to court and face fines of £5000, even though what the council were insisting on was an out of date, extremely expensive solution. Try being a landlord if you don't think its stacked against you.
On landlord subject, not one anymore. Had a flat, decent tenant, no issues etc. He had to move. Greek mother & teenage sons moved in, became tenants from hell. They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
The idea that the current legal arrangements for the rental market are "completely stacked against landlords" is utterly laughable. I suggest you go research the position in other European countries.
It can be, if you encounter a tenant from hell. It can take you months to get them out, and you'll never recover the legal fees or rent arrears.
You make the assumption that turfing someone from their home in less than "months" is somehow reasonable.
If they aren't paying rent, or are trashing the place, then yes it is reasonable.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
Yes it was, you nob.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
Assumptions are made because you didn't give any details.
There's nothing wrong with making rational assumptions to fill in gaps of missing information.
So you are the nob for not providing proper information.
You are the nob for exercising your prejudices and not taking my post at face value.
End of.
Nevertheless it is somewhat naïve to post details of ones personal experiences here in support of a wider point, and not expect to get back the usual level of energetic challenge.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
Of course you could sell it. Just not at the price you wanted or at a price you thought it would be more profitable to rent out at instead.
Ditch the pretence that you did not make a decision and were forced to become a landlord.
Wanker. As are those who “liked” this (triple wankers). You know nothing about my property or circumstance. We couldn’t find a single buyer at the time and had already dropped the price £40k.
And, I made no profit on renting it out at all. It just covered the mortgage.
Mind your own business, dickhead.
No, its a forum, you make a point, it is open to others to reply.
Then don’t presume to lecture me on my sincerity or question my integrity knowing precisely nothing of my circumstances.
I don’t like it and I don’t react well to it.
It’s deeply personal.
If something is deeply personal then I wouldn't bring it up in an online discussion of an issue people have strong feelings about.
And if you do then you need to give sufficient details so that others can properly understand your situation.
I'm sure nobody wanted to upset you and hope you managed to sell the house eventually.
Maybe, but then perhaps it’s better not to jump to conclusions and give posters the benefit of the doubt?
Your posts suggested I was guilty until proven innocent. And I don’t react well to my sincerity or integrity being questioned.
Anyway, this will be my last post on the matter. The day beckons.
On landlord subject, not one anymore. Had a flat, decent tenant, no issues etc. He had to move. Greek mother & teenage sons moved in, became tenants from hell. They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
The idea that the current legal arrangements for the rental market are "completely stacked against landlords" is utterly laughable. I suggest you go research the position in other European countries.
It can be, if you encounter a tenant from hell. It can take you months to get them out, and you'll never recover the legal fees or rent arrears.
You make the assumption that turfing someone from their home in less than "months" is somehow reasonable.
If they aren't paying rent, or are trashing the place, then yes it is reasonable.
Yet the same can happen to someone who is paying rent and looking after the property.
Boris needs to lose the bluster and the wordplay and just play calm and statesmanlike, look reasonable, no raising of voice. It's the way that he carries himself that will be the most important thing.
He'll need an orthopaedic corset to get rid of that hangdog slouch. Doubtless BJ tried it out as part of his piss poor Churchill impersonation, but the wind changed and he's stuck with it.
Yes, it is nowhere near as funny as the Labour antisemitism jibes that have been a feature of pb for months. We can probably do without both for a while.
It's obviously a very sensitive subject for you but whatever the reason, people weren't or wouldn't be buying your house because of the price.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
No, the last resort would be to stay where you were, and to squeeze into the space available with your new family, as, say, I have had to do on the private rental market.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
I haven’t complained in public. I haven’t shared any details of the tenant nor the letting agent nor my property.
We were debating the rights and wrongs of this policy on the previous thread. It’s wholly appropriate to share anonymised experiences that might contribute to that discussion.
The trouble is you’ll be told what you want to hear about ‘well behaved dogs’, but you never know what you’re going to get.
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
...
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
...
The market is a cesspit.
Just discovered that a friend of mine - who is ceaselessly posting pro-Corbyn tropes on facebook - is in the midst of starting her rented property empire. People are endlessly surprising.
I wouldnt find that surprising at all. A quarter of the shadow cabinet own second homes. Of course the numbers are worse in the cabinet but being a Corbynista doesnt stop someone from wanting to get rich quick.
