Private landlords and Tenants

[Guest]

This is exactly the issue though. Currently you have the option as a landlord, on a whim, to significantly jack up your tenant's rent and potentially disrupt their lives and financial stability in the process. You sound like a decent and reasonable landlord but unfortunately most tenants can't pick and choose who they rent from.

With increases tied to inflation, the extra stability of knowing my rental outgo for the next 3 years would personally take a lot of stress away for myself and my family.

 

So why doesn't the government say that everything sold cannot increase its price by more than inflation? Then everyone (not just tenants - who can flit owing rent at any moment) can have the extra stability of knowing prices won't go up too much removing stress?

[Vicki Vixen]

So why doesn't the government say that everything sold cannot increase its price by more than inflation? Then everyone (not just tenants - who can flit owing rent at any moment) can have the extra stability of knowing prices won't go up too much removing stress?

I think the fact you have compared my home to a consumer product says it all.

[Trav Le Bleu]

As someone who has rented for 20 years, worked full time for most of that time (and briefly part-time for the rest of it) and is now only just able to afford to buy a house, I can truly say that there is a very really problem with privately rented property in this country and the cost of buying a house in general.

 

It is almost a problem of monopolisation. Of course, no single landlord has a monopoly, but certainly the stock of private rental property must be much larger than that of the council owned property for rent. 30-40 years ago, if you needed to rent because you couldn't afford to buy then the council would provide you with adequate, decent housing and were almost always very good landlords who kept their houses in good condition. When the stock was sold off in the 80s (and not replaced - which was the mistake here) that went out of the window. Increasingly, if you want to rent you now have to turn to a private landlord.

 

Except there was a mistake in my last sentence. Many (the majority?) of people who rent don't "want" to rent - they have no choice. Which is why we have exploitative landlords who know that they don't have to provide a competetively costed, decent home - they can just put anything out on the market and it will be filled. Were there many more houses, and decent social housing for rent too, then the bad landlords would be forced out of the scene because people wouldn't be obliged to live in their crappy hovels - there would be an alternative.

 

However, will this ever happen? Will the "haves" build more homes for the "havenots" when this will drive down both house values and rental incomes? I somehow doubt it.

 

The hardest thing to swallow in my years of renting is that I could have bought the house I've lived in these past 20 years with the money I've paid rent and yet I've never had enough to buy until recently. I could also have modernised the kitchen and the bathroom - something the landlord hasn't done in that time. In fact I have kept the house in good order, cultivated the garden, done basic repairs, added Sky and Virgin connections at my own cost.... all of which they will inherit when I move out.

 

What FIF needs to realise from his ivory tower in France is that for a great many people in Britain renting is NOT a life-style choice, but due to the lack of affordable housing (contributed too, in no small part, by landlords buying up more and more of the affordable housing to rent at costs in excess of paying an actual mortgage) it is the only option.

[Guest]

 

 

What FIF needs to realise from his ivory tower in France is that for a great many people in Britain renting is NOT a life-style choice, but due to the lack of affordable housing (contributed too, in no small part, by landlords buying up more and more of the affordable housing to rent at costs in excess of paying an actual mortgage) it is the only option.

 

Again you speak as though OWNING your property is a right. I'll never be able to see eye to eye with you on this premise. I left home when I was 18, lived in a tent, then rented, then bought, so I know exactly what it's like to rent. And to go without in order to buy.

 

You're only entitled to housing - which of course you are not in many countries - the governments are letting you down because they sold off their houses and continue to not replace them and then since so many of you have now convinced me that private landlords only let hovels the government is again failing you by not upholding existing laws which guarantee every one of you should have decent housing.

 

Glad you now have your own "Ivory tower" and hope that you can afford to upkeep it, can manage to sell it if you have to move and think about letting out a room in it to a less fortunate person living in a hovel.

 

The three things I've learnt from this thread are:

 

1. Private housing has descended into the depths of victorian London where a majority of landlords are evil rip off merchants and houses are hovels.

2. Private tenants no longer go to the local government to uphold their lawful rights. 

3. No of the once proud British are holding their governments responsible for the mess housing has gotten into because of government choices - they only care about media led national debt.

