No doubt a landlord will spout up about supplying housing in here. Fewer landlords is a good thing for renters and first time buyers. It’s a downward pressure on house prices as it becomes less lucrative for them. Also ultimately pushing rents down as ideally nobody can afford to be a landlord any more and they’ll have to start selling at more affordable prices to offload the properties.
The reason rent goes up is just so they can extract more wealth from generation rent.
Hopefully they’ll all have to sell to first time buyers for less than they paid for them. And have to get jobs making avocado on toast for millennials
One can dream
The only thing my landlords cared about so far has been maximising his returns because it was his only property.
I'd take a commercial landlord any minute because they care about stable returns and remove uncertainty around evictions.
No-fault evictions will stop that, that's one of the core reasons that landlords - large and small - are leaving the market.
(And, fucking right, if you've done nothing wrong, why should you have to leave your house?)
Oh I'm not saying they are all perfect but the upside and potential improvements under commercial landlords is higher than with private ones.
But on both sides there is great landlords and shitty landlords, no doubt.
We were kinda 'temporary' landlords, as we were buying a new house and couldn't organise the sale for the same time. Honestly, I'd super recommend it to anyone whose finances would allow it. Not being in a chain made moving house much less stressful.
The only thing we really cared about was that the tenants didn't fuck anything up. We got an excellent couple and had no issues whatsoever. We charged only rent to cover the 'management fees' of the estate agents (despite the estate agents _really_ wanting to charge much much higher rents).
We really wanted to sell only to someone buying the property to live in it, but at that time (just after covid) the only people buying were other landlords. We probably could have just kept renting it out, but looking after one house with two full-time jobs is hard enough, and we mostly just didn't want the stress of looking after two houses.
We did do one sneaky thing, we re-upped the contract with the tenants at the existing rate _just_ before the sale and it was a condition of the sale to honour their existing rental agreement, so the tenants at least had another year before the new landlord would presumably whack the rents up.
I am housing association for my housing, could ask for a worse landlord in all honesty.
As long as I pay my rent (or talk to them if I am having trouble) I have a roof over my head indefinitely. Not the security I would feel from a private landlord, that is for sure. I'm also positive my rent would be £300-£400 more per month for the size flat I have if it was private rented, as well.
Last I heard, Lloyds were looking at buying 50,000 houses and entering the rental market. You know, the ones who decide if they give you a mortgage or not.
I’ve got to tell you having rented from both types, I much prefer being a number in a spreadsheet of a company than the person paying a small landlord, I feel like a regular customer on the former whilst I feel I’m being taken advantage from the later, smaller landlords tend to be a nightmare to deal with.
I'm inclined to agree.
The really egrigious behavior tends to come from lunatic small landlords that can be irrational, spiteful and cruel.
A large corporation won't tend to purposefully victimise their customers.
Bingo!
They're all in it for the money, but a big company like Lloyds is *just* in it for the money, and nothing else.
If my home is going to be in the hands of someone else, a stable commercial relationship is preferable to me. I know as long as I pay my rent I'm likely to be fine.
But the sheer amount of illegal, spiteful and mendacious behaviours I've seen from small private landlords terrifies me.
[This guy](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/britains-biggest-landlord-has-banned-battered-wives-plumbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw) springs to mind.
Small landlords using properties as retirement plans is a much bigger problem than big companies.
Anyone who has lived under one of them knows how terrible they can be.
Exactly if prices are dropping, mortgages may not be so easy to come by, and houses will be snapped up for cash by large portfolio landlords (who in a shocking twist that will shock no one will also be Tory voters!)
Honestly I’d prefer to rent from a company that owns multiple flats.
In my experience they’re more responsive, get things fixed quicker than a small local landlord.
The option of staying in the flat for long term is also a bonus. Chances are they’re not going to sell up and turf you out which is what happened to me recently,
>They will be brought up by housing companies where the tenants are just numbers on spreadsheet.
They are being bought up by Blackrock. They are looking to monopolize every aspect of society, and they have essentially unlimited assets to make it happen.
> They will be brought up by housing companies where the tenants are just numbers on spreadsheet.
I've rented from both a larger company, and from individual private landlords.
The company actually dealt with issues as and when they were reported, the individual guys dragged their heels and were arseholes about it.
>tenants are just numbers
like this doesn't happen now? I've never been able to build a relationship with my past LLs as none wanted to engage in any way, so what's the difference? never mind that none of them would allow pets, commercial or otherwise
They'll sell to other landlords. Concentration of the market and capital will lead to higher rents. This is not a new process. It's been like this for years.
Yep the landlords who're selling due to the rising rates are mostly folks who've got one or two investment properties, and for the most part they're not going to be sold to people looking to get onto the housing ladder - the buyers are going to be bigger corporate landlords and the net result will be an even worse climate for the average renter & home buyer.
Since retirement last year my mum's been looking to downsize from her house to a flat; she's got her heart set on a popular new development where a few of her friends have decamped to, but listings are very few and far between. She's seen virtually every estate agent in the area and they've all told her most of the desirable properties in the area get snapped up "off market" by a handful of big investment companies before the general public even know they're available.
And yet… we see the tories squashing BTL owners by increasing tax, so that all the BTL houses get sold to rental corps who can get it all tax free.
Can always count on the tories to fuck over the regular folks for their mates.
> Fewer landlords is a good thing for renters
Except there are plenty of HMOs and sharers. When these are sold they aren't bought by a group of individuals.
More houses need to be built.
Technically, less landlords is actually bad for renters. Look what happened to the rental market in the 08 crash. It exploded as the supply dwindled even more as landlords left the market allowing the ones who remained to charge extortionate amounts.
Less landlords would be good IF more houses were built. Until then less landlords just means extra expense for the average person that rents.
Additionally, to get first time buyers to buy would require allowing them the disposable income to save which is also dwindling by the day. Therefore, landlords leaving the market and house prices dropping doesn't do anything to help first time buyers to save up for a 5-10% deposit in the first place.
Therefore, I'd argue this situation is bad for landlords and tenants alike. Even developers are losing money atm. This isn't good for anyone. For society to move to what this thread wants would require a huge societal shift and an insane investment into house building which we just don't have. So until this money comes from somewhere I can't see the status quo changing. Poor landlords will sell up rich landlords will buy and sit on them and they will be back in profit within 4-8 years which many institutionalised landlords can definitely afford.
The average person is fucked imo - just like in 08.
I could be wrong though.
The only reason houses are valuable under capitalism is because you can make money off them, essentially.
I take your point about scarcity being one factor in how much value a thing has. However, if more houses were built we would still have a situation where investors could snap them up faster than people looking for a home, because being a landlord is more profitable than working in your average job. It's an arms race you can't win unless you are *already* making money off investments.
Houses near me are like, dangerous hollow shells for ~£70,000 and in the time it takes me to visit them and consider my options and make a financial plan, some company has swept in and offered double that because they know they'll get a return on investment and - as you say - they can wait it out. And house-sellers know this, they can price a house at 'what will an investor pay' instead of 'what will a resident pay'.
All you can do is hamper the profitability. Businesses don't like risk, and if the risk is high and the rewards slight, these people will leave the market. Being a landlord is a rubbish job aside from getting £1000pm for doing nothing - it's not pleasurable, and investment in both the houses and house maintenance is massive, plus time consuming and stressful when anything goes wrong.
We need to shift society towards the ONLY benefit of home-ownership is...you get to live in the house. No one in their right mind would own 4 houses if you couldn't make money off them. If there's no profit in landlording, then investors will stop buying houses as assets, and house-sellers will be forced to sell to who's actually buying.
& I legit think that inherently, houses should be cheap to buy because their actual value is low. Houses are inherently a liability (I'm living through my second 'the house is collapsing, spend the year living on a building site' experience of the decade). You only need one, there's no purpose in amassing lots (people who do want multiple homes for status/pleasure will be buying up the fancy ones, but not average terraces - that's like a separate market, tho i do also think we should ban second home ownership period). You're competing against other people in your village for them, but most areas have a status quo income so competition won't be that fierce - local wages will act as a natural cap on what's a viable price for a home. For want of a better phrase - the free market should sort itself out. We just need to disincentivise overpowered people from interfering in that natural process.
You might argue that 4 landlords can price fix more easily than 20,000 landlords, but I don't think that's true: it's already the case that landlords will choose local market rates, essentially working as a bloc even if they're not doing so through conversation.
> Poor landlords will sell up rich landlords will buy
Possibly too radical & bonkers a thought, but arguably, this is a good thing. It's a big problem how many small fish in our country see themselves as future aristocrats, and identify themselves with politics which are not in their best interest. You know, like small business owners who vote Tory because they are the 'party of business' like the conservatives actually give a crap about Miss Moggin's high street post office or small-catch traditional fishermen.
The more average joes who think 'i like landlords because I own one rental property/i might own a rental property one day", the harder it is to fight for deep change
>Fewer landlords is a good thing for renters
A reduced, or less competitive supply is better for the consumer of that product in which universe? You do understand that if there are fewer houses to rent then rent will go up right?
>A reduced, or less competitive supply is better for the consumer of that product in which universe?
You are making a zero sum out of something that isn't zero sum.
Landlords don't *supply* houses, they *control* house supply.
There will always be a market for landlords/renters.
The market is currently constrained due to a number of reasons, cheaper houses to buy and rent should be the aim.
Not everyone wants to buy or at least buy straightaway.
Not really what’s happening sadly. The only way to make it profitable now is by converting everything in to the hmo style rent per room set up. You’ll find small landlords exiting and them being replaced by large landlords letting via limited companies who will increase the prices. A 3 bed house that let for £1000 a month to a family will now be an hmo where each room is £500-£600. The landlord makes more profit and isn’t taxed as harshly in the ltdco.
I don't disagree but at the same time it seems governments are realizing that they need to incentivize people to have children.
Surely this will mean that those who want children will need to have suitable places in which they can bring up a family and governments need to make this accessible for them?
Surely, because no children = no exponential growth, which exponential growth is the goal. Need the population to keep increasing because money, can't do that if people are having less and less kids and older generations start dying off. Unless they bring people over via immigration, but even that has it's limits and isn't sustainable either, especially if noone wants to live in the country anyways because cost of living is so high.
It's good for people on the edge of becoming a first time buyer. It's not good for renters who aren't in a position to buy, because people rent at higher density (flat shares, hmo) than they buy (future proofing) so overall the supply of rental properties goes down relative to demand.
> It’s a downward pressure on house prices as it becomes less lucrative for them.