Yes, but I would have thought having decided to jump into being a private landlord with both feet she'd be less keen than she seems to be to elect a government committed ti preventing private landlords from making profits. She has, it should be noted, seldom struck me as very bright.
On landlord subject, not one anymore. Had a flat, decent tenant, no issues etc. He had to move. Greek mother & teenage sons moved in, became tenants from hell. They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
The idea that the current legal arrangements for the rental market are "completely stacked against landlords" is utterly laughable. I suggest you go research the position in other European countries.
It can be, if you encounter a tenant from hell. It can take you months to get them out, and you'll never recover the legal fees or rent arrears.
You make the assumption that turfing someone from their home in less than "months" is somehow reasonable.
If they aren't paying rent, or are trashing the place, then yes it is reasonable.
Yet the same can happen to someone who is paying rent and looking after the property.
The minimum period of notice for a tenant who is not in breach of their lease is two months, assuming we are not talking about the end of their fixed term (which they will obviously also know about).
I have heard plenty of stories of nightmare tenants, so believe you. There are plenty of nightmare landlords too.
Nick's law is an interesting one. Would it be reasonable to require a larger cleaning deposit for pet owners for example? Or for the rules to apply only to unfurnished rentals?
I’m g
The
Like many others
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
Yes it was, you nob.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
He is getting grief because he is presenting himself as a victim, when he had the agency to make choices in his situation that are often not available to those who rent privately.
It's obviously a very sensitive subject for you but whatever the reason, people weren't or wouldn't be buying your house because of the price.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
No, the last resort would be to stay where you were, and to squeeze into the space available with your new family, as, say, I have had to do on the private rental market.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
Would you want to sit in a semi-detached property next door to a noisy building extension for over a year with a heavily pregnant wife and then a new-born child?
As a private renter you actually have more flexible options: you could simply give notice and find another property better suited to your needs.
Owning a property (particularly a mortgaged one) is both an asset and a liability. They are always both, and have their pluses and minuses accordingly.
It's obviously a very sensitive subject for you but whatever the reason, people weren't or wouldn't be buying your house because of the price.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
No, the last resort would be to stay where you were, and to squeeze into the space available with your new family, as, say, I have had to do on the private rental market.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
Would you want to sit in a semi-detached property next door to a noisy building extension for over a year with a heavily pregnant wife and then a new-born child?
As a private renter you actually have more flexible options: you could simply give notice and find another property better suited to your needs.
Owning a property (particularly a mortgaged one) is both an asset and a liability. They are always both, and have their pluses and minuses accordingly.
So instead you let the building to someone else who would suffer all that noise.
Keep digging that hole - it's an argument that I don't think you could ever win.
But once again there is no such thing as an accidental landlord - ever landlord made a decision (for personal or financial reasons) that resulted in them becoming one.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
Yes it was, you nob.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
Assumptions are made because you didn't give any details.
There's nothing wrong with making rational assumptions to fill in gaps of missing information.
So you are the nob for not providing proper information.
You are the nob for exercising your prejudices and not taking my post at face value.
End of.
I took your post at face value and that's where you went wrong by not including proper information.
Learn a lesson for the future.
Also internet tantrums will amuse people reading but will rarely improve the poster's standing.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
He is getting grief because he is presenting himself as a victim, when he had the agency to make choices in his situation that are often not available to those who rent privately.
I do find it interesting how much grief CR is getting however. I think the tide has definitely turned and being a landlord hasn't the status / envy gaining thing it used to have.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
Of course you could sell it. Just not at the price you wanted or at a price you thought it would be more profitable to rent out at instead.
Ditch the pretence that you did not make a decision and were forced to become a landlord.
Wanker. As are those who “liked” this (triple wankers). You know nothing about my property or circumstance. We couldn’t find a single buyer at the time and had already dropped the price £40k.
And, I made no profit on renting it out at all. It just covered the mortgage.
Mind your own business, dickhead.
No, its a forum, you make a point, it is open to others to reply.
Then don’t presume to lecture me on my sincerity or question my integrity knowing precisely nothing of my circumstances.
I don’t like it and I don’t react well to it.
It’s deeply personal.
If something is deeply personal then I wouldn't bring it up in an online discussion of an issue people have strong feelings about.
