I’ve been working in the refurbishment of social housing for the majority of the last 20 years and i’d confidently wager that there are way more bad tenants in the world than there are evil landlords.

But working in social housing means you’re working with a decent landlord all the time, and tenants statistically more likely to be a problem. Think this is probably going to cloud your judgement?

I suspect that rents have also risen to balance some of it out.

perhaps – in particular the fees (which is kinda fair – the total cost to a tenant doesn’t need to change, just the nature of them being hidden). In general though, rental property prices are driven by what the local market can afford and not by costs to the landlord – mortgage rates dropped hugely in the past 10-15 years (from ~6% to ~2% for btl mortgages) and none of that was passed onto the tenants.

We are getting towards the tipping point where the majority of people will be renting – things will change then

I think the tipping point will only be when the majority of voters are renting – and this will lag by a significant amount as younger folks tend not to vote as much

^ exactly and the rental market is held up by small subset of the population being given btl mortgages. Easily fixed, but some people would have to lose some (pretty much unearned) money to do so.

ah yes, renters are scum was waiting for this. – is it possible you are only seeing the worse cases as this is your job?

No. Some renters are scum, a minority who by their actions, prevent other people gaining access to decent social housing and prevent investment in more social housing.

It’s not just a landlord problem

is it possible you are only seeing the worse cases as this is your job?

I’ve seen all the cases, good and bad. I once did two surveys in the same street in Paisley. One guy refused to have his kitchen replaced beacuse he had fitted out his own kitchen in italian marble. It was a £30k kitchen in a £30k council flat that he didn’t own. One of his neighbours had ripped up and burned 90% of his floorboards as he was cold and had already stripped and sold the central heating system for scrap.
I’d like to think that gives me a feel for the balance of good tenants to bad.

I’d like to think that gives me a feel for the balance of good tenants to bad.

But you only deal with social housing tenants?

But you only deal with social housing tenants?

Are they different form “normal” tenants?

Are are they just people who want somewhare to live?

People are people. Some will care for a property that they don’t own but have the use of. Some won’t.

A deeper question here is wether or not society should exist to help people enjoy their lives, or is it just a framework for moving money around?

A deeper question here is wether or not society should exist to help people enjoy their lives, or is it just a framework for moving money around?

Originally, you spent most of your waking hours hunting and foraging for food, and getting yourself shelter.

It then progressed to the peron who was good at making huts made huts, and the peron who could make clothes made clothes, for the entire village, while they all worked farming, and the builder and clothier got food as payment.

These days we have jobs – which provide usefulness to somebody – and recieve money for it. While my ancestors toiled every daylight hour to avoid starvation, I can feed myself (on all manner of varied, balanced diets) for less than one hours work at minimum wage a day, and can even get it delivered to my door if I wanted. Its far more efficient to outsource my food aquisition to Mr Sainsbury, than it is to hunt and farm myself.

Those extra hours in the day give me time for both productivity (earning money) and leisure (spending it); both of which create more and better jobs for other people in society, who then get more leisure, and so on

which is all well and good, but now we have the situation where some people can do absolutely nothing and make money from simply having access to credit.

The definition of patronising

Think he means you’d pay CGT on your primary residence as well. Seems fair to me and would definitely slow down the market.

Cant see how it would though. If your house value rises by £Xk and theres a 20% tax on that, you’re not going to take a hit on the asking price (unless the tax is >100%).

Stamp duty does do that though. About 25% of our deposit went to the government which stings bit! But doesnt really work except to stop short term investments in expensive houses. Probably why homes under the hammer is never in the SE, you cant make a proffit with some laminate flooring and an Ikea kitchen if theres stamp duty.

Personally I think council tax should double/treble/quadrupole. Encourage people to actually live in the house they need. No point in some 50+ people telling youngsters who cant afford a house that the solution is for more tax on buying a house.

Cant see how it would though. If your house value rises by £Xk and theres a 20% tax on that, you’re not going to take a hit on the asking price (unless the tax is >100%).

it gives the person who is selling their first house less cash to buy their second house, thus depressing the market (as everyone else looking to buy is in the same boat). I would wager that the majority of the deposit most people have for their second/third house purchase is made up of inflation from the first one/two

Personally I think council tax should double/treble/quadrupole. Encourage people to actually live in the house they need. No point in some 50+ people telling youngsters who cant afford a house that the solution is for more tax on buying a house.

I don’t disagree but it’ll never happen politically as it puts a significant squeeze on retirees (who no longer have the income they had before) and they’re very likely to vote.

The definition of patronising

Do you even understand what patronising means? I can explain it to you in really simple words that you and everyone else might just about understand if you all concentrate. 😉

Are they different form “normal” tenants?