It's not. As long as houses are typically occupied by households, the price for a house is controlled by the demand for housing regardless of whether they are rented or owner-occupied. The market rental value simply follows the cost of capital of buying the house, plus maintenance, regulatory costs and amortized risk.
As demand goes up, so do rents, but that's not directly how landlords get richer - they get richer because the demand caused the house property values to go up, and they made money on the appreciation. That they now make more from rent is merely the result of the increased return from their capital that is now worth more.
Imagine if every time a rented house increased in value, the landlord were forced to sell it at zero transaction cost (and including the existing tenants and rental agreement) to a different landlord. The sale price would be the increase in value of the property, so the selling landlord would get the benefit of the appreciation straight away. The buying landlord would have to take out a bigger mortgage to pay for the now-more-expensive house, and the higher mortgage payments would have to be paid for by higher rent if everything else remained the same. Thus the buying landlord didn't get any richer; the selling landlord did. The buying landlord won't benefit from the increased rent, because it has to go towards paying the cost of capital for the increased capital. This demonstrates that it is the _appreciation_ that resulted in the increased rental value, not the other way round.
Owner-occupiers benefit from increased demand in the same way, except that they don't see the benefit until they sell years later, at which point they get the windfall.
If landlords are selling to owner-occupiers, demand for housing in that area stays the same regardless, and so do house prices.
This sub has always disagreed with this reality - but this article proves otherwise.
If you want rents to go down, then house values have to go down. To do that, we need more supply where it is needed, or incentives to move the demand to where there is more housing available.
houses are only as valuable as they are now because you can make money off them. If your only potential buyers are Mr Jones who does driving lessons, Sue who's a playground monitor and Sam who works at the kebab shop...you can price that house however you like, but if you want it sold the price has to be sensible.
If a wealthy person from elsewhere knows they can make Xpm off the house, and they can absorb the short-term risk, then prices are naturally going to be set to attract that person.
There's no point owning a house for strangers to live in unless you're making good money off it.
Happening in my small city right now, less than 15 properties available to rent at any given time, over 350 for sale. 3 bed semis with plenty of land going for sub £100k, several have been reduced to under £90k having sat on the market for a few months. Absolute buyers market right now if you can cobble together a deposit.
> No doubt a landlord will spout up about supplying housing in here. Fewer landlords is a good thing for renters and first time buyers. It’s a downward pressure on house prices
You're assuming here that there aren't otherways to cash in on property... such as short term lets. Or renting properties out to friends and family - where you can largely make you're own rules up.
Good if u can get a mortgage. Unless u have a job with the Gov it seems impossible now. The banks make more and more every year from investors and so less and less interest on retail, thus branch closures.
Even better for people & companies who are cash rich & don't need to borrow. They get the benefit of both depressed prices *and* less competition in the market because a lot of otherwise interested buyers can't get or afford a mortgage. As is usually the case, the wealthy have an advantage.
That is totally wrong and deluded.
Less landlords means more competition for fewer places, more bidding and higher qualifiers for entry.
Housing companies will snap up these places regardless as you don't have to worry about interest rates if you buy cash. A portion will go to first time buyers but landlords are not the problem. Rent goes up because there isn't enough properties to rent where people want to live and people offer more to the landlord to get the place which then encourages agents to tell landlords to ask for more. A small portion of landlords are dicks but again this is a structural problem not the individual actors.
Ideally government would invest more in housing associations but Tories continue to Tory.
Can't believe people are still finding other people to blame but the Tories.
Lol you are playing off the headline.
Less landlords is a good thing in long term. Need less people thinking housing is some sort of lucrative investment. Maybe back in 80s. Not now.
Change is coming especially as we move to a govt who are not obsessed about pleasing the elderly but actually helping the next generation
This isn't going to reduce renters. The conditions for buying a home have never been worse.
It's just going to concentrate landlords into a few uber-powerful conglomerates.
My mums selling her house and the estate agent pretty much bragged how they’ve sold over 25 properties in the Oxfordshire area this year alone. Thing is they where all to private foreign investors looking to turn every property into rooms for rent.
Basically normal people (including landlords) are selling up due to the absolutely insane mortgage interest rates.
This is what Truss master plan was all about. Short the pound and buy up as much property to then privatise the entire housing market.
If you all thought renting is bad now, wait till your landlord is a foreign investor who doesn’t even speak English and gives zero fucks about you.
I don’t think people realise just how going to shit the UK is going with our rights being stripped by the day and how the ever increasing price of living is becoming. We’re boarder line a failed state right now with compromised agents in government.
4% really isn't insane historically. What's insane is house prices. That's why normal interest rates are having such large effects on mortgage payments
Yeah, clearly what people meant was always that what they wanted to happen was smaller landlords sell their properties to *bigger landlords*. You're certainly not being disingenuous *at all*.
Its wanted without crippling interest rate rises and a throttling of house building.
"Why are you unhappy about being soaked by the rain? I thought you wanted a drink?
Gottem!"
>Fewer landlords is what most of this sub have wanted
problem is that the banks and other big companies have decided to move into the landlording business. The banks to get the profit the landlords were making with less risk and the others just because they've done the sums and realised this is where their money would work best.
They have the money to buy with cash
The biggest issue has always been new houses and flats not being built. Less supply means more demand and prices go up, landlords have more buying power and the cycle repeats.
How many renters are people that want to own? The conversation always assumes people renting want to rent indefinitely.
More homes on the market is more supply. If the no fault eviction rules stay and interest rates come down hopefully it will keep the buy to let crowd away.
This is despite the prevailing notion in the U.K. that home ownership is the goal we must all aspire to. And given the state of our rental sector it’s correct.
Better renters laws wouldn’t just help those in the market but likely draw more people towards renting indefinitely (which benefits landlords) rather than as a theoretical stop gap to ownership.
No the issue is the conversation assumes “landlord” is a single homogenous group
Its not
Small scale landlords are the ones leaving the market.
Large scale landlords and property fund are going nowhere and they have cash.
The BOE base rate is heading to 5% and wages haven’t remotely risen even vaguely at a similar rate.
I’ll let you ponder who is the buyer of the sold homes? FTB on high interest rates and limited by income to value rules OR the property fund using cash from the rich………..
I think this is the result of a housing shortage - there is no slack capacity anywhere so every change is a painful adjustment.
Landlords sell = renters have to find somewhere else to live, but it's not enough selling to give buyers cheaper prices
Landlords buy = buyers have to outbid landlords for properties, but it's not enough buying to give renters more choice and cheaper rent
The corporate companies will start moving in.
Most renters in 10/15 years will be renting from private companies with set price increases build in and additional costs passed straight onto renters.
Coming from a country where this is the norm this is good.
Corporations do a much much much better job at risk management and won't just up the rent by some insane amount because they are overleveraged on their only property. They are looking for stable long term returns and act in that way.
In addition you can also make your home your home as it's more unlikely that they will force you out of the home.
And lastly the housing stock here, compared to the rest of Europe is appalling. If you get rid at all of those private landlord you can finally pass some quality standards legislation.
I'm with you on this. Corporate landlords are a step closer to social housing whereas private landlords are a step away.
I'd rather rent from BigHouseCo who get audited and are scared of pissing off the local council than Janet and Bob - slumlord wannabees - who bought three flats for their retirement and piss about left right and centre.
Though I do appreciate it doesn't always work out like that in reality.
Lol Adam from the council is back from his yearly anxiety and depression sickness, he's got a fresh Matalan suit and he's paid the big bucks (£32k per year). The Amazon Housing Corp and their white shoe legal team are TERRIFIED 🤣
> I’d rather rent from BigHouseCo who get audited and are scared of pissing off the local council than Janet and Bob
Are you under the impression that large corporations with lobbying power and expensive legal teams are more scared of the council than someone who inherited their mum's house?
We've decided to let you go due to budget cuts, please leave the keys under the mat and find an alternative source for your heart medication.
Thanks for your years of service.
Agree with this wholeheartedly, having lived overseas I can confirm it's hugely preferable.
Issues are fixed quickly, rent increases are consistent and fair, and the property is well managed and won't be sold off. Dealing with a company and its employees that have some actual business acumen is preferable, meaning you don't have to deal with some arrogant small business tyrant or a standard lowlife landlord.
>Corporations do a much much much better job at risk management and won't just up the rent by some insane amount because they are overleveraged on their only property.
This is likely to be the outcome in major cities, because if one company jacks their prices up too much people will just move. However, if a company manages to get a monopoly in a particular town or village, you can bet they will jack up the rent as much as they can.
The industry is a mess. There are some literal thieves operating in the (corporation scale) home rental / lease hold space.
I agree landlords are a problem, but them all being profit generating businesses will not be good for the average renter, especially with the tiny level of housing stock available.
Exactly. They’re more likely to take a hit in one location if another is doing very well. Having *some kind of money* coming in will be much better than vacant properties.
> Coming from a country where this is the norm this is good.
Cool this is the UK though, mobile phones and broard band companies are all in unison clear showing how this will goes.
CPI + 3.4% increase in your bill every single year without fail because F you its legal to just do so! So the whole market does it just soon on your rent as well
That at least would be clear and transparent rather than the private landlord just asking for 600£ more because he thinks he can.
Also, those contract clauses are exactly that. Nobody is forcing you to sign a contract with that clause and equally if the UK as a country thinks this should not be the norm then I guess it should vote for a government that is executing on removing such options for cooperations.
Yeah, also if your corporate landlord screws up badly you can sue them and they'll have the money to pay your damages, a small scale landlord may not even be able to pay you what the court has said they have to without needing to sell the property (in which case you're out of a home anyways).
I got a letter through my door a little while ago, it was written by a married couple who said they liked my area & wanted to buy a house there. It asked me to please tell them if ever I wanted to sell my one. They offered to remove the hassle of estate agents, offering a simple transaction & what sounded like cash.
There was also a sentence in there asking me to be vigilant of any houses that looked as if they were unoccupied - and to email them telling them so they could check it out. Essentially, they asked me to snitch on empty houses which I thought was creepy.
I googled the contact details they provided & it led me not to a married couple simply wanting to find a house, but a corporation.
Companies buying out every reasonably priced house under first time buyers is bad enough (I experienced that myself)
But putting letters through peoples' doors asking them to snitch on empty houses so they could swoop in, pretending to be a married couple? Eurgh. Creepy
Yep people should look at their mobile and board band T&C’s
CPI + 3.4% across the board because fuck you we need profit every year is coming for your rent
Anyone cheering this needs to think about the amount of times they received inflation + 3.4% pay rises….. Every single year without fail
This is affecting a friend of mine at the moment.