[Rob1742]

This is exactly the issue though. Currently you have the option as a landlord, on a whim, to significantly jack up your tenant's rent and potentially disrupt their lives and financial stability in the process. You sound like a decent and reasonable landlord but unfortunately most tenants can't pick and choose who they rent from.

With increases tied to inflation, the extra stability of knowing my rental outgo for the next 3 years would personally take a lot of stress away for myself and my family.

PM me, if you want a three year deal and know exactly where you want to live I will see if there is a house there with a yield that suits and you can have three years with fixed rent.

I would be more than happy to commit to three years. But what I have found that as soon as the year lease ends slot of my tenants don't want to sign a new deal as they want the option to up sticks at the drop of s hat.

Really happy to buy a house you want if the area produces the right yield and we can do a three yearer

[MooseBreath]

Average first time buyer needs a £41k salary. That's out of reach for plenty of senior professionals, never mind your average under 40. All these youngsters and their wild expectations, eh FIF.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/11584347/Average-first-time-buyer-needs-41000-salary.html

[Rincewind]

I think its nearer 100k  in London. Dread to think  what you need to rent there.

[Guest]

Average first time buyer needs a £41k salary. That's out of reach for plenty of senior professionals, never mind your average under 40. All these youngsters and their wild expectations, eh FIF.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/11584347/Average-first-time-buyer-needs-41000-salary.html

 

Many places houses themselves cost less than £41k. People should buy within their limits and the government should provide jobs in all areas of Britain - as well as more public housing.

 

It's the government's fault if there is not enough public housing, Private housing is an alternative to public housing and buying your own house - it is not forced on anyone.

 

Since you are clearly anti-private investors here moosey, I suggest you complain to your Tory friends that they haven't provided enough public housing. You could probably get one down in dodge city though.  

[Guest]

I think its nearer 100k  in London. Dread to think  what you need to rent there.

 

Yeah it's sad. The government have incentivised work in London and broken work in other areas. Still there are plenty of rich people who can and are buying in London. 

 

The problem for other lower paid hard working people is not the private landlord or the law regarding it it's the terrible distribution of jobs and wealth along with the complete lack of public housing in London for the non-rich.

[MooseBreath]

Many places houses themselves cost less than £41k. People should buy within their limits and the government should provide jobs in all areas of Britain - as well as more public housing.

It's the government's fault if there is not enough public housing, Private housing is an alternative to public housing and buying your own house - it is not forced on anyone.

Since you are clearly anti-private investors here moosey, I suggest you complain to your Tory friends that they haven't provided enough public housing. You could probably get one down in dodge city though.

Where are these placed in the UK where houses cost less than £41k?! Even a decrepit one bed terrace in the most deprived parts of the country will set you back at least £60k plus another £20k to fix it up to a livable standard. That comment just shows how out of touch you are with UK house prices.

I'm happy to complain about every government for the last 20 years who have all failed to provide enough public housing and who have effected policies that are detrimental to private sector house building as well. House building is a private sector industry, public sector housing is supplemental. Neither market has operated properly for decades due to the policies of various governments.

[lavrentis]

I think its nearer 100k in London. Dread to think what you need to rent there.

Read it's 71k for first time buyer

[Guest]

Where are these placed in the UK where houses cost less than £41k?! Even a decrepit one bed terrace in the most deprived parts of the country will set you back at least £60k plus another £20k to fix it up to a livable standard. That comment just shows how out of touch you are with UK house prices.

I'm happy to complain about every government for the last 20 years who have all failed to provide enough public housing and who have effected policies that are detrimental to private sector house building as well. House building is a private sector industry, public sector housing is supplemental. Neither market has operated properly for decades due to the policies of various governments.

 

Thanks for proving what a complete idiot you are. I refer you to my earlier post where I referenced the following. 

 

3bed house in Co.Durham costs £40K, Glamorgan £35K, Liverpool £40k, Stoke £50K. If you can't afford that then you haven't worked hard enough (either at school or at work).

 

 

You need to get out of your bedsit a little bit and look at the world outside your estate. It's a big place and surprisingly to you even Leicester is expensive compared to many cities in the UK.  It's really only the South East and certain tourist spots that are really expensive. If you'd read through the thread properly you'd have seen this and realise that your tories biggest error was selling off Public housing and then never replacing it.