And if you do then you need to give sufficient details so that others can properly understand your situation.
I'm sure nobody wanted to upset you and hope you managed to sell the house eventually.
Maybe, but then perhaps it’s better not to jump to conclusions and give posters the benefit of the doubt?
Your posts suggested I was guilty until proven innocent. And I don’t react well to my sincerity or integrity being questioned.
Anyway, this will be my last post on the matter. The day beckons.
I didn't regard you as either guilty or innocent but as someone making their own choice on an issue of supply and demand.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
He is getting grief because he is presenting himself as a victim, when he had the agency to make choices in his situation that are often not available to those who rent privately.
People often make a decision which at the time is right, but which, as a result of circumstances changing turns out to be wrong. On retirement we moved to what seemed a good place (still is), close to one son and not too far from our daughter. 20 years later our son has moved to SE Asia, as a result, initially of being sent there for work, and our daughter has died. Now we are two 80 year olds with no family near. Doesn't look as good. But is it our 'fault'?
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others I wasn’t trying to make a business, I just couldn’t sell my property and had to let it out instead. And the whole country would be f*cked without a private rental market.
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
You may not realise it, but you were in effect suggesting that it should have been.
I disagree.
I suspect that CR's property was quite nice and located in south-east commuter land.
Such places are always in demand whereas 'firesale' prices are those well below 'normal' market prices.
Why do you suspect that?
And you have plainly never or hardly ever bought or sold a house. "always in demand" ffs.
Like many people buying or selling houses is something I have rarely been personally involved in.
But a quick search on the internet or look at an estate agent's window suggests no shortage of houses for sale.
And given the number of new houses being built I assume that there is demand to buy them.
I do find it weird that some people think it is morally reprehensible to let out property to another person, or to want that property back at the end of the tenancy agreement.
The proposal to stop landlords banning pets without good reason seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I have lived with 4 cats and a dog for the last 7 years and have not suffered from problems - the dog is house trained and regularly walked, the cats spend their time asleep as best I can tell. Of course, there is scratching etc but I’d have thought that these issues could be dealt with through larger deposits, requirements for regular vet visits to have flea treatment, worming etc. Certainly, were I a landlord I would consider a pet owning tenant rather than have an automatic ban.
Really, there are plenty of Labour policies worthy of criticism but this is not one of them.
Dura_Ace said: "Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen."
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
Let me entertain you all with some perspective from a tenants position. I've lived in my rented flat for 4 and a half years, never missed a rent payment nor been late but due to disability am now on housing benefit. Now on the one hand, landlord great for not finding an excuse to give me my 2 months when that happened. On the other hand, inspections every 3 months are annoying. No problems in 4 and a half years, you'd think they could leave me alone for half a year at a time. Now I cant afford to get booted, my credit rating is buggered after the events around my disability etc meaning a couple of credit cards went under so whilst I've made sure rent is paid and I'd get a good LL reference I might struggle to find a private rent alone and I dont want the council sticking me in a pit somewhere I dont want to live if i can avoid it, so i need to stay here. 4 months ago the gas hob malfunctioned, only one burner would work. Engineer came and looked immediately and said cant be fixed cost efficiently I'll quote the LL for a new hob. He fitted the new hob last week after about half a dozen chasing calls to the agents. The engineer said he never heard back till a fortnight ago. Now, I suspect it was the agents being lazy twats not the LL himself. I'm not good with social or confrontational (in person, online its easy) situations so I didn't really chase it daily or anything but I shouldn't have to. So do I write to the LL direct to complain so hes aware his agents are shite or does that risk him saying 'ok, here's your 2 months notice to leave'. That's the sort of quandary you get as a tenant. I'm totally reliant on my LL not booting me for 'reasons' 3 months without 3 of my Burner rings was only doable as I live alone, but had i threatened to withhold rent for example you could bet I'd be under notice now......
I do find it weird that some people think it is morally reprehensible to let out property to another person, or to want that property back at the end of the tenancy agreement.
A consequence of 15 years of falling home ownership in particular among the young.
If home ownership was at 75% and growing I suspect it would be different.
How does Help to Buy make a property 20% more expensive? New builds are in the same property market as the rest of the market and make a small percentage of the overall market. Supply and demand determines prices and we have ever more households and need more properties or prices must rise. More new builds = more supply of homes = lower prices.
