Any Landlords on here

[Webbo]

Is there any evidence of widespread abuse/exploitation by landlords? I'm sure we can find isolated incidents, but is it the norm as some are claiming? I work for a few landlords, 1 has 30 or 40 flats in Leicester and a few in London and there are others who've inherited a bit of money and have bought a house because their money isn't earning anything in the bank. All of them are very decent people.

 

The 1 with all the flats recently had a tenant who hadn't paid any rent for 6 months, he tried every legal method to get him out apart from taking him to court as the expense wouldn't be worth it and there'd be no guarantee that he would go anyway. In the end he had to give him £200 to go, and then pay me to redecorate the flat as he'd left it as a shit hole.

 

Another chap I work for, his tenants must have had a domestic, she'd locked herself in the bathroom so he'd smashed the door down. The landlord had to pick up the tab for the repairs. 

[leicsmac]

To be honest, when you commoditise something that is fundamental to human survival in a way that it becomes artificially scarce, then there's going to be a discussion about the ethics of it all.

[Innovindil]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

To be honest, when you commoditise something that is fundamental to human survival in a way that it becomes artificially scarce, then there's going to be a discussion about the ethics of it all.

If it was fundamental to human survival then surely we wouldn't have rising homeless numbers. 

 

And by all means, argue the ethics around the rich gathering up housing stocks, but getting pissy because someone who's worked hard their entire life decided to invest in a second home is frankly bizarre. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

If it was fundamental to human survival then surely we wouldn't have rising homeless numbers. 

 

And by all means, argue the ethics around the rich gathering up housing stocks, but getting pissy because someone who's worked hard their entire life decided to invest in a second home is frankly bizarre. 

Apologies for the lack of clarity - it's fundamental to human survival over a longer time period than, say, food or water or warm clothing, but still fundamental. Can't see how it can be classified as not, really; if you don't have a roof over your head and no provision to find one, your life expectancy isn't going to be massive in the long term.

 

Agree with the second paragraph though, there's an awful lot of generalisation here when there's a difference between some **** slumlord using the profits from his slum complex to sun himself in the Carribean and someone like Buce who is looking to rent out a single place that they own on (I assume) reasonable terms.

[Buce]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Apologies for the lack of clarity - it's fundamental to human survival over a longer time period than, say, food or water or warm clothing, but still fundamental. Can't see how it can be classified as not, really; if you don't have a roof over your head and no provision to find one, your life expectancy isn't going to be massive in the long term.

 

Agree with the second paragraph though, there's an awful lot of generalisation here when there's a difference between some **** slumlord using the profits from his slum complex to sun himself in the Carribean and someone like Buce who is looking to rent out a single place that they own on (I assume) reasonable terms.

 

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

 

Tbh, Strokes, although I'm pretty much politically alligned with Moose and Toddy, I'm struggling to see where the landlord argument is coming from. I absolutely agree that big landlords that exploit their tenants with high rents, poor service, and generally trample on their tenants rights, are scum of the worst kind. But not all landlords do that. The rent I charge is pegged to the level of comparable social housing - renting from me is no different to renting off the council. I could get away with charging nearly double what I do but I choose not to because of my political beliefs. But I also believe that a man has a duty and a right to care for his children - my daughter doesn't have much of an extended family (certainly none that are reliable) and if anything happens to me and her mother, she's on her own. The money I've put into that bricks and mortar is a safety net for her and I resent any suggestion that that is in any way immoral.

 

And it's a nonsense to suggest that everyone who currently rents would be in a position to buy, even if house prices weren't artificially inflated. Millions of low paid workers, and those in insecure employment, are simply not eligable for a mortgage. There are also people (like myself) who don't want to be taking out a mortgage in the autumn of their years. And are not Housing Associations and local authorities also landlords?

 

And therein lies the problem and the solution. The reason those who have to/choose to rent are vulnerable to exploitation by greedy landlords is because Thatcher sold off much of the social housing stock and wouldn't let councils replace it. The answer is quite simple - reverse that policy, build an adequate amount of social housing at affordable rents, and put the private landlords out of business.

 

 

[Babylon]

18 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Imagine if food was in short supply and some people were using their capital to buy up big stocks of food and then selling it on at a profit to people whose only other option would be to starve. That's pretty much what you are doing when renting property.