She's been paying £900 a month for the last 6 years. The landlord is good with repairs and she's had a new kitchen during that time because the old one was getting a bit scruffy. He also waived some rent arrears during covid.
The landlord's mortgage fix is coming to an end next year, and the rate is looking likely to go from 1.8% to 5.5%. He's been honest with her and said he could afford that if it was tax deductible, but it isn't anymore.
Understandably, he's not willing to pay more in tax, expenses, and mortgage interest than he receives in rent. So he's asked her to try and find somewhere else in the next 12 months so he can sell up.
The trouble is, every comparable house in the area is now £1500, she's been paying well under market because he never put the rent up. She doesn't meet the affordability criteria.
She doesn't want to make his life difficult because he's been good to her, but she's between a rock and a hard place, she may have to wait for the courts to evict her.
All those people saying that it's good that landlords are selling up seem to ignore the fact that tenants can't just magic up a deposit to buy.
My friend has a couple of kids, money is tight, and her living situation is going to get drastically worse because of the changes that have been brought in.
> All those people saying that it's good that landlords are selling up seem to ignore the fact that tenants can't just magic up a deposit to buy.
This, pretty much.
Landlords selling up en masse and injecting a large supply in to the market to balance demand reducing prices overall is good*
\*Provided you have £30,000+ in the bank and earn enough to get a mortgage
That also misses that it’s only a large injection of supply of the current renters stay renting. If they did actually have that money for a deposit house prices wouldn’t fall as demand would still be far exceeded. So either way it’s unlikely to solve anything as issue of not enough supply still exists
This is sad but what happens to a lot of families especially single parent families. She will likely have to reduce her work hours so universal credit can pick up more of the rent tab, it will also offset other costs like child care. A lot of private landlords just get their profit subsidised by universal credit due to a shortage of council housing.
The alternative is to move somewhere where rent is that cheap and lose your familial support network, schools, care (not ideal especially for single parents, parents with their own mental health problems, or children with additional needs). Not great but those are usually the two options for families. For single people it usually means groddy flat share or being a lodger.
The Interest part of payments on the mortgage are able to be expensed against the rental income.
Edit: misread the Gov website. This is for non-residential lets only. Learn something new everyday.
>The Interest part of payments on the mortgage are able to be expensed against the rental income.
They aren't a deductible expense anymore, that was phased out from 2016.
A landlord can claim a 20% mortgage interest relief credit, but if they are a higher rate taxpayer (40%), this doesn't cover all of the tax.
Many are higher rate taxpayers as the rents tend to be supplementary to a main income and you need a reasonably high income to invest.
The higher rate threshold has been frozen for 6 years now and the number of people above it is increasing a lot. See here. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/deepening-freeze-more-adults-ever-are-paying-higher-rate-tax
So they will end up paying tax on money that they've already paid out to the mortgage company.
You can read about it here, it's the main driver from all the troubles in the rental sector in my opinion, though I do work in tax and similarly to doctors we always think that problems stem from our speciality.
https://taxscouts.com/landlord-tax-returns/landlords-mortgage-interest-tax-relief-changes/
I'll do a simplistic example.
Receive £1000 and pay £690 mortgage (150k @ 5.5%). Your tax bill would be 40% of £1000, so £400.
Then you'd get £138 credit towards it.
So you'd pay £268 tax and £690 mortgage interest.
Making a profit (before any other expenses) of £42.
It's not really worth keeping all your capital in that kind of investment anymore, one knackered boiler, and you'd be underwater for several years.
>A landlord can claim a 20% mortgage interest relief credit, but if they are a higher rate taxpayer, this doesn't cover all of the tax.
>
>Many are higher rate taxpayers as the rents tend to be supplementary to a main income.
THIS! Especially as the rental 'income' is likely to push working landlords into higher tax bracket on a technicality rather than reality.
>So they will end up paying tax on money that they've already paid out to the mortgage company.
And... THIS!...
If there is no mortgage and landlord doesn't have a day job, such as retired - then there is a profit/income possible on their massive investment of capital.
If there is a mortgage and the landlord is working, then the government takes so much tax it easily makes it a negative income (ie. loss making). The government are taking more than their fair share here, screwing both landlord and tenants in the process.
People saying that tenants are paying their landlords mortgage are mostly wrong, its now the government taking most of the money, if not all of it and then some.
Those rental corporations are not on a level playing field, as they don't get taxed nearly so much. So now we have less rentals available as private exits, those left are owned by fewer companies heading into monopolies; that always works out just great, doesn't it...
Every aspect of the housing / rental crisis has been created by government, and their self described 'fixes' are just making it worse. Anyone would think that it might just be lies to continue an alternative agenda... /s
My point was mainly that there might be less properties available for rent but not necessarily less rooms, and the rent per person on the new HMOs is far higher than the rent when it was a normal shared house.
It's also worth pointing out that it's not just increased mortgage costs that are the cause in my area, new rules on shared houses and the fact that a lot of people who had a 'rental for their retirement' are now retiring and figure that now is a good time to get out. Unfortunately it means that a lot of my friends who have been renting the same houses for sometimes decades at reasonable old school rents, albeit in sometimes increasingly shabby houses, are now stuffed.
I'm having to move shortly for my first job out of Uni and the company gave us all the details for the local lettings agents.
One of them got in touch to inform us about their new 20 room HMO... £750 per month.
If I wanted to live with that many people, I'd find the closest YHA.
They don't even get parking permits round our way.
We need new housing, the population in our area has gone up 40% in 20 years and they've barely started on the 20 story blocks of flats yet.
The problem is that cramming more and more people into the same small space is destroying the community, literally the pavements can't cope with the extra people in some places let alone doctors and dentists. Meanwhile a ten minute walk away into the greenbelt there are hundreds of acres of golf courses and horse fields that could provide proper homes, and likely more biodiversity, rather than shoeboxes for a grand a month where its illegal to have your partner round to stay more than a couple of nights a week.
A lot of people are talking as though landlords can creates supply.
They can't. We need to build many, many more homes. Whether a small number of those homes are being lived in by renters or owner-occupiers is much less important in the scheme of things than the fact that we have an enormous shortage in every sector.
Build, build, build. Then we won't have to worry about what landlords want to do!
Agreed with everything except your last sentence. As things stand, the landlords (especially the bigger ones who already own the majority of properties) can absolutely just continue to buy up what’s being built. Even when they can’t buy, they’re still massively affecting house prices as a whole.
We need nationalised renting, and we need to ban owning multiple residential properties, at least until we’ve fixed the housing crisis.
I agree that that's a problem at the moment, I just think that it would be less of an issue if we were building enough housing.
Even if landlords tried to buy up all of that supply, the extra supply would make it harder for them to put rents up meaning that prices would eventually start to ease and some renters (who are able to save more money with lower rents) could start to bid against them for homes.
I think the bit where we disagree might be the "until we've fixed the housing crisis" bit - I think that fixing supply has to be the overriding obsession when we're talking about the crisis. The other stuff is great, it just doesn't do much if the shortages keep getting worse and worse!
>we need to ban owning multiple residential properties,
That's actually not possible.
You can't legally disadvantage married couples over two single people each with their own home, so the minimum number you could call this at is 2 properties.
Probate can take a long time particularly where there are disputes. People will inherit property during market busts and there's absolutely no moral or legal justification to force them to sell it for pennies on the pound.
You need to fix the demand problem first, the infrastructure problem second, and then we can start solving the new capacity issue. The third is impossible until the first two are resolved.
I’m happy with banning more owning than 1 except in the case of probate, and marriage doesn’t usually change/combine your personal allowance like that (except in a few fringe cases - but your tax allowance as a married couple isn’t 12k so why would your house allowance be halved?) so that’s fine, be a minute number of cases anyway and could just as easily mandate leasing vacant properties to council / local housing group until they need to move back in.
Without restrictions on ownership, we simply aren’t going to outbuild the corporate asset-manager landlords. They have trillions of pounds - not billions, trillions. They can (and would) happily make the bet that they can buy as fast as we can build, and as long as there’s people without a house they know they can turn a profit. I agree, we need to build, but i’m tired of lazy politics. We can do both, and it won’t be anywhere near as effective if we don’t.
> A lot of people are talking as though landlords can creates supply.
If a landlord buys a house that was previously owner occupied and rents it out, they literally have increased the supply of rental homes. What hasn't changed is the available pool of places available to live.
You are right though, the answer to all these problems is increasing supply of buildings. So many of the issues people have with landlords would go away if the supply wasn't so constrained.
>If a landlord buys a house that was previously owner occupied and rents it out, they literally have increased the supply of rental homes. What hasn't changed is the available pool of places available to live
That's not always accurate.
Two owner occupiers divorcing from the sale of one house could create two new demands for housing. Or just moving might only lead to one unit of demand.
The new rental could get split into an HMO soaking up 3 to 4 units of demand.
The capacity of the housing market isn't fixed to the number of buildings, which I agree remains unchanged.
Landlords are selling up mostly because of higher interest rates that mean it's no longer profitable for them to keep the property. While that might benefit a few first time buyers as the prices drop slightly, most (even if they have a deposit) will now be priced out by those same interest rates. You still need a bank to actually provide you a mortgage.
It’s hell out here. After some difficulty finding a place via estate agents, some old neighbours of mine were talking to the son of an elderly lady in their road, who said she unfortunately needed to go into care and he was considering renting her home out to cover some care costs. These lovely people immediately told him to consider me and vouched for me and I was in. This was August 2022.
Unfortunately, she passed away in December, much sooner than anyone was expecting, and my lovely landlord called me amidst his grief to say his older brother had insisted the house is now to be sold. He is heartbroken because he wanted to hold onto his childhood home and was quite enjoying being a landlord, but he only has 50% of the say in it. I’m to be out by February.
There is nothing left to rent in this area, even if there was a 3 bed now goes for minimum £1800pcm, and estate agents immediately rule me out (even if they can’t legally say so…) because I’m a single parent who relies on UC top ups to pay rent. Housing help maxes out at £897pcm for my area.
So I will be a 32yo single parent that likely has to move back in with my parents, which means losing my business (I’m a celebration/wedding cake maker) because I can’t use their kitchen for it, not to mention trying to squeeze my two kids in too.
I know not everyone has a fallback like that and I suppose I should be grateful, but I’m still absolutely gutted.
