Rent controls - good or bad?

[Alan Ladd]

Some buyers couldn't afford them because banks were no longer prepared to lend people the money to buy houses that were for sale for more than their value, but the sellers that offered them for sale at more realistic price had no difficulty in selling. There was plenty of houses for sale but very few sellers were prepared to sell at the right price, the ones that were, sold.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 16:19 ----------

 

 

You sell it with a tenant, why should the tenant have to leave just because you no longer want the property?

 

He has a perfect right to sell or develop his property as he sees fit. Thats capitalism, it works.

[loraward]

You`re right there, but how fair is that ?

When I last checked a landlord has to give the tenant two months notice of eviction even if they`ve stopped paying the rent. In actual fact the tenant would usually get away with more than 2 months rent free because it`d take weeks or even months for the landlord to realise he wasn`t actually going to get paid, and the two months notice goes from that point, not the point that the tenant stopped paying. Personally, with the worst tenant I had I waited as long as I could (you know he kept saying I`ll pay on Friday and all that b******s and I kept hoping it`d all get better.......) before issuing him with an eviction notice because you know you`re definitely not going to get paid then.

So the question is, is it fair that the tenant gets two additional rent free months (in addition to the month of two he already owes you) ?

Should that 2 months be shortened ? At a minimum to include any back rents owed, i.e. if they`re two months behind with the rent ?

 

This is what I mean by the law is already way biased in favour of the tenant, and you seem to be arguing it should get even worse !

 

The law should protect good tenants from landlords and landlords from bad tenants.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 17:07 ----------

 

He has a perfect right to sell or develop his property as he sees fit. Thats capitalism, it works.

 

No he doesn't, development would require planning permission that may not be granted. I wouldn't want the law to stop them selling, but I would want the law to stop them kicking a tenant out that hasn't breached the terms and conditions.

[poppet2]

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

 

Read post 154 for an example of how much profit a landlord makes.

 

Maybe not, but people go into BTL ultimately because it offers them a better long term investment then other forms of pension investments.

Why else would people choose BTL. See my post 141 where The Wilsons acquired more then 700 properties. Check out the Sunday Times Rich List where the top Ten millionaires all made their profits through property investments.

Edited April 28, 2015 by poppet2

[psynuk]

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).

As true as all that is, and it is true. It paints a particularly downtrodden view of landlords which isn't entirely the case.

 

One of my prior landlords; I know how much she paid for the property, how much her mortgage was, I know how much she spent on it over the 7 years I lived there, I know how much rent I paid and how much she sold it for.

 

aside from the; initial deposit, arrangement fees and insurance she spent a grand total of......... £320 over 7 years. She got well over a £100k when all's told.

 

She didn't have to put more than a weeks worth of hours into that property over the duration of the tenancy. hardly dismay and effort on her behalf.

[Hippogriff]

For every Landlord who falls to maintain their property (fools, by the way) there will be the opposite. In 2015 alone, and we're only in April, I've spent £1,300 repairing (replacing, really) garden fences that came down in the really bad weather we had in Sheffield earlier. One was £900, that's at a property that brings in £570 per month rent. I only ever consider claiming on the insurance for things over £1,000... a boiler is a perfect example. I don't begrudge replacing that fence for £900... it was my responsibility to ensure the Tenants and the property are secure and it maintains my rather expensive asset. That property, as a whole, is unlikely to be profitable this year... things happen, stuff breaks, it's life.

[RonJeremy]

Do you mean like this couple.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431224/How-maths-teachers-clocked-707-houses-240m-fortune.html

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 16:06 ----------

 

 

 

Like the landlords in the link above.

 

this represents 100% of all BTL landlords. All of them are this wealthy.

[ubermaus]

Rent controls are a great idea, esp in places like london where rents have gone silly.

Hopefully landlords can see the long term investment potential rather than the quick buck mentality of a yearly profit. Needs to be more incentives for landlords i feel which would in turn help tennants to rent affordably.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 06:30 ----------

 

For every Landlord who falls to maintain their property (fools, by the way) there will be the opposite. In 2015 alone, and we're only in April, I've spent £1,300 repairing (replacing, really) garden fences that came down in the really bad weather we had in Sheffield earlier. One was £900, that's at a property that brings in £570 per month rent. I only ever consider claiming on the insurance for things over £1,000... a boiler is a perfect example. I don't begrudge replacing that fence for £900... it was my responsibility to ensure the Tenants and the property are secure and it maintains my rather expensive asset. That property, as a whole, is unlikely to be profitable this year... things happen, stuff breaks, it's life.

 

Good landlords know its a long game, as it keeps tennants secure and paying rent and adds value to the property.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 06:32 ----------

 

As true as all that is, and it is true. It paints a particularly downtrodden view of landlords which isn't entirely the case.

 

One of my prior landlords; I know how much she paid for the property, how much her mortgage was, I know how much she spent on it over the 7 years I lived there, I know how much rent I paid and how much she sold it for.