I think they're called supermarkets.

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I think they're called supermarkets.

"Imagine if food was in short supply".

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

"Imagine if food was in short supply".

It is short supply without them because I've got enough Garden to grow about 12 carrots and a potato.

Edited 29 January 2018 by Babylon

[Milo]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

9 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

"Imagine if food was in short supply".

Your tenacity and principles in this discussion are commendable, even if I don’t agree with them. 

 

 

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Milo said:

Your tenacity and principles in this discussion are commendable, even if I don’t agree with them. 

 

 

That’s one way of putting it.

[CosbehFox]

It's a bit OTT for housing rather than commercial. 

 

But you'd be very wise to spend some money getting a condition survey done on the place by an independent practice, ask for a schedule of condition and you might get it a little cheaper than asking for a full blown condition survey. 

 

It's there independently of what the condition of the house on a particular date was - near as possible to handing over the keys to the agent. Arguments can be won quick with such a document.  

[ealingfox]

At least we can all agree letting agents are utter cvnts.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

23 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Seriously, Captain, they are nothing but sharks and they take fees off both ends for doing fvck all. Each year when a tenancy is up for renewal they charge several hundred pounds to the tenant just for photocopying a piece of paper for them to sign. Also, they often take kickbacks from tradesmen - or worse still employ their own 'jack-of-all-trades' odd-job man when it comes to repairs - which means you get a crap job done, which pisses off the tenant and costs you more money to have it put right than it would have cost to do a proper job in the first place.

 Good advice.

[m4DD0gg]

3 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

It's a bit OTT for housing rather than commercial. 

 

But you'd be very wise to spend some money getting a condition survey done on the place by an independent practice, ask for a schedule of condition and you might get it a little cheaper than asking for a full blown condition survey. 

 

It's there independently of what the condition of the house on a particular date was - near as possible to handing over the keys to the agent. Arguments can be won quick with such a document.  

Not really ultimately its the Dps that control deposits. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

"Imagine if food was in short supply".

You really have convinced yourself that housing is in short supply. It isn't.

 

You have demonised landlords because they have more than one house. A landlord by definition lets the house to renters therefore they aren't empty and the renters aren't homeless.

 

You can argue that we don't have enough "free" housing for the unemployed but that's because the councils sold off the community housing to private people - as you want to happen - it was a stupid move and only done to get money in for the government/councils, very short sighted and these places haven't been replaced but they were sold to people who didn't own their own home so that's what you are calling for.

 

There are a few areas in the UK (chiefly in London) where some people can't afford to buy. So live in the east or the north where there are plenty of affordable houses. If you want to then argue that they don't have jobs there, that's not the fault of landlords it's the fault of government being so London centric. It's time to devolve jobs. taxation and incentives will do that if the govt. really want to.

 

imo your biggest oversight is due to a "I should be given what I want without any sacrifice" attitude. Those of us that have more than one house have worked hard and sacrificed to get into that position. I have only claimed unemployment benefit for 2 months as a school leaver in over 3 decades. I have never smoked, I drink moderately, I have never bought a "new" car, I don't wear designer clothes or jewellery and I spend  reasonably little on leisure activites. If you had done/do the same then you could save money to buy a house/appartment.

 

I wonder at what age you left home and whether your parent (s) then sold their house and bought a smaller house or whether they continued to live in a house with an extra unused bedroom. If the housing crisis is as bad as you make out it would make sense for young people to live at home for several years more then they do. An extra 10 years with your parents could save you £60k which should be good enough for your deposit on a 1 bed property - after all a 2 bed would be ethically wrong wouldn't it? On leaving your parents should ethically have sold their home and bought a smaller one - allowing a growing family to have a bigger house or alternatively taken in a homeless immigrant to fill the room that you vacated.

 

How many houses have empty bedrooms? How can that be acceptable with such a housing crisis that you can't get a home/room of your own?

 

However you want to spin it - Landlords are not responsible for lack of housing unless they let their houses stand empty - which seems to defeat the object.