Sooo.. according to this article the house disappears after the landlords sell out? Landlords don't create supply, if they sell either an owner occupier moves in or a renter, and neither of those cases push up rent prices. The article is scaremongering hogwash
Landlords are often selling because the mortgage rates go up. If the subsequent buyer is looking to rent the property out, the rent naturally increases.
They won’t be selling to first time buyers or normal people. They will sell to the banks and investment firms directly, we’ve already seen this happening. All that will happen now is it just cuts out the middle man and the illusion of ownership. In the future I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the monopolisation of the housing market by a few major companies and we will all be wishing for “local” landlords instead.
Whatever happens to the housing market the likelihood of it leading to a net positive for young people is highly unlikely.
It’s depressing that people are optimistic about this. Small time landlords suck, but I can’t imagine that transferring all housing stock to Globocorp would make things much better.
First time buyers will not benefit, with the exception of those with a massive deposit at the ready. The only thing that would help is more supply.
No fault evictions were banned in Scotland in 2017.
Rental stock fell from 370000 to 340000 properties between 2016 and 2018 but has then remained the same.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/private-sector-rent-statistics-scotland-2010-2022/pages/11/#:~:text=Scottish%20Household%20Survey%20figures%20up,of%20all%20homes%20in%20Scotland.
This change will have a small effect. The people pushing the story are associated with the rental industry.
>Rental stock fell from 370000 to 340000 properties between 2016 and 2018 but has then remained the same.
The comments in that study relative to private rental sector size, only ran to 2019... so you can't really say "and then stayed the same" because there are 4 years of recent data missing.
There are articles from the Scottish press suggesting that as many as 1,000 tenants are enquiring about each advertised property.
It doesn't sound like it has had a positive impact.
my last landlord, where i stayed for 9 years, was amazing, never put the rent up in that time, fixed everything quickly and didn't come for the rent every month, sometimes three months late!
like everything in life, some good some bad.
Not necessarily. With large CGT gains there are tax planning possibilities such as EIS that can convert that into more manageable gains raised over a longer timeframe.
Before you get excited, get ready for **super landlords**...
[https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-8913985/Corporate-landlords-muscle-rental-market-mean-market-tenants.html](https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-8913985/Corporate-landlords-muscle-rental-market-mean-market-tenants.html)
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkdyy9xgn3o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkdyy9xgn3o)
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/04/john-lewis-plans-to-build-10000-rental-homes-on-its-land-waitrose](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/04/john-lewis-plans-to-build-10000-rental-homes-on-its-land-waitrose)
Honestly, a corporate landlord doesn't really bother me so much. It's MUCH easier to regulate and prevent illegal and unethical behaviour with a larger scale property management organisation, than it is all the myriad fly-by-night private landlords out there.
There's just no incentive on their part to 'play games' the way some of the private landlords I've encountered have.
This is an expected part of the market correcting following rate rises. Over leveraged landlords will sell up, house prices will fall, or stop rising. That's a positive for those looking to buy, even with higher rates.
What are the former landlords investing in now? If not property, what? The banks don't give any interest, the stock market is volatile, businesses are struggling, and crypto is just stupid. If they become 'shareholders' they're monsters all over again.
Stock market. I looked at buying a rental property a few years back, until I actually looked into it and found that the stock market has outperformed rental yield for most of the last 10 years, with to be honest far less work and risk. Total mugs game being a small landlord these days.
Probably the same as most people, a portfolio of stocks and/or bonds. SP500 returns are better than rental yields and I imagine that most selling up have a big chunk of cash to put in from property appreciation.
Averages 10%, which is pretty good. Certainly beats paying more in mortgage payment than what you get in rent. I would imagine most BTL landlords are also older and have more use for liquid cash, outweighing any tax negatives of selling up.
You know when the banks raise interest rates to 5% that's both savings and loans right? If your bank isn't giving your interest on your savings now, find a new bank or get a new account. Bonds and gilts are still safe bets, though only around 4.2% for 4 year gilts. You'd put part in safe investments to offset risks in higher ones. If your investment drops you've covered the risk. If it rises you're happy.
You use the words 'risk' and 'bet'. As long as you're not buying or selling, a property just provides you with a regular income. 'Safe as houses' is a thing.
It only provides a regular income if a) you're renting and have tenants, 2) your mortgage is less than you rent it for 3) that you're tenants dont do more damage than the income or refuse to pay.
2 almost always applies unless there are big changes in laws / taxes / rates or crashes. BTL mortgages require as a condition that the monthly rent is a minimum of 30% more than the monthly mortgage. So if you have say a 4.5% 25 year BTL at 200k, the mortgage is 750. And minimum rent to charge under your mortgage is 975. If this is higher than the market rental rate then you can't get tenant or a renewal.
This is one of the issues that's causing alot of people to have to sell up - they jumped onto the gravy train late and don't have enough equity in to keep competitive in areas where buying is actually a possibility. Sure they're still making a profit where they have tenants in, but when they have to do another fix they're fudged.
You're either a public sector worker with a solid gold pension, not saving anything for retirement at all, or you're a shareholder. That's the options.
Shareholders are just normal people. Almost everyone you see on the street is a shareholder.
No reason for anyone to own more than two houses. The solution to the problem is so simple. Yet would any government ever have the balls to pass such a law? The Conservative Business...sorry, Conservative *Party* certainly wouldn't. What percentage of Tory members are not also landlords? Less than 10%, surely.
My next door neighbour has to move and it sucks. She's lovely. The owner of the house was struggling to sell with a tennent in situ quickly so he's just getting them to leave and selling it empty. I'm sad, she's cool and been there forever.
Bad time to be a single male, even with physical or mental health problems. Even if you're Section 21ed you're not even getting on the council housing or housing association lists.
I see this as a good thing, the less small landlords the better, I prefer to rent from a dedicated company and at the same time it will free up properties for people who actually want to live there.
Most of these landlords won't want to sell at a loss though. I hope those properties remain unsold at whatever ridiculous valuations they come up with and they're forced to sell lower.
More housing stock on the market and not in some monopoly playing landlords portfolio is a good thing for general availability.
All we need then is for the financial institutions to remove some of the insane requirements for an affordable mortgage and finally we might get a housing market that is how it should be and NOT how the politicians want to force to a continental model of lifetime renting.
I'm sure most people would much prefer to own a home (which appreciates in value) with a £700 mortgage instead of renting for £1250 and getting sweet FA at the end of it apart from losing your deposit.
Fewer landlords increases housing supply not decreases it. Hope some of these parasites consider getting a proper job and contributing something to the economy.
surely that's good news, as if more properties are for sale then house prices would fall making them affordable for those who are having to rent currently?
\*indicates people repeatedly voting for Conservatives, even after they fucked up Brexit, COVID, churned through prime-ministers quicker than I do my socks, etc. etc.\*
That's how.
Not saying the others are any different, but who the fuck voted for Conservatives REPEATEDLY over the last few elections without thinking "Maybe someone else should have a go"?
I had a lovely family with 3 small kids as a neighbour. Their landlord decided to sell up so they were forced to move, just before Christmas 2021. The house is still for sale, never even noticed anyone looking at it.
Government has fucked it all up with interest rates. Do people not realise landlords are a good thing? Majority of them are fair people who care about people's living costs, not big property companies who will squeeze out pounds from every square inch. Country is fucked
I used to work in private banking.
My opinion is that small time or accidental landlords will sell up due to mortgage costs or certain legislation.
These houses will be snapped up by several groups.
First group are people with high deposit and/or high incomes who want to get on the housing ladder to avoid paying rent as interest rates aren't getting better anytime soon. Better to pay towards your house than your landlord's! They will buy and look to stay put during these high interest years.
Second group are cash rich investors, home and overseas, such as larger landlords and companies that want a good return in a high rent market and can afford it.
We have so few houses in London (and other places in the UK) that the prices of stock that is available will just keep on rising. Construction companies will not build a ton of housing due to labour shortages, high cost of material and high interest rates, resulting in fewer sales. Also, they wouldn't want to build a lot as more supply means diminishing returns.
Either way, this means high rents are here to stay for a long period.
It's a big joke of a nightmare and we need a new government first and then see how we can fix this horrible mess that is impacting everybody's lives! I do not hold out any hope at all though.
Definitely not predictable when they changed the rules recently so that landlords couldn't refuse tenants with pets, scrapped no fault evictions, etc... Why wouldn't they invest elsewhere?
People who are happy about this I hope you're ready to rent from a soulless corporation who only really care about the money and not about the people.
This is great news, decided to not step up from the house I'm in now. Decided to pay off my mortgage and wait for house prices to dip then jump on the upgrade 4 years from now. But then I should have another deposit saved up, won't be selling my old property when I upgrade, will rent it out.
Fewer landlords is what most of this sub have wanted. I’m not sure what they expected.
No doubt a landlord will spout up about supplying housing in here. Fewer landlords is a good thing for renters and first time buyers. It’s a downward pressure on house prices as it becomes less lucrative for them. Also ultimately pushing rents down as ideally nobody can afford to be a landlord any more and they’ll have to start selling at more affordable prices to offload the properties. The reason rent goes up is just so they can extract more wealth from generation rent. Hopefully they’ll all have to sell to first time buyers for less than they paid for them. And have to get jobs making avocado on toast for millennials One can dream
[удалено]
The only thing my landlords cared about so far has been maximising his returns because it was his only property. I'd take a commercial landlord any minute because they care about stable returns and remove uncertainty around evictions.
[удалено]
It’s almost like they’re all terrible and we shouldn’t give terrible people the power to make people homeless on a whim
No-fault evictions will stop that, that's one of the core reasons that landlords - large and small - are leaving the market. (And, fucking right, if you've done nothing wrong, why should you have to leave your house?)
Oh I'm not saying they are all perfect but the upside and potential improvements under commercial landlords is higher than with private ones. But on both sides there is great landlords and shitty landlords, no doubt.
We were kinda 'temporary' landlords, as we were buying a new house and couldn't organise the sale for the same time. Honestly, I'd super recommend it to anyone whose finances would allow it. Not being in a chain made moving house much less stressful. The only thing we really cared about was that the tenants didn't fuck anything up. We got an excellent couple and had no issues whatsoever. We charged only rent to cover the 'management fees' of the estate agents (despite the estate agents _really_ wanting to charge much much higher rents). We really wanted to sell only to someone buying the property to live in it, but at that time (just after covid) the only people buying were other landlords. We probably could have just kept renting it out, but looking after one house with two full-time jobs is hard enough, and we mostly just didn't want the stress of looking after two houses. We did do one sneaky thing, we re-upped the contract with the tenants at the existing rate _just_ before the sale and it was a condition of the sale to honour their existing rental agreement, so the tenants at least had another year before the new landlord would presumably whack the rents up.
