Buy to Let and private renting

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Millennie Al
Catbabel
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Buy to Let and private renting

Post by Millennie Al » Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:34 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:33 pm
But second homes and other property investments don't have that. There's no reason why sensible tax policies can't be imposed on buy-to-let and holiday let investments, while a second home in Cornwall can be taxed till the granite squeaks - council tax per annum at many multiples of standard council tax for example. A lot of property represents a bad use of wealth, being used to store value and ride house price inflation in contrast to wealth being invested in business enterprises.
Buy-to-let is quite obviously a business enterprise. A "second home" may well be (if let when not being used personally). And I cannot see how buy-to-let is in any way a bad use of wealth, unless you think people should only be allowed to live in houses that they own.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

tom p
Dorkwood
Posts: 1211
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by tom p » Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:18 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:34 am
lpm wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:33 pm
But second homes and other property investments don't have that. There's no reason why sensible tax policies can't be imposed on buy-to-let and holiday let investments, while a second home in Cornwall can be taxed till the granite squeaks - council tax per annum at many multiples of standard council tax for example. A lot of property represents a bad use of wealth, being used to store value and ride house price inflation in contrast to wealth being invested in business enterprises.
Buy-to-let is quite obviously a business enterprise. A "second home" may well be (if let when not being used personally). And I cannot see how buy-to-let is in any way a bad use of wealth, unless you think people should only be allowed to live in houses that they own.
If the number of houses being built were unconstrained by archaic planning regulations or the number of buy-to-lets was constrained or the rents were not constantly ratcheted upwards while the houses are not in any way improved, then that would be a reasonable position. But the opposite is true, and as such you are, unsurprisingly, completely and utterly wrong.
Buy-to-let massively drives house price inflation, pushing the prices of houses out of the reach of normal working people & ultimately leading to a transfer of wealth from the worse off to the better off & their undeserving children when they die.
The instability of living in a buy-to-let house also means that local society is harmed 'cos you don't invest time in your area when you might need to leave in a year.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
After Pie
Posts: 1992
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:45 pm

tom p wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:18 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:34 am
lpm wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:33 pm
But second homes and other property investments don't have that. There's no reason why sensible tax policies can't be imposed on buy-to-let and holiday let investments, while a second home in Cornwall can be taxed till the granite squeaks - council tax per annum at many multiples of standard council tax for example. A lot of property represents a bad use of wealth, being used to store value and ride house price inflation in contrast to wealth being invested in business enterprises.
Buy-to-let is quite obviously a business enterprise. A "second home" may well be (if let when not being used personally). And I cannot see how buy-to-let is in any way a bad use of wealth, unless you think people should only be allowed to live in houses that they own.
If the number of houses being built were unconstrained by archaic planning regulations or the number of buy-to-lets was constrained or the rents were not constantly ratcheted upwards while the houses are not in any way improved, then that would be a reasonable position. But the opposite is true, and as such you are, unsurprisingly, completely and utterly wrong.
Buy-to-let massively drives house price inflation, pushing the prices of houses out of the reach of normal working people & ultimately leading to a transfer of wealth from the worse off to the better off & their undeserving children when they die.
The instability of living in a buy-to-let house also means that local society is harmed 'cos you don't invest time in your area when you might need to leave in a year.
There are just so many ways that buy to let, as it stands presently, is a f.cking pisstake. Poorly regulated, too easy for landlords to be c.nts, too easy for the monied to become more monied, etc etc.
Cinch?
Cinch!
Cinch?
Cinch?!
Cinch*
<Cinch>
-Cinch-
"Cinch"
Cinch.

tom p
Dorkwood
Posts: 1211
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by tom p » Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:59 pm

It's nothing but an endless shitshow. Profits on buy-to-let properties should be taxed at 1000%.
Force the greedy c.nts to sell and sell quickly and get the UK housing market back to something approaching reality and normality.