Eliminating help to buy would not cause prices to drop 20% and if fewer homes got built as a result would likely send prices up not down. That's basic economics!
It boosts demand, hence boosting prices.
In the long term demand is constrained by population and and supply by quantity of houses. Births, divorces, migration they all boost demand. Help to buy does not.
If Help to Buy did not exist then where would the people using it live instead? On the streets? Or in rented accomodation?
I really fail to see why CR is getting all this grief. Yes, people do make a choice to become landlords; one of my son's rented for a couple of years from someone who apparently took the opportunity of a windfall (or something like that) to buy a couple of houses when the market was low as, he told us, a 'pensionable' investment. That was 10 or so years ago and the place is, AFAIK, still tenanted and seems from the outside to be in good repair. Locally there are quite of lot of houses rented.
Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen.
Not necessarily; can fulfil a need. When we married we didn't know where we wanted to settle; we knew one or both of us might find better/different jobs elsewhere. So we rented for a tear or two until we found somewhere we wanted to be for the longer term.
It's obviously a very sensitive subject for you but whatever the reason, people weren't or wouldn't be buying your house because of the price.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
No, the last resort would be to stay where you were, and to squeeze into the space available with your new family, as, say, I have had to do on the private rental market.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
Would you want to sit in a semi-detached property next door to a noisy building extension for over a year with a heavily pregnant wife and then a new-born child?
As a private renter you actually have more flexible options: you could simply give notice and find another property better suited to your needs.
Owning a property (particularly a mortgaged one) is both an asset and a liability. They are always both, and have their pluses and minuses accordingly.
I had to rent, with a new-born child, next to a noisy train line, in a one-bed flat with crappy night storage heaters, an electric boiler that often stopped working, a roof that hilariously leaked, stuffed with the landlord's crap furniture that the agents had told us wouldn't be there, but not with the oven that they'd said would, up a steep flight of stairs that was not suitable for my wife to take our child's buggy down - but this was the *best* option available to us, and as rents were increasing strongly in the local area we effectively became trapped for the duration, until our circumstances changed and we were able to make a different choice.
I do find it weird that some people think it is morally reprehensible to let out property to another person, or to want that property back at the end of the tenancy agreement.
A consequence of 15 years of falling home ownership in particular among the young.
If home ownership was at 75% and growing I suspect it would be different.
Is home ownership still falling? I thought the fall had been halted and now it was starting to climb again.
Eliminating schemes like help to buy that help people get on the ladder or encourage developers to build new homes will not get home ownerships rising, it would make it start to fall again. My wife and I bought a new build property not long before Help to Buy was introduced. After it was introduced the developers continued to sell properties on the estate for the SAME PRICE as we had bought ours at. There was no 20% increase in price.
We have subsequently due to personal circumstances sold our home and we are renting again. That estate has finished being constructed completely and is no longer classed as new and many of those homes are now on their second or third owner but they are bought and sold on the same marketplace as other much older homes.
I hope to get back on the property ladder in the future and I hope Help to Buy or similar will be available when I need it.
How does Help to Buy make a property 20% more expensive? New builds are in the same property market as the rest of the market and make a small percentage of the overall market. Supply and demand determines prices and we have ever more households and need more properties or prices must rise. More new builds = more supply of homes = lower prices.
Eliminating help to buy would not cause prices to drop 20% and if fewer homes got built as a result would likely send prices up not down. That's basic economics!
It boosts demand, hence boosting prices.
In the long term demand is constrained by population and and supply by quantity of houses. Births, divorces, migration they all boost demand. Help to buy does not.
If Help to Buy did not exist then where would the people using it live instead? On the streets? Or in rented accomodation?
They would be living in the same homes, having paid less, owing less, and the CEOs of the housebuilders would have been paid a typical FTSE package of 1-5 million rather than 110 million.
Dura_Ace said: "Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen."
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
The question of how much moral responsibility for your decisions you can abrogate by blaming the system is a difficult one. It's pretty much impossible to earn or spend money in a truly ethical way, and you can't blame every individual person for that. But on the other hand I wouldn't work for ICE
I think that is unreasonable - I don`t think that this regularity is usual - but maybe I`m wrong. Thanks for your post and I`m very sad to hear of your quandary.