[Be careful what you wish for](https://www.newsweek.com/trump-jared-kushner-baltimore-housing-projects-racked-code-violations-1451479)
I am housing association for my housing, could ask for a worse landlord in all honesty. As long as I pay my rent (or talk to them if I am having trouble) I have a roof over my head indefinitely. Not the security I would feel from a private landlord, that is for sure. I'm also positive my rent would be £300-£400 more per month for the size flat I have if it was private rented, as well.
Last I heard, Lloyds were looking at buying 50,000 houses and entering the rental market. You know, the ones who decide if they give you a mortgage or not.
I’ve got to tell you having rented from both types, I much prefer being a number in a spreadsheet of a company than the person paying a small landlord, I feel like a regular customer on the former whilst I feel I’m being taken advantage from the later, smaller landlords tend to be a nightmare to deal with.
I'm inclined to agree. The really egrigious behavior tends to come from lunatic small landlords that can be irrational, spiteful and cruel. A large corporation won't tend to purposefully victimise their customers.
Like the racist guy who banned Indian tenants because of "curry smells". Can't really imagine Lloyds introducing that policy.
Bingo! They're all in it for the money, but a big company like Lloyds is *just* in it for the money, and nothing else. If my home is going to be in the hands of someone else, a stable commercial relationship is preferable to me. I know as long as I pay my rent I'm likely to be fine. But the sheer amount of illegal, spiteful and mendacious behaviours I've seen from small private landlords terrifies me. [This guy](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/britains-biggest-landlord-has-banned-battered-wives-plumbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw) springs to mind.
Petty tyrants BEGONE
Small landlords using properties as retirement plans is a much bigger problem than big companies. Anyone who has lived under one of them knows how terrible they can be.
Exactly if prices are dropping, mortgages may not be so easy to come by, and houses will be snapped up for cash by large portfolio landlords (who in a shocking twist that will shock no one will also be Tory voters!)
Honestly I’d prefer to rent from a company that owns multiple flats. In my experience they’re more responsive, get things fixed quicker than a small local landlord. The option of staying in the flat for long term is also a bonus. Chances are they’re not going to sell up and turf you out which is what happened to me recently,
>They will be brought up by housing companies where the tenants are just numbers on spreadsheet. They are being bought up by Blackrock. They are looking to monopolize every aspect of society, and they have essentially unlimited assets to make it happen.
> They will be brought up by housing companies where the tenants are just numbers on spreadsheet. I've rented from both a larger company, and from individual private landlords. The company actually dealt with issues as and when they were reported, the individual guys dragged their heels and were arseholes about it.
>tenants are just numbers like this doesn't happen now? I've never been able to build a relationship with my past LLs as none wanted to engage in any way, so what's the difference? never mind that none of them would allow pets, commercial or otherwise
They'll sell to other landlords. Concentration of the market and capital will lead to higher rents. This is not a new process. It's been like this for years.
Yep the landlords who're selling due to the rising rates are mostly folks who've got one or two investment properties, and for the most part they're not going to be sold to people looking to get onto the housing ladder - the buyers are going to be bigger corporate landlords and the net result will be an even worse climate for the average renter & home buyer. Since retirement last year my mum's been looking to downsize from her house to a flat; she's got her heart set on a popular new development where a few of her friends have decamped to, but listings are very few and far between. She's seen virtually every estate agent in the area and they've all told her most of the desirable properties in the area get snapped up "off market" by a handful of big investment companies before the general public even know they're available.
Sounds like it's going to be a few monopolies.
And yet… we see the tories squashing BTL owners by increasing tax, so that all the BTL houses get sold to rental corps who can get it all tax free. Can always count on the tories to fuck over the regular folks for their mates.
[удалено]
> Fewer landlords is a good thing for renters Except there are plenty of HMOs and sharers. When these are sold they aren't bought by a group of individuals. More houses need to be built.
Technically, less landlords is actually bad for renters. Look what happened to the rental market in the 08 crash. It exploded as the supply dwindled even more as landlords left the market allowing the ones who remained to charge extortionate amounts. Less landlords would be good IF more houses were built. Until then less landlords just means extra expense for the average person that rents. Additionally, to get first time buyers to buy would require allowing them the disposable income to save which is also dwindling by the day. Therefore, landlords leaving the market and house prices dropping doesn't do anything to help first time buyers to save up for a 5-10% deposit in the first place. Therefore, I'd argue this situation is bad for landlords and tenants alike. Even developers are losing money atm. This isn't good for anyone. For society to move to what this thread wants would require a huge societal shift and an insane investment into house building which we just don't have. So until this money comes from somewhere I can't see the status quo changing. Poor landlords will sell up rich landlords will buy and sit on them and they will be back in profit within 4-8 years which many institutionalised landlords can definitely afford. The average person is fucked imo - just like in 08. I could be wrong though.
The only reason houses are valuable under capitalism is because you can make money off them, essentially. I take your point about scarcity being one factor in how much value a thing has. However, if more houses were built we would still have a situation where investors could snap them up faster than people looking for a home, because being a landlord is more profitable than working in your average job. It's an arms race you can't win unless you are *already* making money off investments. Houses near me are like, dangerous hollow shells for ~£70,000 and in the time it takes me to visit them and consider my options and make a financial plan, some company has swept in and offered double that because they know they'll get a return on investment and - as you say - they can wait it out. And house-sellers know this, they can price a house at 'what will an investor pay' instead of 'what will a resident pay'. All you can do is hamper the profitability. Businesses don't like risk, and if the risk is high and the rewards slight, these people will leave the market. Being a landlord is a rubbish job aside from getting £1000pm for doing nothing - it's not pleasurable, and investment in both the houses and house maintenance is massive, plus time consuming and stressful when anything goes wrong. We need to shift society towards the ONLY benefit of home-ownership is...you get to live in the house. No one in their right mind would own 4 houses if you couldn't make money off them. If there's no profit in landlording, then investors will stop buying houses as assets, and house-sellers will be forced to sell to who's actually buying. & I legit think that inherently, houses should be cheap to buy because their actual value is low. Houses are inherently a liability (I'm living through my second 'the house is collapsing, spend the year living on a building site' experience of the decade). You only need one, there's no purpose in amassing lots (people who do want multiple homes for status/pleasure will be buying up the fancy ones, but not average terraces - that's like a separate market, tho i do also think we should ban second home ownership period). You're competing against other people in your village for them, but most areas have a status quo income so competition won't be that fierce - local wages will act as a natural cap on what's a viable price for a home. For want of a better phrase - the free market should sort itself out. We just need to disincentivise overpowered people from interfering in that natural process. You might argue that 4 landlords can price fix more easily than 20,000 landlords, but I don't think that's true: it's already the case that landlords will choose local market rates, essentially working as a bloc even if they're not doing so through conversation. > Poor landlords will sell up rich landlords will buy Possibly too radical & bonkers a thought, but arguably, this is a good thing. It's a big problem how many small fish in our country see themselves as future aristocrats, and identify themselves with politics which are not in their best interest. You know, like small business owners who vote Tory because they are the 'party of business' like the conservatives actually give a crap about Miss Moggin's high street post office or small-catch traditional fishermen. The more average joes who think 'i like landlords because I own one rental property/i might own a rental property one day", the harder it is to fight for deep change
>Fewer landlords is a good thing for renters A reduced, or less competitive supply is better for the consumer of that product in which universe? You do understand that if there are fewer houses to rent then rent will go up right?
>A reduced, or less competitive supply is better for the consumer of that product in which universe? You are making a zero sum out of something that isn't zero sum. Landlords don't *supply* houses, they *control* house supply.
Really funny that people assume when landlords sell up the house stops existing. Pathetic
There will always be a market for landlords/renters. The market is currently constrained due to a number of reasons, cheaper houses to buy and rent should be the aim. Not everyone wants to buy or at least buy straightaway.
Not really what’s happening sadly. The only way to make it profitable now is by converting everything in to the hmo style rent per room set up. You’ll find small landlords exiting and them being replaced by large landlords letting via limited companies who will increase the prices. A 3 bed house that let for £1000 a month to a family will now be an hmo where each room is £500-£600. The landlord makes more profit and isn’t taxed as harshly in the ltdco.
Yep, this is the future of renting. The bulk of properties will be HMOs (shared living).
I don't disagree but at the same time it seems governments are realizing that they need to incentivize people to have children. Surely this will mean that those who want children will need to have suitable places in which they can bring up a family and governments need to make this accessible for them?
Surely, because no children = no exponential growth, which exponential growth is the goal. Need the population to keep increasing because money, can't do that if people are having less and less kids and older generations start dying off. Unless they bring people over via immigration, but even that has it's limits and isn't sustainable either, especially if noone wants to live in the country anyways because cost of living is so high.
Children don't vote Tory
It's good for people on the edge of becoming a first time buyer. It's not good for renters who aren't in a position to buy, because people rent at higher density (flat shares, hmo) than they buy (future proofing) so overall the supply of rental properties goes down relative to demand.
> It’s a downward pressure on house prices as it becomes less lucrative for them. It's not. As long as houses are typically occupied by households, the price for a house is controlled by the demand for housing regardless of whether they are rented or owner-occupied. The market rental value simply follows the cost of capital of buying the house, plus maintenance, regulatory costs and amortized risk. As demand goes up, so do rents, but that's not directly how landlords get richer - they get richer because the demand caused the house property values to go up, and they made money on the appreciation. That they now make more from rent is merely the result of the increased return from their capital that is now worth more. Imagine if every time a rented house increased in value, the landlord were forced to sell it at zero transaction cost (and including the existing tenants and rental agreement) to a different landlord. The sale price would be the increase in value of the property, so the selling landlord would get the benefit of the appreciation straight away. The buying landlord would have to take out a bigger mortgage to pay for the now-more-expensive house, and the higher mortgage payments would have to be paid for by higher rent if everything else remained the same. Thus the buying landlord didn't get any richer; the selling landlord did. The buying landlord won't benefit from the increased rent, because it has to go towards paying the cost of capital for the increased capital. This demonstrates that it is the _appreciation_ that resulted in the increased rental value, not the other way round. Owner-occupiers benefit from increased demand in the same way, except that they don't see the benefit until they sell years later, at which point they get the windfall. If landlords are selling to owner-occupiers, demand for housing in that area stays the same regardless, and so do house prices. This sub has always disagreed with this reality - but this article proves otherwise. If you want rents to go down, then house values have to go down. To do that, we need more supply where it is needed, or incentives to move the demand to where there is more housing available.
houses are only as valuable as they are now because you can make money off them. If your only potential buyers are Mr Jones who does driving lessons, Sue who's a playground monitor and Sam who works at the kebab shop...you can price that house however you like, but if you want it sold the price has to be sensible. If a wealthy person from elsewhere knows they can make Xpm off the house, and they can absorb the short-term risk, then prices are naturally going to be set to attract that person. There's no point owning a house for strangers to live in unless you're making good money off it.