 

aside from the; initial deposit, arrangement fees and insurance she spent a grand total of......... £320 over 7 years. She got well over a £100k when all's told.

 

She didn't have to put more than a weeks worth of hours into that property over the duration of the tenancy. hardly dismay and effort on her behalf.

 

Its much easier to invest in shares to make money! I get the impression some speculative landlords think its going to be easy money and undersetimate the potential cost and work imvolved.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 06:35 ----------

 

The law should protect good tenants from landlords and landlords from bad tenants.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 17:07 ----------

 

 

No he doesn't, development would require planning permission that may not be granted. I wouldn't want the law to stop them selling, but I would want the law to stop them kicking a tenant out that hasn't breached the terms and conditions.

 

Bad landlords and bad tennants ruin the system for everybody who has the right intentions.

[Cyclone]

Read post 154 for an example of how much profit a landlord makes.

 

Maybe not, but people go into BTL ultimately because it offers them a better long term investment then other forms of pension investments.

Why else would people choose BTL. See my post 141 where The Wilsons acquired more then 700 properties. Check out the Sunday Times Rich List where the top Ten millionaires all made their profits through property investments.

 

2 of us on this thread told you that we ended up reluctant landlords when we moved house and couldn't sell.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 07:21 ----------

 

Some buyers couldn't afford them because banks were no longer prepared to lend people the money to buy houses that were for sale for more than their value, but the sellers that offered them for sale at more realistic price had no difficulty in selling. There was plenty of houses for sale but very few sellers were prepared to sell at the right price, the ones that were, sold.

You can't rewrite history.

The number of houses on the market for sale dropped massively. The actual volume of sales completing dropped to approx 50% of the previous volumes.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 07:23 ----------

 

As true as all that is, and it is true. It paints a particularly downtrodden view of landlords which isn't entirely the case.

 

One of my prior landlords; I know how much she paid for the property, how much her mortgage was, I know how much she spent on it over the 7 years I lived there, I know how much rent I paid and how much she sold it for.

 

aside from the; initial deposit, arrangement fees and insurance she spent a grand total of......... £320 over 7 years. She got well over a £100k when all's told.

 

She didn't have to put more than a weeks worth of hours into that property over the duration of the tenancy. hardly dismay and effort on her behalf.

 

Nearly all made from house price inflation.

[loraward]

2 of us on this thread told you that we ended up reluctant landlords when we moved house and couldn't sell.

Selling something means getting the price right so if you couldn't sell is was because the price was too high, if you had dropped the price to the correct amount you would have sold, so renting it out was a choice brought about because you chose not to sell at the correct price.

 

 

 

You can't rewrite history.

The number of houses on the market for sale dropped massively. The actual volume of sales completing dropped to approx 50% of the previous volumes.

 

Nearly all made from house price inflation.

 

Yes the number dropped below the numbers that were being sold during the frenzied bubble that property speculators caused, but anyone wishing to sell their house were able to sell their house.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 07:35 ----------

 

Do you mean like this couple.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431224/How-maths-teachers-clocked-707-houses-240m-fortune.html

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 16:06 ----------

 

 

 

Like the landlords in the link above.

 

Nice couple.

 

Britain’s most controversial landlords, Fergus and Judith Wilson, whose property empire extends to nearly 1,000 homes in Kent, have begun evicting families with more than two children, banned tenants on zero-hours contracts and thrown out extended families where the grandmother comes to stay.

 

Last January, the Wilsons sparked a national outcry after it was revealed they were evicting anyone on housing benefit. They sent the eviction notices to 200 tenants, saying they preferred eastern European migrants who defaulted much less frequently than single mums on welfare. They said at the time that the move was purely an economic decision and was entirely legal as landlords do not have to give a reason before obtaining a possession order on a home.

 

But, in a bizarre twist, the Wilsons have begun evicting many of their eastern European tenants – because they are having too many children. “I have taken the decision to evict all families with more than two children and also three-generation households,” said Fergus Wilson in a statement sent to the Guardian.

 

 

 

 

And I bet during their time as teachers they moaned about the greed of others.

Edited April 29, 2015 by loraward

[Hippogriff]

In some respects these guys did the right things... they bought close to them, physically - always a good idea, they bought a specific type of house - usually a 2-up, 2-down, and they didn't agonise over the buying - quick-in, get it done.

 

What surprises me is that they went for new builds quite a lot. Everyone knows you pay a premium there, so they must have been able to beat up the developer in question, regularly, to get amazing off-plan deals.

 

New builds for Landlords are pretty good what with the warranties and all that, but you do expect to pay a premium... and the market has actually made it a lot more competitive - a Landlord can't just go in and snap up a deal because there are a lot of first time buyers with Help To Buy behind them ready to pay list.

 

In a way I'd look at the Wilsons as a bit olde skool... although I did note that only a portion of their properties had mortgages. Yes, they used leverage, but they weren't all owned just on paper with interest-only mortgages.

 

Anyway, I think we have all now concluded that rent controls are not a good thing, so this has been a very good thread to get that consensus.