User avatar
JQH
Dorkwood
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by JQH » Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:59 pm

tom p wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:18 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:34 am
lpm wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:33 pm
But second homes and other property investments don't have that. There's no reason why sensible tax policies can't be imposed on buy-to-let and holiday let investments, while a second home in Cornwall can be taxed till the granite squeaks - council tax per annum at many multiples of standard council tax for example. A lot of property represents a bad use of wealth, being used to store value and ride house price inflation in contrast to wealth being invested in business enterprises.
Buy-to-let is quite obviously a business enterprise. A "second home" may well be (if let when not being used personally). And I cannot see how buy-to-let is in any way a bad use of wealth, unless you think people should only be allowed to live in houses that they own.
If the number of houses being built were unconstrained by archaic planning regulations or the number of buy-to-lets was constrained or the rents were not constantly ratcheted upwards while the houses are not in any way improved, then that would be a reasonable position. But the opposite is true, and as such you are, unsurprisingly, completely and utterly wrong.
Buy-to-let massively drives house price inflation, pushing the prices of houses out of the reach of normal working people & ultimately leading to a transfer of wealth from the worse off to the better off & their undeserving children when they die.
The instability of living in a buy-to-let house also means that local society is harmed 'cos you don't invest time in your area when you might need to leave in a year.
This.

Private tenants should have the same Right to Buy as local authority tenants. With the same discounts.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by discovolante » Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:23 pm

tom p wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:18 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:34 am
lpm wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:33 pm
But second homes and other property investments don't have that. There's no reason why sensible tax policies can't be imposed on buy-to-let and holiday let investments, while a second home in Cornwall can be taxed till the granite squeaks - council tax per annum at many multiples of standard council tax for example. A lot of property represents a bad use of wealth, being used to store value and ride house price inflation in contrast to wealth being invested in business enterprises.
Buy-to-let is quite obviously a business enterprise. A "second home" may well be (if let when not being used personally). And I cannot see how buy-to-let is in any way a bad use of wealth, unless you think people should only be allowed to live in houses that they own.
If the number of houses being built were unconstrained by archaic planning regulations or the number of buy-to-lets was constrained or the rents were not constantly ratcheted upwards while the houses are not in any way improved, then that would be a reasonable position. But the opposite is true, and as such you are, unsurprisingly, completely and utterly wrong.
Buy-to-let massively drives house price inflation, pushing the prices of houses out of the reach of normal working people & ultimately leading to a transfer of wealth from the worse off to the better off & their undeserving children when they die.
The instability of living in a buy-to-let house also means that local society is harmed 'cos you don't invest time in your area when you might need to leave in a year.
And landlords get mega touchy at any criticism even if it isn't directed at them personally. Boo hoo. If they're that great they should be out there campaigning for better standards for tenants so they can carry on landlording without being carped at for other people's misdeeds all the time.

Anyway, some people at LSE argue that supply has very little to do with increased house prices and decreased ownership, and that it's more to do with low mortgage interest rates and a collapse in banks lending to first time buyers: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... ng-crisis/ although maybe if there weren't so many BTLers to lend to they might be more likely to lend to FTBers...
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by discovolante » Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:26 pm

JQH wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:59 pm
tom p wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:18 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:34 am


Buy-to-let is quite obviously a business enterprise. A "second home" may well be (if let when not being used personally). And I cannot see how buy-to-let is in any way a bad use of wealth, unless you think people should only be allowed to live in houses that they own.
If the number of houses being built were unconstrained by archaic planning regulations or the number of buy-to-lets was constrained or the rents were not constantly ratcheted upwards while the houses are not in any way improved, then that would be a reasonable position. But the opposite is true, and as such you are, unsurprisingly, completely and utterly wrong.
Buy-to-let massively drives house price inflation, pushing the prices of houses out of the reach of normal working people & ultimately leading to a transfer of wealth from the worse off to the better off & their undeserving children when they die.
The instability of living in a buy-to-let house also means that local society is harmed 'cos you don't invest time in your area when you might need to leave in a year.
This.