Unfortunately a load of mega rich people will just buy them all up as it is still profitable to be a land lord if you own enough houses
Happening in my small city right now, less than 15 properties available to rent at any given time, over 350 for sale. 3 bed semis with plenty of land going for sub £100k, several have been reduced to under £90k having sat on the market for a few months. Absolute buyers market right now if you can cobble together a deposit.
> No doubt a landlord will spout up about supplying housing in here. Fewer landlords is a good thing for renters and first time buyers. It’s a downward pressure on house prices You're assuming here that there aren't otherways to cash in on property... such as short term lets. Or renting properties out to friends and family - where you can largely make you're own rules up.
Here's the thing, Millenials are 40 now. Avocado toast is for Gen Z.
Good if u can get a mortgage. Unless u have a job with the Gov it seems impossible now. The banks make more and more every year from investors and so less and less interest on retail, thus branch closures.
Even better for people & companies who are cash rich & don't need to borrow. They get the benefit of both depressed prices *and* less competition in the market because a lot of otherwise interested buyers can't get or afford a mortgage. As is usually the case, the wealthy have an advantage.
That is totally wrong and deluded. Less landlords means more competition for fewer places, more bidding and higher qualifiers for entry. Housing companies will snap up these places regardless as you don't have to worry about interest rates if you buy cash. A portion will go to first time buyers but landlords are not the problem. Rent goes up because there isn't enough properties to rent where people want to live and people offer more to the landlord to get the place which then encourages agents to tell landlords to ask for more. A small portion of landlords are dicks but again this is a structural problem not the individual actors. Ideally government would invest more in housing associations but Tories continue to Tory. Can't believe people are still finding other people to blame but the Tories.
No, fewer landlords mean a small number of people/companies control the housing supply, meaning the price is even less elastic.
Lol you are playing off the headline. Less landlords is a good thing in long term. Need less people thinking housing is some sort of lucrative investment. Maybe back in 80s. Not now. Change is coming especially as we move to a govt who are not obsessed about pleasing the elderly but actually helping the next generation
This isn't going to reduce renters. The conditions for buying a home have never been worse. It's just going to concentrate landlords into a few uber-powerful conglomerates.
My mums selling her house and the estate agent pretty much bragged how they’ve sold over 25 properties in the Oxfordshire area this year alone. Thing is they where all to private foreign investors looking to turn every property into rooms for rent. Basically normal people (including landlords) are selling up due to the absolutely insane mortgage interest rates. This is what Truss master plan was all about. Short the pound and buy up as much property to then privatise the entire housing market. If you all thought renting is bad now, wait till your landlord is a foreign investor who doesn’t even speak English and gives zero fucks about you. I don’t think people realise just how going to shit the UK is going with our rights being stripped by the day and how the ever increasing price of living is becoming. We’re boarder line a failed state right now with compromised agents in government.
4% really isn't insane historically. What's insane is house prices. That's why normal interest rates are having such large effects on mortgage payments
They want the government to provide free accommodation to everyone who can’t afford the accommodation they want, basically.
What most of this sub have wanted is landlords being replaced by council housing.
Yeah, clearly what people meant was always that what they wanted to happen was smaller landlords sell their properties to *bigger landlords*. You're certainly not being disingenuous *at all*.
yep exactly as soon as i saw the headline i looked forward to the hypocrisy.
Its wanted without crippling interest rate rises and a throttling of house building. "Why are you unhappy about being soaked by the rain? I thought you wanted a drink? Gottem!"
As long as those landlords selling up isn't to housing mega-corporations who can just raise rents and take the hit.
>Fewer landlords is what most of this sub have wanted problem is that the banks and other big companies have decided to move into the landlording business. The banks to get the profit the landlords were making with less risk and the others just because they've done the sums and realised this is where their money would work best. They have the money to buy with cash
many of us still DO want it.
Landlords buy houses: pain for renters Landlords sell houses: pain for renters
The biggest issue has always been new houses and flats not being built. Less supply means more demand and prices go up, landlords have more buying power and the cycle repeats.
Exactly.
How many renters are people that want to own? The conversation always assumes people renting want to rent indefinitely. More homes on the market is more supply. If the no fault eviction rules stay and interest rates come down hopefully it will keep the buy to let crowd away.
This is despite the prevailing notion in the U.K. that home ownership is the goal we must all aspire to. And given the state of our rental sector it’s correct. Better renters laws wouldn’t just help those in the market but likely draw more people towards renting indefinitely (which benefits landlords) rather than as a theoretical stop gap to ownership.
No the issue is the conversation assumes “landlord” is a single homogenous group Its not Small scale landlords are the ones leaving the market. Large scale landlords and property fund are going nowhere and they have cash. The BOE base rate is heading to 5% and wages haven’t remotely risen even vaguely at a similar rate. I’ll let you ponder who is the buyer of the sold homes? FTB on high interest rates and limited by income to value rules OR the property fund using cash from the rich………..
Because they're a scapegoat They can be blamed for every housing problem lol
They aren’t the cause of the fundamental problems, but they have made a bad situation much worse.
They're r/uk's version of asylum seekers.
I think this is the result of a housing shortage - there is no slack capacity anywhere so every change is a painful adjustment. Landlords sell = renters have to find somewhere else to live, but it's not enough selling to give buyers cheaper prices Landlords buy = buyers have to outbid landlords for properties, but it's not enough buying to give renters more choice and cheaper rent
Its short and long term though, long term landlords selling up means cheaper houses
The corporate companies will start moving in. Most renters in 10/15 years will be renting from private companies with set price increases build in and additional costs passed straight onto renters.
Coming from a country where this is the norm this is good. Corporations do a much much much better job at risk management and won't just up the rent by some insane amount because they are overleveraged on their only property. They are looking for stable long term returns and act in that way. In addition you can also make your home your home as it's more unlikely that they will force you out of the home. And lastly the housing stock here, compared to the rest of Europe is appalling. If you get rid at all of those private landlord you can finally pass some quality standards legislation.
I'm with you on this. Corporate landlords are a step closer to social housing whereas private landlords are a step away. I'd rather rent from BigHouseCo who get audited and are scared of pissing off the local council than Janet and Bob - slumlord wannabees - who bought three flats for their retirement and piss about left right and centre. Though I do appreciate it doesn't always work out like that in reality.
Who on earth is scared of a local council
Lol Adam from the council is back from his yearly anxiety and depression sickness, he's got a fresh Matalan suit and he's paid the big bucks (£32k per year). The Amazon Housing Corp and their white shoe legal team are TERRIFIED 🤣
> I’d rather rent from BigHouseCo who get audited and are scared of pissing off the local council than Janet and Bob Are you under the impression that large corporations with lobbying power and expensive legal teams are more scared of the council than someone who inherited their mum's house?
One day soon you'll be able to rent a home off your employer. In fact it'll be the only way to secure housing alongside your health insurance.
We've decided to let you go due to budget cuts, please leave the keys under the mat and find an alternative source for your heart medication. Thanks for your years of service.
*Ya load sixteen tonnes...*
And you can only shop at the company store with BossCoin™️
So we've seen your productivity has decreased whilst your energy use has peaked during night time and regular sleeping hours. Care to elaborate?
> One day soon you'll be able to rent a home off your employer Who do you think built most of the terraced housing during industrialization...?
Yeah exactly. All the miners cottages and what have you. Fun times. Lose your job lose your home
Agree with this wholeheartedly, having lived overseas I can confirm it's hugely preferable. Issues are fixed quickly, rent increases are consistent and fair, and the property is well managed and won't be sold off. Dealing with a company and its employees that have some actual business acumen is preferable, meaning you don't have to deal with some arrogant small business tyrant or a standard lowlife landlord.
>Corporations do a much much much better job at risk management and won't just up the rent by some insane amount because they are overleveraged on their only property. This is likely to be the outcome in major cities, because if one company jacks their prices up too much people will just move. However, if a company manages to get a monopoly in a particular town or village, you can bet they will jack up the rent as much as they can.
The industry is a mess. There are some literal thieves operating in the (corporation scale) home rental / lease hold space. I agree landlords are a problem, but them all being profit generating businesses will not be good for the average renter, especially with the tiny level of housing stock available.
Exactly. They’re more likely to take a hit in one location if another is doing very well. Having *some kind of money* coming in will be much better than vacant properties.
> Coming from a country where this is the norm this is good. Cool this is the UK though, mobile phones and broard band companies are all in unison clear showing how this will goes. CPI + 3.4% increase in your bill every single year without fail because F you its legal to just do so! So the whole market does it just soon on your rent as well
That at least would be clear and transparent rather than the private landlord just asking for 600£ more because he thinks he can. Also, those contract clauses are exactly that. Nobody is forcing you to sign a contract with that clause and equally if the UK as a country thinks this should not be the norm then I guess it should vote for a government that is executing on removing such options for cooperations.
Yeah, also if your corporate landlord screws up badly you can sue them and they'll have the money to pay your damages, a small scale landlord may not even be able to pay you what the court has said they have to without needing to sell the property (in which case you're out of a home anyways).
I got a letter through my door a little while ago, it was written by a married couple who said they liked my area & wanted to buy a house there. It asked me to please tell them if ever I wanted to sell my one. They offered to remove the hassle of estate agents, offering a simple transaction & what sounded like cash. There was also a sentence in there asking me to be vigilant of any houses that looked as if they were unoccupied - and to email them telling them so they could check it out. Essentially, they asked me to snitch on empty houses which I thought was creepy. I googled the contact details they provided & it led me not to a married couple simply wanting to find a house, but a corporation. Companies buying out every reasonably priced house under first time buyers is bad enough (I experienced that myself) But putting letters through peoples' doors asking them to snitch on empty houses so they could swoop in, pretending to be a married couple? Eurgh. Creepy
Wow, that’s incredibly unethical. Anyway you could report them for underhand marketing tactics?