How does Help to Buy make a property 20% more expensive? New builds are in the same property market as the rest of the market and make a small percentage of the overall market. Supply and demand determines prices and we have ever more households and need more properties or prices must rise. More new builds = more supply of homes = lower prices.
Eliminating help to buy would not cause prices to drop 20% and if fewer homes got built as a result would likely send prices up not down. That's basic economics!
It boosts demand, hence boosting prices.
In the long term demand is constrained by population and and supply by quantity of houses. Births, divorces, migration they all boost demand. Help to buy does not.
If Help to Buy did not exist then where would the people using it live instead? On the streets? Or in rented accomodation?
They would be living in the same homes, having paid less, owing less, and the CEOs of the housebuilders would have been paid a typical FTSE package of 1-5 million rather than 110 million.
What evidence do you have of that? Homebuilders are earning more because more homes are being completed and sold than in the past, that is good news not bad. New build prices compete with existing homes prices and the more new homes are built the more prices fall not rise.
We could drive down the wages of the CEOs of the housebuilders quite easily by ensuring they stop building as many homes. That would constrain the supply of homes and increase the price of homes as existing homeowners would see the price of their existing homes rise! Great job!
Dura_Ace said: "Landlordism is socially destructive and should be condemned. It's not the venality of it, although that is worthy of opprobrium on its own, the true moral lapse is putting oneself in a position of power over another citizen."
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
Landlord/tenant exemplifies the Hegelian master/slave dialectic and, a priori, diminishes the humanity of both parties. See also punter/whore and Boris Johnson/Johnny Mercer.
It's obviously a very sensitive subject for you but whatever the reason, people weren't or wouldn't be buying your house because of the price.
In theory, yes, but that presumes most people have a *credible choice* of slashing the price of their property by 20-30% so they’re in negative equity just to force a sale.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
No, the last resort would be to stay where you were, and to squeeze into the space available with your new family, as, say, I have had to do on the private rental market.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
Would you want to sit in a semi-detached property next door to a noisy building extension for over a year with a heavily pregnant wife and then a new-born child?
As a private renter you actually have more flexible options: you could simply give notice and find another property better suited to your needs.
Owning a property (particularly a mortgaged one) is both an asset and a liability. They are always both, and have their pluses and minuses accordingly.
So instead you let the building to someone else who would suffer all that noise.
Keep digging that hole - it's an argument that I don't think you could ever win.
But once again there is no such thing as an accidental landlord - ever landlord made a decision (for personal or financial reasons) that resulted in them becoming one.
Yes, you are arguing in the abstract because you can’t deal with the complexity of reality.
FPT - after having let to multiple tenants in the past, always stipulating no pets, I let my property out to one who did in 2018 during a particularly dry time in the rental market.
Never again.
I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt but it proved all my worst fears, and underlined to me why so many agents default to “no pet” clauses.
Her two dogs pissed and weed all over the carpets, and the whole property stank of dog hair. I tried two deep cleans (she had just hoovered) but the carpet was so badly damaged in the living room I had to replace the whole thing. I only got half of that back from her deposit. I had to also replace several of the curtains which, for some reason, I could never get the smell out of.
Now, I’ve put the property on the market for sale. If you want a pet (which is a privilege, not a right) you first need to be able to afford to keep one and look after it, and I’d recommend you get your own place too.
There are bad tenants and bad landlords. It is not unreasonable to ask a landlord to give a good reason why they don’t want a particular type of pet in a property rather than having a blanket ban. There are plenty of good reasons why not. I would not rent to someone with a dog who worked long hours because how would that dog get its necessary exercise and, without it, it would be stressed and very likely to cause damage. But a retired person with a dog which they walked regularly would be a very different matter.
So long as you could demand higher deposits and impose conditions about the animal’s care this is not as unreasonable as some are making out.
I think that is unreasonable - I don`t think that this regularity is usual - but maybe I`m wrong. Thanks for your post and I`m very sad to hear of your quandary.
The private rental market is a cesspit and wherever possible best avoided.
I’m going to have to object to that. I was an ideal landlord (and generous) - I responded to every issue of my tenants within 24/48 hours and never interfered with inspections (except annually) or imposed onerous conditions.
There are bad landlords (and property companies are amongst some of the worst) but many are just decent normal people.