 

If you want to rally about housing then maybe the government should nationalise all houses and forcibly make people live in houses close to their work sharing larger houses with others. throw  OAPs out of their owner occupier houses and put them in homes , alternatively they could introduce laws stating that it is an employer's responsibility to house all of their staff close to work locations and deduct this from salary payments.

 

If you need me to volunteer more useful ideas please ask.

 

 

[Rogstanley]

23 minutes ago, FIF said:

You really have convinced yourself that housing is in short supply. It isn't.

 

You have demonised landlords because they have more than one house. A landlord by definition lets the house to renters therefore they aren't empty and the renters aren't homeless.

 

You can argue that we don't have enough "free" housing for the unemployed but that's because the councils sold off the community housing to private people - as you want to happen - it was a stupid move and only done to get money in for the government/councils, very short sighted and these places haven't been replaced but they were sold to people who didn't own their own home so that's what you are calling for.

 

There are a few areas in the UK (chiefly in London) where some people can't afford to buy. So live in the east or the north where there are plenty of affordable houses. If you want to then argue that they don't have jobs there, that's not the fault of landlords it's the fault of government being so London centric. It's time to devolve jobs. taxation and incentives will do that if the govt. really want to.

 

imo your biggest oversight is due to a "I should be given what I want without any sacrifice" attitude. Those of us that have more than one house have worked hard and sacrificed to get into that position. I have only claimed unemployment benefit for 2 months as a school leaver in over 3 decades. I have never smoked, I drink moderately, I have never bought a "new" car, I don't wear designer clothes or jewellery and I spend  reasonably little on leisure activites. If you had done/do the same then you could save money to buy a house/appartment.

 

I wonder at what age you left home and whether your parent (s) then sold their house and bought a smaller house or whether they continued to live in a house with an extra unused bedroom. If the housing crisis is as bad as you make out it would make sense for young people to live at home for several years more then they do. An extra 10 years with your parents could save you £60k which should be good enough for your deposit on a 1 bed property - after all a 2 bed would be ethically wrong wouldn't it? On leaving your parents should ethically have sold their home and bought a smaller one - allowing a growing family to have a bigger house or alternatively taken in a homeless immigrant to fill the room that you vacated.

 

How many houses have empty bedrooms? How can that be acceptable with such a housing crisis that you can't get a home/room of your own?

 

However you want to spin it - Landlords are not responsible for lack of housing unless they let their houses stand empty - which seems to defeat the object.

 

If you want to rally about housing then maybe the government should nationalise all houses and forcibly make people live in houses close to their work sharing larger houses with others. throw  OAPs out of their owner occupier houses and put them in homes , alternatively they could introduce laws stating that it is an employer's responsibility to house all of their staff close to work locations and deduct this from salary payments.

 

If you need me to volunteer more useful ideas please ask.

 

 

I think I’ve dealt with most of this already. 

 

If you think houses aren’t in short supply then I don’t know how else you’d explain them being at an unprecedented  price:income ratio nor the fact that they have boomed well ahead of inflation for decades as this graph shows.

 

 

The graph is amazing to look at. To think an average house in the 70’s cost only £75k in today’s money - literally a third of today’s price. If houses were that cheap today I’d barely even notice the mortgage repayments going out. Unbelievably cheap and the people who bought houses then were unbelievably lucky.

 

Comments on my personal situation are irrelevant as well as being wrong. I own my house and made plenty of sacrifices to get into that position. It’s typical of the current generation of old people (I’m just assuming you’re quite old given the tone of your post) to make sweeping assumptions and judgements about other people’s lives, particularly younger people. More often than not the assumptions are plain wrong and the judgements ignorant of the facts.

Edited 29 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

If you think houses aren’t in short supply then I don’t know how else you’d explain them being at unprecented price:income ratio not the fact that they have boomed well ahead of inflation for decades as this graph shows.

 

 

 

Houses aren't in short supply. You can use graphs and stats to support any argument.

 

There are hundreds of  thousands of empty houses in the UK.

 

There are thousands of houses that have been empty for over a decade.