[MooseBreath]

Thanks for proving what a complete idiot you are. I refer you to my earlier post where I referenced the following.

You need to get out of your bedsit a little bit and look at the world outside your estate. It's a big place and surprisingly to you even Leicester is expensive compared to many cities in the UK. It's really only the South East and certain tourist spots that are really expensive. If you'd read through the thread properly you'd have seen this and realise that your tories biggest error was selling off Public housing and then never replacing it.

Provide a link to those properties. Let's see how much investment they need to make them liveable.

I don't live in Leicester, by the way. Haven't lived anywhere near Leicester for about ten years.

As for your comments on the tories, I've addressed that already, but just in case you missed the facts, it's actually the fault of consecutive governments not doing enough to promote public or private house building.

[Finnegan]

Sorry, hold on, is MB calling for more affordable housing and FIF saying the market is fine?

Did I step through some sort of dimension portal?

[Strokes]

Sorry, hold on, is MB calling for more affordable housing and FIF saying the market is fine?

Did I step through some sort of dimension portal?

Cough, nothing to see here. Move on.

[MooseBreath]

Sorry, hold on, is MB calling for more affordable housing and FIF saying the market is fine?

Did I step through some sort of dimension portal?

FIF has always been a champagne socialist. He wants a dysfunctional housing market because he's exceptionally greedy and is happy to see people suffer as long as it means more money in his pocket.

I'm just calling for a functional free market for housing where government policies and regulations don't prevent the private sector providing enough houses to meet the demand.

We're both being consistant with our usual views.

[Strokes]

We're both being consistant with our usual views.

[ADK]

Moose is usually closest to the Lib Dems imo on a political spectrum when he's not blatantly baiting people for a response. FIF just doesn't make sense most of the time. Like saying that people should refuse to work zero hour contracts and then spouting the myth of immigrants doing jobs that Brits won't do. Saying it's the Tories fault for the housing market being in its current state but blaming younger people for being entitled.

[lavrentis]

We need heavier taxation on empty properties that are just used as deposits, would probably enforce mansion tax based off wealth as well

[Rincewind]

This may be of interest to students. I saw it in an University newspaper I  picked up in a pub.

 

I will check if the link works but  know nothing about it. It is 11pm.

 

http://www.hallbookers.co.uk

 

The blink works. The site reviews the accomadation  you might  be interested in.

[Guest]

Provide a link to those properties. Let's see how much investment they need to make them liveable.

 

 

Do a search yourself. That's how I found the prices.

[Guest]

Sorry, hold on, is MB calling for more affordable housing and FIF saying the market is fine?

Did I step through some sort of dimension portal?

 

No, FIF is saying that all governments especially the Tories should be ashamed how they have run down Public housing and that they should invest in more. FIF is saying that the private landlord is a government target and victim and not the cause of the housing problem.

 

Moose is, as usual, talking out of his arse about things he doesn't understand and probably can't afford.

[Guest]

FIF has always been a champagne socialist. He wants a dysfunctional housing market because he's exceptionally greedy and is happy to see people suffer as long as it means more money in his pocket.

I'm just calling for a functional free market for housing where government policies and regulations don't prevent the private sector providing enough houses to meet the demand.

We're both being consistant with our usual views.

 

Paraphrase: 

 

FIF has always been successful in life and Moose is a jealous loser in life.

[Guest]

FIF just doesn't make sense most of the time. Like saying that people should refuse to work zero hour contracts and then spouting the myth of immigrants doing jobs that Brits won't do. Saying it's the Tories fault for the housing market being in its current state but blaming younger people for being entitled.

 

You must live in a glass house to not see the jobs that immigrants do that Brits don't wish to do. I guess you're also young not to understand that young people in Britain DO feel entitled - have you ever lived outside of England? You're also a little bitter that I've taken your ass to the cleaners of subjects you know so little about and perhaps cut a little close to the bone. Get over it man.

 

Oh nearly missed the point where you don't think it's he Tories fault for the housing crisis but you do think it's private Landlords  .

 

Oh Maggie!

[MooseBreath]

Such a pleasant little old lady

FIF's a woman of the world, she's been as far afield as France.