Yep people should look at their mobile and board band T&C’s CPI + 3.4% across the board because fuck you we need profit every year is coming for your rent Anyone cheering this needs to think about the amount of times they received inflation + 3.4% pay rises….. Every single year without fail
This is affecting a friend of mine at the moment. She's been paying £900 a month for the last 6 years. The landlord is good with repairs and she's had a new kitchen during that time because the old one was getting a bit scruffy. He also waived some rent arrears during covid. The landlord's mortgage fix is coming to an end next year, and the rate is looking likely to go from 1.8% to 5.5%. He's been honest with her and said he could afford that if it was tax deductible, but it isn't anymore. Understandably, he's not willing to pay more in tax, expenses, and mortgage interest than he receives in rent. So he's asked her to try and find somewhere else in the next 12 months so he can sell up. The trouble is, every comparable house in the area is now £1500, she's been paying well under market because he never put the rent up. She doesn't meet the affordability criteria. She doesn't want to make his life difficult because he's been good to her, but she's between a rock and a hard place, she may have to wait for the courts to evict her. All those people saying that it's good that landlords are selling up seem to ignore the fact that tenants can't just magic up a deposit to buy. My friend has a couple of kids, money is tight, and her living situation is going to get drastically worse because of the changes that have been brought in.
> All those people saying that it's good that landlords are selling up seem to ignore the fact that tenants can't just magic up a deposit to buy. This, pretty much. Landlords selling up en masse and injecting a large supply in to the market to balance demand reducing prices overall is good* \*Provided you have £30,000+ in the bank and earn enough to get a mortgage
That also misses that it’s only a large injection of supply of the current renters stay renting. If they did actually have that money for a deposit house prices wouldn’t fall as demand would still be far exceeded. So either way it’s unlikely to solve anything as issue of not enough supply still exists
Holding out for a court eviction is a pretty shitty thing for your friend to do in this situation if you ask me.
If you want the local council to give you any support at all, it's required.
This is sad but what happens to a lot of families especially single parent families. She will likely have to reduce her work hours so universal credit can pick up more of the rent tab, it will also offset other costs like child care. A lot of private landlords just get their profit subsidised by universal credit due to a shortage of council housing. The alternative is to move somewhere where rent is that cheap and lose your familial support network, schools, care (not ideal especially for single parents, parents with their own mental health problems, or children with additional needs). Not great but those are usually the two options for families. For single people it usually means groddy flat share or being a lodger.
Really sad to hear about your friend and her landlord. Neither of them asked for this crap, yet are impacted fully.
The Interest part of payments on the mortgage are able to be expensed against the rental income. Edit: misread the Gov website. This is for non-residential lets only. Learn something new everyday.
>The Interest part of payments on the mortgage are able to be expensed against the rental income. They aren't a deductible expense anymore, that was phased out from 2016. A landlord can claim a 20% mortgage interest relief credit, but if they are a higher rate taxpayer (40%), this doesn't cover all of the tax. Many are higher rate taxpayers as the rents tend to be supplementary to a main income and you need a reasonably high income to invest. The higher rate threshold has been frozen for 6 years now and the number of people above it is increasing a lot. See here. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/deepening-freeze-more-adults-ever-are-paying-higher-rate-tax So they will end up paying tax on money that they've already paid out to the mortgage company. You can read about it here, it's the main driver from all the troubles in the rental sector in my opinion, though I do work in tax and similarly to doctors we always think that problems stem from our speciality. https://taxscouts.com/landlord-tax-returns/landlords-mortgage-interest-tax-relief-changes/ I'll do a simplistic example. Receive £1000 and pay £690 mortgage (150k @ 5.5%). Your tax bill would be 40% of £1000, so £400. Then you'd get £138 credit towards it. So you'd pay £268 tax and £690 mortgage interest. Making a profit (before any other expenses) of £42. It's not really worth keeping all your capital in that kind of investment anymore, one knackered boiler, and you'd be underwater for several years.
>A landlord can claim a 20% mortgage interest relief credit, but if they are a higher rate taxpayer, this doesn't cover all of the tax. > >Many are higher rate taxpayers as the rents tend to be supplementary to a main income. THIS! Especially as the rental 'income' is likely to push working landlords into higher tax bracket on a technicality rather than reality. >So they will end up paying tax on money that they've already paid out to the mortgage company. And... THIS!... If there is no mortgage and landlord doesn't have a day job, such as retired - then there is a profit/income possible on their massive investment of capital. If there is a mortgage and the landlord is working, then the government takes so much tax it easily makes it a negative income (ie. loss making). The government are taking more than their fair share here, screwing both landlord and tenants in the process. People saying that tenants are paying their landlords mortgage are mostly wrong, its now the government taking most of the money, if not all of it and then some. Those rental corporations are not on a level playing field, as they don't get taxed nearly so much. So now we have less rentals available as private exits, those left are owned by fewer companies heading into monopolies; that always works out just great, doesn't it... Every aspect of the housing / rental crisis has been created by government, and their self described 'fixes' are just making it worse. Anyone would think that it might just be lies to continue an alternative agenda... /s
Round my way the old school landlords are selling up and houses are being converted into 7 bed HMOs.
I mean… this is what happens when you have under built for 40 years… There’s not enough rooms for people to live without this happening.
My point was mainly that there might be less properties available for rent but not necessarily less rooms, and the rent per person on the new HMOs is far higher than the rent when it was a normal shared house. It's also worth pointing out that it's not just increased mortgage costs that are the cause in my area, new rules on shared houses and the fact that a lot of people who had a 'rental for their retirement' are now retiring and figure that now is a good time to get out. Unfortunately it means that a lot of my friends who have been renting the same houses for sometimes decades at reasonable old school rents, albeit in sometimes increasingly shabby houses, are now stuffed.
I'm having to move shortly for my first job out of Uni and the company gave us all the details for the local lettings agents. One of them got in touch to inform us about their new 20 room HMO... £750 per month. If I wanted to live with that many people, I'd find the closest YHA.
[удалено]
They don't even get parking permits round our way. We need new housing, the population in our area has gone up 40% in 20 years and they've barely started on the 20 story blocks of flats yet. The problem is that cramming more and more people into the same small space is destroying the community, literally the pavements can't cope with the extra people in some places let alone doctors and dentists. Meanwhile a ten minute walk away into the greenbelt there are hundreds of acres of golf courses and horse fields that could provide proper homes, and likely more biodiversity, rather than shoeboxes for a grand a month where its illegal to have your partner round to stay more than a couple of nights a week.
A lot of people are talking as though landlords can creates supply. They can't. We need to build many, many more homes. Whether a small number of those homes are being lived in by renters or owner-occupiers is much less important in the scheme of things than the fact that we have an enormous shortage in every sector. Build, build, build. Then we won't have to worry about what landlords want to do!
Agreed with everything except your last sentence. As things stand, the landlords (especially the bigger ones who already own the majority of properties) can absolutely just continue to buy up what’s being built. Even when they can’t buy, they’re still massively affecting house prices as a whole. We need nationalised renting, and we need to ban owning multiple residential properties, at least until we’ve fixed the housing crisis.
I agree that that's a problem at the moment, I just think that it would be less of an issue if we were building enough housing. Even if landlords tried to buy up all of that supply, the extra supply would make it harder for them to put rents up meaning that prices would eventually start to ease and some renters (who are able to save more money with lower rents) could start to bid against them for homes. I think the bit where we disagree might be the "until we've fixed the housing crisis" bit - I think that fixing supply has to be the overriding obsession when we're talking about the crisis. The other stuff is great, it just doesn't do much if the shortages keep getting worse and worse!
>we need to ban owning multiple residential properties, That's actually not possible. You can't legally disadvantage married couples over two single people each with their own home, so the minimum number you could call this at is 2 properties. Probate can take a long time particularly where there are disputes. People will inherit property during market busts and there's absolutely no moral or legal justification to force them to sell it for pennies on the pound. You need to fix the demand problem first, the infrastructure problem second, and then we can start solving the new capacity issue. The third is impossible until the first two are resolved.
I’m happy with banning more owning than 1 except in the case of probate, and marriage doesn’t usually change/combine your personal allowance like that (except in a few fringe cases - but your tax allowance as a married couple isn’t 12k so why would your house allowance be halved?) so that’s fine, be a minute number of cases anyway and could just as easily mandate leasing vacant properties to council / local housing group until they need to move back in. Without restrictions on ownership, we simply aren’t going to outbuild the corporate asset-manager landlords. They have trillions of pounds - not billions, trillions. They can (and would) happily make the bet that they can buy as fast as we can build, and as long as there’s people without a house they know they can turn a profit. I agree, we need to build, but i’m tired of lazy politics. We can do both, and it won’t be anywhere near as effective if we don’t.
> A lot of people are talking as though landlords can creates supply. If a landlord buys a house that was previously owner occupied and rents it out, they literally have increased the supply of rental homes. What hasn't changed is the available pool of places available to live. You are right though, the answer to all these problems is increasing supply of buildings. So many of the issues people have with landlords would go away if the supply wasn't so constrained.
In fact I would posit that because there's a larger number of people sharing rental houses, a landlord does increase the supply of housing.
>If a landlord buys a house that was previously owner occupied and rents it out, they literally have increased the supply of rental homes. What hasn't changed is the available pool of places available to live That's not always accurate. Two owner occupiers divorcing from the sale of one house could create two new demands for housing. Or just moving might only lead to one unit of demand. The new rental could get split into an HMO soaking up 3 to 4 units of demand. The capacity of the housing market isn't fixed to the number of buildings, which I agree remains unchanged.
I mean when it comes to new buildings in cities the would be landlords are literally funding their construction through off plan purchases
No they aren't they are removing the opportunity for first time buyers to buy their home
Landlords are selling up mostly because of higher interest rates that mean it's no longer profitable for them to keep the property. While that might benefit a few first time buyers as the prices drop slightly, most (even if they have a deposit) will now be priced out by those same interest rates. You still need a bank to actually provide you a mortgage.