Private tenants should have the same Right to Buy as local authority tenants. With the same discounts.
Oh BOY would I like to buy my place! Take it out of the hands of the landed gentry who have owned it for about 800 years, take that! Mind you I wouldnt be able to afford to buy it even with a discount, which I suppose is one of the advantages of renting.
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

Millennie Al
Catbabel
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by Millennie Al » Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:35 am

tom p wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:18 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:34 am
And I cannot see how buy-to-let is in any way a bad use of wealth, unless you think people should only be allowed to live in houses that they own.
If the number of houses being built were unconstrained by archaic planning regulations or the number of buy-to-lets was constrained or the rents were not constantly ratcheted upwards while the houses are not in any way improved, then that would be a reasonable position.
So the problem is not with buy-to-let, but with these things.
The instability of living in a buy-to-let house also means that local society is harmed 'cos you don't invest time in your area when you might need to leave in a year.
There is no inherent instability in buy-to-let. In fact, it should be more stable than letting for other reasons (such as a homeowner needing to relocate termporarily). A sensible landlord will jnow that changing tenants incurs a cost, so it is always better to keep the one you have rather than get a small increase in the rent.

And there is no inherent stability in homeowning either. Mortgage rates can go up, and can do so to the point where the homeowner can no longer afford to pay, so is forced out. And, of course, a homeowner's financial circumstances can change to the point where they can no longer afford the mortgage (e.g. losing their job), again forcing them out. When forced out, you still have to keep paying until you find a buyer, whereas if you are renting you just give notice and move out. If the landlord cannot find a new tenant, that's their loss.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

Millennie Al
Catbabel
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by Millennie Al » Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:36 am

JQH wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:59 pm
Private tenants should have the same Right to Buy as local authority tenants. With the same discounts.
Why? If you rent a car do you expect the right to buy it?
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

bmforre
Snowbonk
Posts: 489
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by bmforre » Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:46 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:36 am
If you rent a car do you expect the right to buy it?
I believe lease-to-buy is fairly common with cars?

User avatar
JQH
Dorkwood
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by JQH » Fri Sep 10, 2021 6:57 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:36 am
JQH wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:59 pm
Private tenants should have the same Right to Buy as local authority tenants. With the same discounts.
Why? If you rent a car do you expect the right to buy it?
For the same reason that local authority tenants have the right to buy.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

tom p
Dorkwood
Posts: 1211
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by tom p » Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:46 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:35 am
tom p wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:18 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:34 am
And I cannot see how buy-to-let is in any way a bad use of wealth, unless you think people should only be allowed to live in houses that they own.
If the number of houses being built were unconstrained by archaic planning regulations or the number of buy-to-lets was constrained or the rents were not constantly ratcheted upwards while the houses are not in any way improved, then that would be a reasonable position.
So the problem is not with buy-to-let, but with these things.
The instability of living in a buy-to-let house also means that local society is harmed 'cos you don't invest time in your area when you might need to leave in a year.
There is no inherent instability in buy-to-let. In fact, it should be more stable than letting for other reasons (such as a homeowner needing to relocate termporarily). A sensible landlord will jnow that changing tenants incurs a cost, so it is always better to keep the one you have rather than get a small increase in the rent.
I presume that you have never heard of assured shorthold tenancies then. The standard private renting mechanism in the UK.
You also, clearly, have no practical experience of what you're talking about and are just imagining some perfect world where landlord and tenant skip hand in hand singing that hippyish coke song about being in perfect harmony.

You have a contract on your house for 1 year (or, if memory serves, it was typically 364 days - maybe some rights kicked in after a year or summat). The landlord can choose sell up or just stop renting to you at the end of that period. In places with high housing demand, they ratchet up the rent year after year after year, regardless of whether they have done anything to add value to the property (they won't have) and regardless of interest rates movements. As a tenant, you have next to no rights to do anything to the property and you are spunking a huge wodge of your income on rent.
Throughout the south-east of England, there is no shortage of tenants and landlords know they will have next to no gap between them, and slapping a bit of magnolia paint around between tenants costs next-to-nothing, and it's a cost that will be covered by the money they take from the tenant's deposit anyway.

tom p
Dorkwood
Posts: 1211
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by tom p » Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:47 am

bmforre wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:46 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:36 am
If you rent a car do you expect the right to buy it?
I believe lease-to-buy is fairly common with cars?
It is indeed. And renting a car for a weekend or a week is totally different from renting a house for years.
Only a halfwit wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a home you live in and a car you drive in.