Yes, statistically I believe so, and probably in ways which make significant property damage more likely. Please note, I’m not saying social tenants are scum. That would be ridiculous. Just that, by only working with social tenants, you will see a higher proportion of poverty, poor mental health and other issues.

Nonsense, it’s an objection to a warped version of predatory capitalism applied to a basic human right.

Owning your own house is not a “basic human right.” Compared to other countries the UK is relatively unusual in having so many people who whose homes are privately owned by those living in them.

This problem is heading your way, then will you be suggesting moving out the country ?

You reckon?

A basic human right, yesterday:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-83522155.html

Or, if you want to get in on the capitalist pig market yourself:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-83800114.html

Why would you give stamp duty tax breaks at a time like this

That’s exactly what happened about a month ago.

now we have the situation where some people can do absolutely nothing and make money from simply having access to credit.

Do you have access to credit? Why not make some money yourself?

Yes, statistically I believe so, and probably in ways which make significant property damage more likely. Please note, I’m not saying social tenants are scum. That would be ridiculous. Just that, by only working with social tenants, you will see a higher proportion of poverty, poor mental health and other issues.

As the person who brought the scum word to the thread, remember I was referencing MAOB’s previous private tennants.

Sorry, wasn’t poking at you mate, just used it subconsciously.

As per 5lab that is what I suggested CGT or even more punitive tax on house value inflation , suppressing the market , there might be a sliding scale depending on how long the property was owned tapering the tax over 25 years.
Too much house price inflation has only really benefited the banks and lenders , taking money out of other parts of the economy.

Is it though, really?

Yes.

Compared to other countries the UK is relatively unusual in having so many people who whose homes are privately owned by those living in them.

True. But private rental in the UK is nothing like renting in any other European country. Nothing inherently wrong with renting, but in the UK it is a financial trap without rights or security.

Owning your own house is not a “basic human right.”

Perhaps not the best use of that term, but I do believe everyone who is employed full time should be able to have the option to own their own home – why can we not aim for that? It’s just a reallocation of credit.

Do you have access to credit? Why not make some money yourself?

Yes, now I do – but I don’t tend to exploit people to make my money.

Not quite as simple as that though is it? Where you live isn’t an easy choice for lots of people, heavily influenced by family, friends and work.

No, of course it isn’t, I was being gently facetious. Everyone’s situation is different of course, I could work from the surface of the moon for the difference it makes but other people aren’t so lucky. I too have friends and family (for some value of, it’s just my mum) locally so moving to the other end of the country would have cons rather than pros.

I just rather think the blame here is misplaced.

True. But private rental in the UK is nothing like renting in any other European country. Nothing inherently wrong with renting, but in the UK it is a financial trap without rights or security.

I looked this up, and we’re not the outlier in Europe, Germany is. We’re about on a par with France in terms of ownership, well behind Spain and Italy.

Yes, now I do – but I don’t tend to exploit people to make my money.

Could I ask your view on farmers?

If we’re taking issue with basic human rights, surely food is in the same pot.

everyone who is employed full time should be able to have the option to own their own home – why can we not aim for that

it costs more than £60k (4x the minimum wage – seems like a reasonable figure to work with) to build a home in many parts of the country, even if you excluded the cost of land (by building it on land already publicly owned, or whatever..). even if you did figure out a way of doing that, it means your minimum wage earner would have to save 12k (deposit) whilst paying all other costs on minimum wage. its just not viable, which is where social housing should pick up those who cant.

Perhaps not the best use of that term, but I do believe everyone who is employed full time should be able to have the option to own their own home – why can we not aim for that?

You have the option, you just need to manage your expectations. If you’re on minimum wage you shouldn’t be astonished to discover that you can’t afford a 4-bed detached in Surrey.

The government recently started a scheme which will basically loan you your deposit for first-time buyers, and there are other options too.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/help-to-buy-homebuy-and-other-housing-schemes

Yes, now I do – but I don’t tend to exploit people to make my money.

You do like to use disingenuously emotive language, don’t you. It won’t wash.

Repackaging that: you could use your superior buying power to purchase a house and then rent it out to someone who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford anywhere to live. You could turn a modest profit for your troubles rather than price-gouging or just aim to break even if you were so morally compelled and who knows, if you undercut other landlords then you might end up influencing the market bringing prices down in other properties in the area.

That property I linked to above is up for £50k and comes with boil-in-the-bag long-term tenants who will be there for at least another year. Do they sound “exploited” to you?

And sixth time lucky. What’s the alternative? Someone cannot afford to buy, you want to shut down the rental market, what are you proposing instead? A sudden uptick in tent sales?

