Rent controls - good or bad?

[sgtkate]

If the law says you cant put the rent up more than inflation you should put it up

to match inflation .Thats what the council do. You cant have your cake and eat it.If you dont put it up to match inflation every year after 3 years you will be cheaper than council rents sooner or later. If they want to bring new rules out lets play along.

 

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. I don't really want to increase my rent as my costs are covered as things stand, and I'm going to get big groans here I know, but ethically I don't believe in making profit through private property rental...my tenants are covering over my interest and some maintenance costs and I'm happy for that to remain. My only concern is that if interest rates go up then I'd be making a loss. I'm ethical and all that but I can't afford to lose much here. I'm a landlord by circumstance and not by choice.

[geared]

Why cant homeowners compete with BTL investors for a property. ?

 

BTL investors are all millionaires - didn't you know :hihi::hihi:

 

They buy up all the decent properties in an area, then put the left over money in a bag and flog a horse to death with it.

 

Thats what rich people do.

[loraward]

Do you own your own home, you don't seem to be able to grasp the issues that would effect home owners and why they are not desirable.

 

Yes I do and I have no desire to see it increase in price because I would like future generations also to afford their own home.

[truman]

Yes I do and I have no desire to see it increase in price because I would like future generations also to afford their own home.

 

So if you sell it in 10 years time you'll sell for the price you paid?

[loraward]

Basic human psychology. Firstly anyone with a mortgage would be unable to sell. And many people without would be unwilling too.

The market became very illiquid after 2007 when it crashed a tiny little bit, and you're talking about the biggest crash ever...

No you didn't. You ignored the potential reason to remortgage and the inability to do so due to massive negative equity.

 

Transaction volumes fell by a large fraction. It didn't become totally illiquid, but much less liquid than normal, and that was a small crash.

 

People in negative equity can sell, they just need to do a deal with the bank.

Houses were still being bought and sold in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, anyone willing to sell could find people willing to buy.

Greedy people found it difficult to sell but that was down to their greed and not a shortage of buyers.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 12:37 ----------

 

Aspiring homeowners have the same opportunity to buy a property as a BTL investor . The property price is the same for a buyer as it is for a BTL landlord.

 

Why cant homeowners compete with BTL investors for a property. ?

 

Because most buy to let investors have had many years to acquire their wealth and first time buyers haven't.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 12:40 ----------

 

So if you sell it in 10 years time you'll sell for the price you paid?

 

If that's its value in ten years time off course I would, if its halved in value I will sell it for half of what I paid.

[Penistone999]

You've no idea how little profit a landlord makes from a single property.

 

Acording to some on here us landlords are all millionaires driving round in Bentleys

[truman]

People in negative equity can sell, they just need to do a deal with the bank.

Houses were still being bought and sold in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, anyone willing to sell could find people willing to buy.

Greedy people found it difficult to sell but that was down to their greed and not a shortage of buyers.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 12:37 ----------

 

 

Because most buy to let investors have had many years to acquire their wealth and first time buyers haven't.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 12:40 ----------

 

 

If that's its value in ten years time off course I would, if its halved in value I will sell it for half of what I paid.

 

What will you sell for if it's value has increased?

[Hippogriff]

If savings and pensions were good places to hold money, then there would be a lot less of these BTL investors of an older age getting into the market. As I said earlier the majority of Landlords have 1 property let out... the effort required in letting out 2 properties is not much different than it is for 1, the effort for 3 is much the same... the reason many Landlords have 1 property is because they think it is a nest-egg within their control, but few realise the effort and the dismay that can be born from the experiment... unless you are a very uncaring and a very unprofessional Landlord then it is not an easy task. I would nearly always advise the people with 1 property to consider another vehicle for their investment if they have no ambition to get more and become a proper Landlord (I don't mean "proper" disparagingly, I hope that's understood, I realise a Landlord with 1 property can be very professional).

[loraward]

What will you sell for if it's value has increased?

 

I would prefer its value to fall because the next house I want will have seen its value fall, making it more affordable. If its value as increased then the value of the house I want will have also increased, making it less affordable.

[Cyclone]

People in negative equity can sell, they just need to do a deal with the bank.

In the example we were talking about, a mortgage of 90k and a house worth 1k, there is no deal to be made. You're stuck unless you can pay it off.

Houses were still being bought and sold in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, anyone willing to sell could find people willing to buy.

Greedy people found it difficult to sell but that was down to their greed and not a shortage of buyers.

The market was massively down, transactions levels halved.

 

We'd all (probably) like house prices to stop increasing, no one really benefits except those who own more than 1 house or invest in the housing market some other way, and everyone else loses out.