WFJ
Clardic Fug
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by WFJ » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:03 am

Most of the anti-BTL arguments describe problems that would be much better solved elsewhere. There is nothing inherently wrong with renting, and the obsession with home ownership is peculiarly British.

Inheritance tax reform, abolishing the seven year rule and taxing the parental gifts and "loans" that the children of the wealthy use to drive up prices would do far more to improve equality and access to house purchasing by first time buyers.

Discouraging letting through punitive excess taxation makes no sense, and would severely affect those who want or need to rent their homes rather than buying. Methods of avoiding capital gains on second homes should definitely be clamped down on though. Tenants' rights in Britain are sh.t, and I agree reform is needed, but this has nothing to do with BTL.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 6785
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:43 am

I suspect the state and popularity of BTL in the UK is more a symptom of wider problems with tenants' rights, as you say.

If tenants were properly protected from sh.tty conditions and annual above-inflation price hikes, BTL would be less popular for half-arsed profiteering anyway.

Not that the Tories will do anything useful about that, nor implement a wealth tax.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by discovolante » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:59 am

I think this discussion about BTL etc may warrant a split. I'm a bit tied up at work today (despite appearances - I'm on hold on the phone!) so can do this later this evening if nobody objects?
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 4181
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by dyqik » Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:41 pm

bmforre wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:46 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:36 am
If you rent a car do you expect the right to buy it?
I believe lease-to-buy is fairly common with cars?
Absolutely standard.

Hire-purchase used to be common for smaller things as well.

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 4181
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by dyqik » Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:43 pm

tom p wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:46 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:35 am
tom p wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:18 pm

If the number of houses being built were unconstrained by archaic planning regulations or the number of buy-to-lets was constrained or the rents were not constantly ratcheted upwards while the houses are not in any way improved, then that would be a reasonable position.
So the problem is not with buy-to-let, but with these things.
The instability of living in a buy-to-let house also means that local society is harmed 'cos you don't invest time in your area when you might need to leave in a year.
There is no inherent instability in buy-to-let. In fact, it should be more stable than letting for other reasons (such as a homeowner needing to relocate termporarily). A sensible landlord will jnow that changing tenants incurs a cost, so it is always better to keep the one you have rather than get a small increase in the rent.
I presume that you have never heard of assured shorthold tenancies then. The standard private renting mechanism in the UK.
You also, clearly, have no practical experience of what you're talking about and are just imagining some perfect world where landlord and tenant skip hand in hand singing that hippyish coke song about being in perfect harmony.

You have a contract on your house for 1 year (or, if memory serves, it was typically 364 days - maybe some rights kicked in after a year or summat). The landlord can choose sell up or just stop renting to you at the end of that period.
In practice, they can sell up and stop renting to you at any point in the tenancy, with two months notice.

tom p
Dorkwood
Posts: 1211
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by tom p » Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:08 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:43 pm
tom p wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:46 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:35 am


So the problem is not with buy-to-let, but with these things.



There is no inherent instability in buy-to-let. In fact, it should be more stable than letting for other reasons (such as a homeowner needing to relocate termporarily). A sensible landlord will jnow that changing tenants incurs a cost, so it is always better to keep the one you have rather than get a small increase in the rent.
I presume that you have never heard of assured shorthold tenancies then. The standard private renting mechanism in the UK.
You also, clearly, have no practical experience of what you're talking about and are just imagining some perfect world where landlord and tenant skip hand in hand singing that hippyish coke song about being in perfect harmony.