The market is appalling and places Landlords and Tennant’s in horrible positions, which neglects the parasitic agents in the middle. I know of no one with a wholeheartedly good experience. It seems like a source of stress. Too much unavoidable personal baggage. To be avoided at all costs. If you want to make a business from property stick to commercial rent.
Like many others
Ditch the ideology.
You mean you couldn't sell your property for the price you wanted but you could rent your property for the price you wanted.
'Accidental landlords' aren't victims but rather people who view the application of supply and demand of property in a certain way.
Selling at firesale prices tends to enrich the already rich, because assets tend to get snapped up for cash by those with instant access to cash. And guess what they are going to do with the property when they have bought it?
I rather doubt CR's house was ever at risk of being sold at a firesale price.
Yes it was, you nob.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
Assumptions are made because you didn't give any details.
There's nothing wrong with making rational assumptions to fill in gaps of missing information.
So you are the nob for not providing proper information.
You are the nob for exercising your prejudices and not taking my post at face value.
End of.
I took your post at face value and that's where you went wrong by not including proper information.
Learn a lesson for the future.
Also internet tantrums will amuse people reading but will rarely improve the poster's standing.
Comments
I suspect that CR's property was quite nice and located in south-east commuter land.
Such places are always in demand whereas 'firesale' prices are those well below 'normal' market prices.
I recall Mr. T posting about some young friends (20s) he had, who were drinking expensive champagne and extolling the virtues of Corbynism, as if the rich were not themselves.
And, I made no profit on renting it out at all. It just covered the mortgage.
Mind your own business, dickhead.
Btw Laddies are also running a book on who will win tonight's debate, based on YouGov's poll findings. The current odds are:
Corbyn ...... 8/11
Johnson .... Evens
I’m fine.
Pretty fine though, isn’t it?
The only choice we had was to turn our house into a let to buy so we could release equity and move.
There are other examples too. Such as when people lose a job or have to move geographies and they can’t sell.
Yes, you could knock 50% off the price of your property and sell it (and take a massive loss) but funnily enough few people are that keen on that, and you wouldn’t be too.
It’s my guessestimate.
Some remarkable dickheadery and ignorance on here this morning.
Absolutely the former!
Did your neighbour get his extension ?
Only one reason a property, or anything for that matter, doesn't sell.
Again making assumptions about my situation and circumstances online like a keyboard warrior and exercising your prejudices knowing nothing about it.
I don’t like it and I don’t react well to it.
It’s deeply personal.
Plus through local plans new homes are being built anyway increasing supply
They got local council involved who proceeded to treat us as criminals, threatening large fines & jail. The law is completely stacked against landlords. Never again.
Yes, it was a genuinely stressful time for us.
I really really didn’t want to be a landlord. Too much time and hassle and it cost me money.
We just wanted to move on with our lives.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/aberdeen-north-tory-candidate-ryan-20911180.amp
Bonus islamophobia from the Tory candidate for all you "great replacement" weirdos.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18044656.aberdeen-tory-candidate-ryan-houghton-racist-tweets-uncovered/?ref=appshr
There's nothing wrong with making rational assumptions to fill in gaps of missing information.
So you are the nob for not providing proper information.
And if you do then you need to give sufficient details so that others can properly understand your situation.
I'm sure nobody wanted to upset you and hope you managed to sell the house eventually.
I too have had my bad experiences with landlords, and I do think that a government could do more to help private renters, and to make other forms of investment more attractive than the housing market.
I also think that Corbyn wants to stoke this division, in the same way that Johnson wants to stoke division over Brexit, and to benefit from casting landlords as a scapegoat, onto whom society can heap blame for societies ills.
We started off renting, back in the 60's, in a very pleasant little flat by a lake. Just right for a young couple, both of whom were working.
My in-laws, a local government officer and a teacher, rented a Council house for many, many years.
And you have plainly never or hardly ever bought or sold a house. "always in demand" ffs.
Why would anyone ever do that?
People become accidental landlords when local market conditions mean they cannot sell at a reasonable price in a reasonable timescale (for these purposes, in a timeframe of less than 6-9 months or at a price that at least allows them to break even) and they have to take that option to move on with their lives without ruining themselves.
I think the accusation i am resenting is that I was somehow profiteering. Landlords aren’t always getting filthy rich and nor are all tenants on the poverty line. It can be the other way round and you can be very cash poor.