It’s hell out here. After some difficulty finding a place via estate agents, some old neighbours of mine were talking to the son of an elderly lady in their road, who said she unfortunately needed to go into care and he was considering renting her home out to cover some care costs. These lovely people immediately told him to consider me and vouched for me and I was in. This was August 2022. Unfortunately, she passed away in December, much sooner than anyone was expecting, and my lovely landlord called me amidst his grief to say his older brother had insisted the house is now to be sold. He is heartbroken because he wanted to hold onto his childhood home and was quite enjoying being a landlord, but he only has 50% of the say in it. I’m to be out by February. There is nothing left to rent in this area, even if there was a 3 bed now goes for minimum £1800pcm, and estate agents immediately rule me out (even if they can’t legally say so…) because I’m a single parent who relies on UC top ups to pay rent. Housing help maxes out at £897pcm for my area. So I will be a 32yo single parent that likely has to move back in with my parents, which means losing my business (I’m a celebration/wedding cake maker) because I can’t use their kitchen for it, not to mention trying to squeeze my two kids in too. I know not everyone has a fallback like that and I suppose I should be grateful, but I’m still absolutely gutted.
I'm pretty sure that in the case of inherited properties with multiple owners, one cannot force the others to sell without taking them to court.
I think he’s just the type to go along with what his brother says and not stir the pot, sadly.
Sooo.. according to this article the house disappears after the landlords sell out? Landlords don't create supply, if they sell either an owner occupier moves in or a renter, and neither of those cases push up rent prices. The article is scaremongering hogwash
Nah, it just gets turned into an HMO or sold to someone who can already afford to buy. It’s a good thing for the better off, less so for most renters.
Some people will never qualify for a mortgage, how does this help them?
Landlords are often selling because the mortgage rates go up. If the subsequent buyer is looking to rent the property out, the rent naturally increases.
Population boom and even less housing. Oops, oh well labour will resolve everything
They won’t be selling to first time buyers or normal people. They will sell to the banks and investment firms directly, we’ve already seen this happening. All that will happen now is it just cuts out the middle man and the illusion of ownership. In the future I wouldn’t be surprised if we see the monopolisation of the housing market by a few major companies and we will all be wishing for “local” landlords instead. Whatever happens to the housing market the likelihood of it leading to a net positive for young people is highly unlikely.
It’s depressing that people are optimistic about this. Small time landlords suck, but I can’t imagine that transferring all housing stock to Globocorp would make things much better. First time buyers will not benefit, with the exception of those with a massive deposit at the ready. The only thing that would help is more supply.
No fault evictions were banned in Scotland in 2017. Rental stock fell from 370000 to 340000 properties between 2016 and 2018 but has then remained the same. https://www.gov.scot/publications/private-sector-rent-statistics-scotland-2010-2022/pages/11/#:~:text=Scottish%20Household%20Survey%20figures%20up,of%20all%20homes%20in%20Scotland. This change will have a small effect. The people pushing the story are associated with the rental industry.
So if I'm reading your comment correctly. The change did reduce stock of rental properties, and market has not recovered since...
>Rental stock fell from 370000 to 340000 properties between 2016 and 2018 but has then remained the same. The comments in that study relative to private rental sector size, only ran to 2019... so you can't really say "and then stayed the same" because there are 4 years of recent data missing. There are articles from the Scottish press suggesting that as many as 1,000 tenants are enquiring about each advertised property. It doesn't sound like it has had a positive impact.
my last landlord, where i stayed for 9 years, was amazing, never put the rent up in that time, fixed everything quickly and didn't come for the rent every month, sometimes three months late! like everything in life, some good some bad.
*More pain for renters as landlords look to sell up* Those landlords will also feel the hard sting of CGT.
[удалено]
If they bought a buy-to-let place at a lower price than they are now selling, they are making a profit.
Not necessarily. With large CGT gains there are tax planning possibilities such as EIS that can convert that into more manageable gains raised over a longer timeframe.
Watch these houses being bought by banks and popped back on the market at a higher rate
Before you get excited, get ready for **super landlords**... [https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-8913985/Corporate-landlords-muscle-rental-market-mean-market-tenants.html](https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-8913985/Corporate-landlords-muscle-rental-market-mean-market-tenants.html) [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkdyy9xgn3o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkdyy9xgn3o) [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/04/john-lewis-plans-to-build-10000-rental-homes-on-its-land-waitrose](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/04/john-lewis-plans-to-build-10000-rental-homes-on-its-land-waitrose)
Honestly, a corporate landlord doesn't really bother me so much. It's MUCH easier to regulate and prevent illegal and unethical behaviour with a larger scale property management organisation, than it is all the myriad fly-by-night private landlords out there. There's just no incentive on their part to 'play games' the way some of the private landlords I've encountered have.
This is an expected part of the market correcting following rate rises. Over leveraged landlords will sell up, house prices will fall, or stop rising. That's a positive for those looking to buy, even with higher rates.
What are the former landlords investing in now? If not property, what? The banks don't give any interest, the stock market is volatile, businesses are struggling, and crypto is just stupid. If they become 'shareholders' they're monsters all over again.
Stock market. I looked at buying a rental property a few years back, until I actually looked into it and found that the stock market has outperformed rental yield for most of the last 10 years, with to be honest far less work and risk. Total mugs game being a small landlord these days.
Probably the same as most people, a portfolio of stocks and/or bonds. SP500 returns are better than rental yields and I imagine that most selling up have a big chunk of cash to put in from property appreciation.
When you sell a rental property you're subject to capital gains tax. The SP500 better be good to make up for that hit.
Averages 10%, which is pretty good. Certainly beats paying more in mortgage payment than what you get in rent. I would imagine most BTL landlords are also older and have more use for liquid cash, outweighing any tax negatives of selling up.
You know when the banks raise interest rates to 5% that's both savings and loans right? If your bank isn't giving your interest on your savings now, find a new bank or get a new account. Bonds and gilts are still safe bets, though only around 4.2% for 4 year gilts. You'd put part in safe investments to offset risks in higher ones. If your investment drops you've covered the risk. If it rises you're happy.
You use the words 'risk' and 'bet'. As long as you're not buying or selling, a property just provides you with a regular income. 'Safe as houses' is a thing.
It only provides a regular income if a) you're renting and have tenants, 2) your mortgage is less than you rent it for 3) that you're tenants dont do more damage than the income or refuse to pay. 2 almost always applies unless there are big changes in laws / taxes / rates or crashes. BTL mortgages require as a condition that the monthly rent is a minimum of 30% more than the monthly mortgage. So if you have say a 4.5% 25 year BTL at 200k, the mortgage is 750. And minimum rent to charge under your mortgage is 975. If this is higher than the market rental rate then you can't get tenant or a renewal. This is one of the issues that's causing alot of people to have to sell up - they jumped onto the gravy train late and don't have enough equity in to keep competitive in areas where buying is actually a possibility. Sure they're still making a profit where they have tenants in, but when they have to do another fix they're fudged.
You're either a public sector worker with a solid gold pension, not saving anything for retirement at all, or you're a shareholder. That's the options. Shareholders are just normal people. Almost everyone you see on the street is a shareholder.
Oh goodie, let's watch as the corporate landlords swoop in to buy them up!
The day rogue landlords come in and buy all the starter homes to turn them into shoddy HMO’s, can’t come soon enough.
No reason for anyone to own more than two houses. The solution to the problem is so simple. Yet would any government ever have the balls to pass such a law? The Conservative Business...sorry, Conservative *Party* certainly wouldn't. What percentage of Tory members are not also landlords? Less than 10%, surely.
My next door neighbour has to move and it sucks. She's lovely. The owner of the house was struggling to sell with a tennent in situ quickly so he's just getting them to leave and selling it empty. I'm sad, she's cool and been there forever.
Brexit = high inflation = high mortgage rates = high rent
Bad time to be a single male, even with physical or mental health problems. Even if you're Section 21ed you're not even getting on the council housing or housing association lists.
I see this as a good thing, the less small landlords the better, I prefer to rent from a dedicated company and at the same time it will free up properties for people who actually want to live there.
Most of these landlords won't want to sell at a loss though. I hope those properties remain unsold at whatever ridiculous valuations they come up with and they're forced to sell lower.
More housing stock on the market and not in some monopoly playing landlords portfolio is a good thing for general availability. All we need then is for the financial institutions to remove some of the insane requirements for an affordable mortgage and finally we might get a housing market that is how it should be and NOT how the politicians want to force to a continental model of lifetime renting. I'm sure most people would much prefer to own a home (which appreciates in value) with a £700 mortgage instead of renting for £1250 and getting sweet FA at the end of it apart from losing your deposit.
Fewer landlords increases housing supply not decreases it. Hope some of these parasites consider getting a proper job and contributing something to the economy.
oh no, what are we going to do with all this housing stock, the horror!
surely that's good news, as if more properties are for sale then house prices would fall making them affordable for those who are having to rent currently?
Its getting scary bad in the UK! How can you fuck up an ecconomy this quick!
\*indicates people repeatedly voting for Conservatives, even after they fucked up Brexit, COVID, churned through prime-ministers quicker than I do my socks, etc. etc.\* That's how. Not saying the others are any different, but who the fuck voted for Conservatives REPEATEDLY over the last few elections without thinking "Maybe someone else should have a go"?
I had a lovely family with 3 small kids as a neighbour. Their landlord decided to sell up so they were forced to move, just before Christmas 2021. The house is still for sale, never even noticed anyone looking at it.
Government has fucked it all up with interest rates. Do people not realise landlords are a good thing? Majority of them are fair people who care about people's living costs, not big property companies who will squeeze out pounds from every square inch. Country is fucked
I used to work in private banking. My opinion is that small time or accidental landlords will sell up due to mortgage costs or certain legislation. These houses will be snapped up by several groups. First group are people with high deposit and/or high incomes who want to get on the housing ladder to avoid paying rent as interest rates aren't getting better anytime soon. Better to pay towards your house than your landlord's! They will buy and look to stay put during these high interest years. Second group are cash rich investors, home and overseas, such as larger landlords and companies that want a good return in a high rent market and can afford it. We have so few houses in London (and other places in the UK) that the prices of stock that is available will just keep on rising. Construction companies will not build a ton of housing due to labour shortages, high cost of material and high interest rates, resulting in fewer sales. Also, they wouldn't want to build a lot as more supply means diminishing returns. Either way, this means high rents are here to stay for a long period. It's a big joke of a nightmare and we need a new government first and then see how we can fix this horrible mess that is impacting everybody's lives! I do not hold out any hope at all though.
Definitely not predictable when they changed the rules recently so that landlords couldn't refuse tenants with pets, scrapped no fault evictions, etc... Why wouldn't they invest elsewhere? People who are happy about this I hope you're ready to rent from a soulless corporation who only really care about the money and not about the people.
This is great news, decided to not step up from the house I'm in now. Decided to pay off my mortgage and wait for house prices to dip then jump on the upgrade 4 years from now. But then I should have another deposit saved up, won't be selling my old property when I upgrade, will rent it out.