 

but you miss the points - perhaps deliberately - 1. It is not the fault of landlords that people don't have houses. 2. people - especially homeowners -  live in houses that are too big for them but that they can't or won't sell and move into smaller houses freeing up properties for the "homeless" and needy. 3. your attack on Buce in particular and landlords in general was a silly rant 4. The tory government sold off social housing to the people you want it sold to in the 80's which resulted in their not being enough social housing for the people who should still be living with their parents to move into (along with their children whom they can't support without state aid). 5. oh why bother you are as blinkered to reality as anyone I've heard from lately.

 

obligatory pointless graph found in 20 second search:

 

find here : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/

Edited 29 January 2018 by Guest

[Rogstanley]

9 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

Houses aren't in short supply. You can use graphs and stats to support any argument.

 

There are hundreds of  thousands of empty houses in the UK.

 

There are thousands of houses that have been empty for over a decade.

 

but you miss the points - perhaps deliberately - 1. It is not the fault of landlords that people don't have houses. 2. people - especially homeowners -  live in houses that are too big for them but that they can't or won't sell and move into smaller houses freeing up properties for the "homeless" and needy. 3. your attack on Buce in particular and landlords in general was a silly rant 4. The tory government sold off social housing to the people you want it sold to in the 80's which resulted in their not being enough social housing for the people who should still be living with their parents to move into (along with their children whom they can't support without state aid). 5. oh why bother you are as blinkered to reality as anyone I've heard from lately.

Are those thousands of houses for sale at reasonable prices? Not they are not. Houses which aren’t available to buy aren’t counted as supply. You can’t supply something which isn’t available. 

 

The graph says it all. In the 70’s houses were a third of the current price having taken inflation into account. Even as recently as the 90’s they were less than half price. That means someone looking to buy today has to make 2-3 times as many sacrifices as those who bought in the 70’s through to the 90’s did.

 

Rates of home ownership are plummeting. Ultimately this is not in the best interests of the country.  Along with relentlessly plummeting wages it means more and more people have no real stake in society, and that’s only going to lead to trouble. 

 

The reason why ownership rates are falling is simply because houses have become unaffordable. People such as landlords buying more houses than they need is a contributing factor towards houses becoming unaffordable. 

 

Look i’m not saying it’s crime of the century. But there is a moral/ethical issue here.

Edited 29 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Are those thousands of houses for sale at reasonable prices? Not they are not. Houses which aren’t available to buy aren’t counted as supply. You can’t supply something which isn’t available. 

 

The graph says it all. In the 70’s houses were a third of the current price having taken inflation into account. Even as recently as the 90’s they were less than half price. That means someone looking to buy today has to make 2-3 times as many sacrifices as those who bought in the 70’s through to the 90’s did.

 

Rates of home ownership are plummeting. Ultimately this is not in the best interests of the country.  Along with relentlessly plummeting wages it means more and more people have no real stake in society, and that’s only going to lead to trouble. 

 

The reason why ownership rates are falling is simply because houses have become unaffordable. People such as landlords buying more houses than they need is a contributing factor towards houses becoming unaffordable. 

 

Look i’m not saying it’s crime of the century. But there is a moral/ethical issue here.

I neither agree that houses are unaffordable nor that wages are plummeting.

 

Nor do I think there's any proof that ownership is in the best interest of the country, in fact it could be argued that private ownership is not in the best interest of the country (in fact you're making that exact argument on one hand whilst rallying against it on another) but we live in a capitalist society. Maybe you should consider moving to a communist state where everyone has a house and a job - if you can find one and if they'll accept you.

 

Housing is a fake crisis - though homelessness is real for some people - the UK has plenty of shelter available but UK citizens have an individualist egoistic outlook which has been fed by the capitalist state. The ethical/moral issue should revolve around the filthy rich 1% and the "get something for nothing" underclass. Very few landlords are in either segment of society.

[Buce]

24 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

Houses aren't in short supply. You can use graphs and stats to support any argument.

 

There are hundreds of  thousands of empty houses in the UK.

 

There are thousands of houses that have been empty for over a decade.

 

but you miss the points - perhaps deliberately - 1. It is not the fault of landlords that people don't have houses. 2. people - especially homeowners -  live in houses that are too big for them but that they can't or won't sell and move into smaller houses freeing up properties for the "homeless" and needy. 3. your attack on Buce in particular and landlords in general was a silly rant 4. The tory government sold off social housing to the people you want it sold to in the 80's which resulted in their not being enough social housing for the people who should still be living with their parents to move into (along with their children whom they can't support without state aid). 5. oh why bother you are as blinkered to reality as anyone I've heard from lately.