It really was a last resort for us.
End of.
Try being a landlord if you don't think its stacked against you.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1196717560298913792?s=20
Back in September, Hanbury did this, but for Corbyn v No Deal Brexit (see page 62-63):
https://tinyurl.com/rgu9ys7
Back then, they found that for Remainers:
Corbyn becomes PM is worse - 23%
No Deal is worse - 54%
Both equally bad - 22%
I'd be interested to know how those percentages look now there's a deal on the table.
Your posts suggested I was guilty until proven innocent. And I don’t react well to my sincerity or integrity being questioned.
Anyway, this will be my last post on the matter. The day beckons.
You were able to use your greater access to capital to find a better outcome for you, an outcome that was better for you despite having to deal with bad tenants, than the outcome that I had to endure as a private renter.
She has, it should be noted, seldom struck me as very bright.
As a private renter you actually have more flexible options: you could simply give notice and find another property better suited to your needs.
Owning a property (particularly a mortgaged one) is both an asset and a liability. They are always both, and have their pluses and minuses accordingly.
Keep digging that hole - it's an argument that I don't think you could ever win.
But once again there is no such thing as an accidental landlord - ever landlord made a decision (for personal or financial reasons) that resulted in them becoming one.
Learn a lesson for the future.
Also internet tantrums will amuse people reading but will rarely improve the poster's standing.
And with choice comes responsibility.
Now we are two 80 year olds with no family near. Doesn't look as good. But is it our 'fault'?
https://twitter.com/ArrowontheHill/status/1196514791470354432
But a quick search on the internet or look at an estate agent's window suggests no shortage of houses for sale.
And given the number of new houses being built I assume that there is demand to buy them.
That is not to say that all or even most players in the game are unpleasant people.
The proposal to stop landlords banning pets without good reason seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I have lived with 4 cats and a dog for the last 7 years and have not suffered from problems - the dog is house trained and regularly walked, the cats spend their time asleep as best I can tell. Of course, there is scratching etc but I’d have thought that these issues could be dealt with through larger deposits, requirements for regular vet visits to have flea treatment, worming etc. Certainly, were I a landlord I would consider a pet owning tenant rather than have an automatic ban.
Really, there are plenty of Labour policies worthy of criticism but this is not one of them.
Yes, but it is part of the capitalist system in which we all operate in which we are all, at root, competitors for limited resources. An ideology which denies (and condemns) individuals for simply prioritising themselves before other individuals in order to live one`s life within the system is a touch too demanding - perhaps even a little delusional - is that fair? Perhaps not.
3 months without 3 of my Burner rings was only doable as I live alone, but had i threatened to withhold rent for example you could bet I'd be under notice now......
If home ownership was at 75% and growing I suspect it would be different.
If Help to Buy did not exist then where would the people using it live instead? On the streets? Or in rented accomodation?
Things that are totally okay and noble: Being a Landlord
So, yes, I would have loved your choices.
Eliminating schemes like help to buy that help people get on the ladder or encourage developers to build new homes will not get home ownerships rising, it would make it start to fall again. My wife and I bought a new build property not long before Help to Buy was introduced. After it was introduced the developers continued to sell properties on the estate for the SAME PRICE as we had bought ours at. There was no 20% increase in price.
We have subsequently due to personal circumstances sold our home and we are renting again. That estate has finished being constructed completely and is no longer classed as new and many of those homes are now on their second or third owner but they are bought and sold on the same marketplace as other much older homes.
I hope to get back on the property ladder in the future and I hope Help to Buy or similar will be available when I need it.
I think that is unreasonable - I don`t think that this regularity is usual - but maybe I`m wrong. Thanks for your post and I`m very sad to hear of your quandary.
Surely the landlord/tenant situation just highlights that either one being a dick can cause huge problems for the other (reasonable) party?
We could drive down the wages of the CEOs of the housebuilders quite easily by ensuring they stop building as many homes. That would constrain the supply of homes and increase the price of homes as existing homeowners would see the price of their existing homes rise! Great job!
It’s pretty pathetic really.
So long as you could demand higher deposits and impose conditions about the animal’s care this is not as unreasonable as some are making out.
Agents want to do inspections as often as they can as they can charge for them. Three months is not unusual at all.