It’s not the fault of BTL landlords that mortgage lenders currently want a 20% deposit, take that up with the lenders. It’s actually a response to a sudden increase in buying during the CV crisis. Affordable 100% mortgages would likely kill the BTL market stone dead.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/feb/10/home-ownership-ons-rent

What’s the alternative?

All the alternatives would make buy to let unfeasible*, so I doubt you genuinely want to hear about them. Rent controls and caps for instance. Anyway, if you happy to see that the current situation creates problems for a lot of people, that’s a great start. The current system is very complex, as would anything better be, and would be hard to outline in a post here, no? And landlords really aren’t the problem here… the system is.

[ *not really true… perfectly feasible, just that such changes are resisted with claims that that they would make it so hard for landlords, that they’d all leave the market… which has never seemed plausible ]

If the farmer was renting me a chicken for £1, while selling to others for 25p, yeah I would have a problem with it.

Food is a highly competitive market with lots of choice for any budget, I can also grow my own food and use a food bank if I really need it … not sure what comparison you are trying to make.

I just got a full survey done of a property I am hoping to buy. And then 2 independent builders and damp proofing professionals to assess cost.
Ex rental property near a hospital. The landlords are also doctors but living out in the nice villages.
The survey shows high levels of damp and insect infestation and a more dilapidated state than I noticed on my first inspection. The central heating is deamed unsafe due to a blocked flue. Looking at photos from its last sale 5 years ago it looks better than now.
How do landlords get away with doing nothing and just taking in rental cash.

we’re not the outlier in Europe, Germany is

We’re the outlier in terms of protection and tenure for people renting their home, that was my point.

Home ownership patterns differ across Europe… super high in Eastern and Southern countries. Surprised about France to be honest, I thought they had a higher proportion of renters than us… but perhaps that’s a Paris bias I have. I think the Scandy countries and Switzerland have far more renters than we do… I could look I suppose…

And sixth time lucky. What’s the alternative? Someone cannot afford to buy, you want to shut down the rental market, what are you proposing instead? A sudden uptick in tent sales?

You are describing the problem – house prices need to fall. To do this the BTL sector needs to shrink and at the same time the quality of rental properties needs to increase. This means people will make less money from property, horrifying I know.

Well… France bang on the same as us, as you say, and Sweden and Denmark pretty close. Germany the outlier in terms of home ownership, as you said…

https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/

How do landlords get away with doing nothing and just taking in rental cash.

Pathetic isn’t it, maybe Doctors should stick to their day jobs, for which they are paid very well to do.

You are describing the problem – house prices need to fall.

I think the problem is that wages need to rise, and, vitally rents need to fall. You can’t save up a deposit while you are paying more in rent for your home than you would be if paying for the mortgage if you “owned” it.

All the alternatives would make buy to let unfeasible*, so I doubt you genuinely want to hear about them.

… I really don’t have a dog in this race, but rather

And landlords really aren’t the problem here… the system is.

… is exactly the point I was trying to make.

If the farmer was renting me a chicken for £1, while selling to others for 25p, yeah I would have a problem with it.

Yeah, but for the analogy to work your 25p buyers would first have to sign up to the chicken-buying scheme for £500 in order to be eligible to buy (or at least, be able to prove the means to). Still grossly unfair now?

the analogy does not work.

At the risk of repeating myself, that was my point, your analogy doesn’t work.

In your scenario if a farmer is selling chickens for 25p and renting them for £1, nothing is stopping you from buying one rather than renting it.

OK, let’s try a different tack.

Hypothetically, I have a house on the market. I will offer to rent it to you for £500/month, or I will sell it to you for £500/month until it’s paid off if you can give me a £35,000 lump sum up front.

Which do you choose? And if you don’t like either of those options, well, do I need to ask a seventh time?

Why is one of these two scenarios problematic to you? Seven pages in and the best you’ve managed so far is “someone is making a profit.” You’re going to soil yourself when you find out that new builds don’t sell at cost.

I will offer to rent it to you for £500/ month, or I will sell it to you for £500/month

Where are (private) rents equivalent to mortgage payments in that way in the UK?

“someone is making a profit.”

Did you read that Guardian article I posted? Who’s complaining about profit? We are complaining about a system where more people than ever can no longer own their one home, and are trapped in the rental system where they are inadequately protected.

Of course there can be a profit, but there is far too much profit. As was mentioned a few posts back mortgage costs have gone down, while rents have gone up, how is that not exploitative?

Of course there can be a profit, but there is far too much profit

I’d love to know how much is ‘too much’ profit?