Buy to let

It makes good business sense. Councils and housing associations are there for people unable to let privately. People will rent whilst they're getting themselves together and then go on to buy themselves.

Being a landlord has ups and downs like any business decision but it's a safer bet than others.
 
west didsblue said:
You didn't misunderstand. If the rent I charge wasn't affordable I wouldn't have any tenants.

I get around a 7% net yield on my investment so I'm happy and my tenants are happy so what's the problem?

If the BTL sector disappeared, house prices might fall but not everyone wants or can afford to buy and people like yourself would be left with less choices.

There is a certain level of hypocrisy in your posts. You've said you choose to rent for the flexibility it provides but slag off the people who provide that service.

I'll ask again, is your landlord selfish?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you find the hypocrisy in my posts. I stated that I choose to rent, not buy. The reasons for this are twofold: 1) I live in Europe, where it is the accepted norm for people to rent rather than buy (most Europeans live in flats, usually owned by co-operatives - it's a completely different housing culture to the UK), 2) the nature of my work means it's almost impossible for me to stay longer than 3 or 4 years in one place. So it is my choice to rent, even though I could buy if I wanted to.
Would I regard my landlord as selfish? Not at all, as I don't have one (I rent from a co-operative).
As for slagging off people who provide a 'service' - why exactly do those people choose to buy properties to let them? To provide a 'service'? No, providing a service is something for the public good. Because they're philanthropists? No, it is with the sole purpose of making money. My problem is that first-time buyers now find their choices becoming ever more restricted by multi-property owners. If someone owns 10 properties, it stands to reason that thére are fewer available on the market to buy.
A question for you: Why do you own property to rent?
 
We're currently toying with this idea albeit the other way round(let to buy). We plan to release the £200,000 equity in our home to add to a 2nd mortgage of around £150,000. We then rent ours out for the going rate of £900- £1000 per month which will cover the new interest only mortgage on our current home plus the new mortgage. The mortgage we currently pay can then be used in any way that we please although in all honesty this will probably go in an isa with an eye on paying off the equity amount of £200,000 we released much further down the line.

That's the idea anyway.
 
Innsbruckblue said:
As for slagging off people who provide a 'service' - why exactly do those people choose to buy properties to let them? To provide a 'service'? No, providing a service is something for the public good.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to appreciate what a 'service' is. Is a consultant charging £800 p/day to a council to advice/implement an internal HR system for the 'public good'? Is a lawyer charging £1000 p/hour to invoke a super, super injunction regarding the reporting of nuclear waste dumping off the East African cost, for the public good?

You have some salient points, but not a lot of balance. Fwiw I absolutely plan on buying additional property, I don't trust pensions, there's evidence in this thread of people losing value without any control. People want to rent, they need houses with the option to do so, I'd like more control over my 'pension' - it seems like a no brainer.
 
peoffrey said:
It makes good business sense. Councils and housing associations are there for people unable to let privately. People will rent whilst they're getting themselves together and then go on to buy themselves.

Being a landlord has ups and downs like any business decision but it's a safer bet than others.
Click to expand...

The new govt are giving all housing association tenants the right buy.

Twats.
 
Innsbruckblue said:
I'm not sure where you find the hypocrisy in my posts. I stated that I choose to rent, not buy. The reasons for this are twofold: 1) I live in Europe, where it is the accepted norm for people to rent rather than buy (most Europeans live in flats, usually owned by co-operatives - it's a completely different housing culture to the UK), 2) the nature of my work means it's almost impossible for me to stay longer than 3 or 4 years in one place. So it is my choice to rent, even though I could buy if I wanted to.
Would I regard my landlord as selfish? Not at all, as I don't have one (I rent from a co-operative).
As for slagging off people who provide a 'service' - why exactly do those people choose to buy properties to let them? To provide a 'service'? No, providing a service is something for the public good. Because they're philanthropists? No, it is with the sole purpose of making money. My problem is that first-time buyers now find their choices becoming ever more restricted by multi-property owners. If someone owns 10 properties, it stands to reason that thére are fewer available on the market to buy.
A question for you: Why do you own property to rent?
Click to expand...
It might have escaped your attention but the UK economy has become more and more service based over the last 40 years. In fact as of last year 78% of the economy is service based. Do you think all the millions of people who provide services are doing it just for the public good? No, most are doing it with the primary intention of making money, and to make money they need to provide a service that people want. That's all I and other private landlords do. As we don't live in a communist society that is normal. Regarding first time buyers, I agree that it's difficult for them but there are no shortage of government schemes to help including "Help to Buy" and "Right to Buy". If the law was changed so that it was no longer economically viable to be a private landlord, the price of property would collapse which would help the first time buyer but this would also plunge millions of people into negative equity and would negatively impact every property owner. It would also cause a collapse in the housebuilding industry as companies would struggle to make money on new property. Having said that, I re-iterate that the main reason I own property to rent is to make money and I make no apologies for that.
 
Innsbruckblue said:
@lloydie - Thank you

@Mustard Dave - Many thanks for such an eloquent post. In answer to such a beautifully well-written text, I am indeed one of those who prefer the flexibility of renting. But I chose to leave Manchester 15 years ago to further my career, and live in Europe where most people do choose to rent. So it is, in fact, the norm here. I suggest you read my post again and inform me of where I mentioned the term 'slum landlords'. Judging by the tone of your reply, you appear to be an owner of multiple properties and, if so, I commend you on your business skill and forward thinking, and would sincerely hope you are not one of those, in your own words, 'slum landlords'.
As literacy does not seem to be one of your strong points, I will allow myself the trouble of paraphrasing my own text into 'simpler' English for you.
If Mr X owns more than one property, with the sole intention of letting one or more to others, in order to earn money, then there will quite obviously be fewer available properties on the market for those who may wish to buy for the first time (young families, for example, making it increasingly more difficult for them to afford a mortgage). This in turn, then inflates house prices as more people seeking to buy fewer properties = price rises. At the same time, Mr X, who owns multiple properties, sits in his own bought house and earns extra income from renting out to those who may wish to get on the property ladder, but have now been priced out of the market by the many Mr Xs who only own multiple properties so they can earn more money.
Now I suggest the following:
1 - go and take an English course to improve your literacy and language skills.
2 - don't tell me to 'fuck off', when you don't even know me
Click to expand...

To answer lloydie, I did read his post. It said, "Selfish people pushing up prices and making it harder for first-time buyers, eg, young couples and families, to get the chance of purchasing their own home.". He has tarred all private landlords with the same brush in a single sentence, in response to a request for advice from somebody considering purchasing a BTL property.

Innsbruckblue, where did I say that you used the term 'slum landlords'? There is a certain breed of landlord, who purchases multiple properties and lets them with no regard for the conditions the tenants are living in, as their sole concern is profit. Then there is the person who buys a property with the intent of using it to fund their retirement (for example), who charge a fair market rent for a well maintained property. You may not have used the term, but you are certainly lumping the latter in amongst the first lot.

My grasp of the English language is more than adequate, thank you. Sometimes a simple response, borrowing some of the wording from the case of Arkell vs. Pressdram, is all that is required. I extended no less of a courtesy than you did for the OP, who you branded as 'selfish' without knowing anything of his intentions. For the record, I own a single property - the one I live in.
 
Within the Manchester area,what's the latest thoughts on this topic? Good move,or more hassle than worth?

If the latter,where would people recommend investing a decent cash chunk?

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.