 

obligatory pointless graph found in 20 second search:

 

find here : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/

 

Tbf, FIF, I don't think he did have a go at me (unless I missed it?) - it was Sharpe's Fox.

[Wolfox]

I used openremt to let my property...  I got loads of applicants within the space of a couple days

 

don't bother with estate agents... waste of space and I’d rather vet who I was getting

 

Do your credit checks (£20 via open rent)

 

Get insurance

 

put money away each month to cover your tax liablilty

 

apply to HMRC for self assessment, but, get advice on how to do properly

 

Keep reciepts

 

PM if you want copies of all the various forms I’ve used (I got a load of templates from my neighbour who has a number of rental properties)

 

Do landlords gas safety check (assuming there is gas)

 

Fit good CO and smoke detectors

 

Be nice to them and make an effort to make them comfortable in their home... Good will goes along way

 

Good Luck!

Edited 30 January 2018 by Wolfox

[adam1]

I've helped a friend rent a few of his out. No agents. However you want the least amount of hassle long term. So this is our 4 step plan...

 

1) Use openrent.

2) Put in no agency fees in body of text (when it is listed on Zoopla and Rightmove this will atrract prospective tenants)

3) Put it bang on or fractionally under the market value

4) When showing them around ask them questions. Ask them about the property. See if they spot any defects etc.

 

With regards to point 3. The more applicants the better choice for you. It is worth receiving ever so slightly less. You might think well that you might as well use a letting agent - the problem is that they will let anybody take the tenancy. You need long term and reliable. Would you have 2 people interested at market rate or 15 at £300 less a year (about £20 a month cheaper)? I'd take the 15...

 

When I mentioned to see if they spotted defects - you want someone who will report a water leak or do something about it. You do not want a tenant who by doing nothing or not spotting anything going wrong will run your property into the ground thus leaving more 'dead time' (and expense) inbetween tenancies. There are a lot of idiots out there and you don't want one in your property... basically grill the f#ckers job interview style.

 

Long term and reliable tenants equates to a nice healthy return with less work. You have to remember that when a tenant leaves you will get a period of £0 returns plus you may need to do some work. Therefore putting fractionally under or bang on will actually benefit you long term. Less dead time between tenants and less work for you.

 

 

[Milo]

3 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

 

The graph is amazing to look at. To think an average house in the 70’s cost only £75k in today’s money - literally a third of today’s price. If houses were that cheap today I’d barely even notice the mortgage repayments going out. Unbelievably cheap and the people who bought houses then were unbelievably lucky.

 

Comments on my personal situation are irrelevant as well as being wrong. I own my house and made plenty of sacrifices to get into that position. It’s typical of the current generation of old people (I’m just assuming you’re quite old given the tone of your post) to make sweeping assumptions and judgements about other people’s lives, particularly younger people. More often than not the assumptions are plain wrong and the judgements ignorant of the facts.

Where's the bit on the graph that shows the crippling 15% interest rates in the 80's? 

 

And I think you might need to come down off your high horse a little bit regarding making sweeping assumptions, as you've made quite a few yourself. (I can't be arsed to trawl through the posts for the pedantic specifics that you'll bleat on about) but some of your comments directed to me on a similar thread to this were fairly sweeping 

[Rogstanley]

8 hours ago, Milo said:

Where's the bit on the graph that shows the crippling 15% interest rates in the 80's? 

 

And I think you might need to come down off your high horse a little bit regarding making sweeping assumptions, as you've made quite a few yourself. (I can't be arsed to trawl through the posts for the pedantic specifics that you'll bleat on about) but some of your comments directed to me on a similar thread to this were fairly sweeping 

They weren't. I've only ever talked about the principle of the issue.

 

High interest rates came along with big wage increases. It all balances out.

 

The fact is that buying a house in the 70's took 1/3 of the money and sacrifices buying a house takes today. It's incomparable. I spend more on petrol than people back then did on their mortgages. It's hard to even comprehend houses being that cheap. They were practically giving them away.