You have a contract on your house for 1 year (or, if memory serves, it was typically 364 days - maybe some rights kicked in after a year or summat). The landlord can choose sell up or just stop renting to you at the end of that period.
In practice, they can sell up and stop renting to you at any point in the tenancy, with two months notice.
Depends on the contract, but yeah, that's always an option; however that always takes time and you would know about it because nobody's going to buy a house without looking at it and the landlord has to get your permission to bring people round.
The biggest driver of instability is the length of the contract and the fact hat as a tenant after the contract ends that's it, you're out on your ear if you don't accept the rent-hike.

In the Netherlands, once you sign a contract, that's the price you pay forever, with the landlord permitted only to increase by inflation as determined by the RPI from the Dutch government. They also have to give you 3 months notice, whereas as tenant you only have to give one months notice, which is nice.

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 4181
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by dyqik » Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:19 pm

tom p wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:08 pm
dyqik wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:43 pm
tom p wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:46 am

I presume that you have never heard of assured shorthold tenancies then. The standard private renting mechanism in the UK.
You also, clearly, have no practical experience of what you're talking about and are just imagining some perfect world where landlord and tenant skip hand in hand singing that hippyish coke song about being in perfect harmony.

You have a contract on your house for 1 year (or, if memory serves, it was typically 364 days - maybe some rights kicked in after a year or summat). The landlord can choose sell up or just stop renting to you at the end of that period.
In practice, they can sell up and stop renting to you at any point in the tenancy, with two months notice.
Depends on the contract, but yeah, that's always an option; however that always takes time and you would know about it because nobody's going to buy a house without looking at it and the landlord has to get your permission to bring people round.
I believe it's a standard part of short-hold tenancy in England. The three times it's happened to me, the two month notice was given before the property was put on the market, and it completed within a few weeks of the end of the notice period. Two were buy-to-lets, and one was rented because the owners had moved to Australia, but didn't want to sell immediately when they moved in case they decided that it had been a mistake.

Over here in MA, leases have to be honored by the new owners, and I don't think it's common for there to be clauses that allow the owner to terminate the lease in order to occupy the property.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by discovolante » Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:15 pm

Hm. The (current) grounds for possession for assured tenancies in England are here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/schedule/2 I can't see anything about the landlord selling, would have been interesting to see the notice that was given to you. Did they get a court order? The Australia one may have been a valid one under ground 1 if the landlords had been living there beforehand I suppose.
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 4181
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by dyqik » Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:39 pm

discovolante wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:15 pm
Hm. The (current) grounds for possession for assured tenancies in England are here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/schedule/2 I can't see anything about the landlord selling, would have been interesting to see the notice that was given to you. Did they get a court order? The Australia one may have been a valid one under ground 1 if the landlords had been living there beforehand I suppose.
Ground 4 (a) notice was written into every shorthold tenancy agreement I've ever seen or been offered. This is probably the reason for the 364 day/12 month thing Tom mentions above as well.

There's just no reason for rental agencies and landlords not to include that notice in every lease, while they have all the power in the market.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by discovolante » Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:56 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:39 pm
discovolante wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:15 pm
Hm. The (current) grounds for possession for assured tenancies in England are here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/schedule/2 I can't see anything about the landlord selling, would have been interesting to see the notice that was given to you. Did they get a court order? The Australia one may have been a valid one under ground 1 if the landlords had been living there beforehand I suppose.
Ground 4 (a) notice was written into every shorthold tenancy agreement I've ever seen or been offered. This is probably the reason for the 364 day/12 month thing Tom mentions above as well.

There's just no reason for rental agencies and landlords not to include that notice in every lease, while they have all the power in the market.
Ground 4(a) only works if 4(b) applies I.e. the tenancy had been a student let within the year before the current tenancy began?
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3939
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by Woodchopper » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:00 pm

WFJ wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:03 am
Most of the anti-BTL arguments describe problems that would be much better solved elsewhere. There is nothing inherently wrong with renting, and the obsession with home ownership is peculiarly British.
On the last point, it isn’t. The 2019 UK rate of owner occupier households was 65.2 per cent. That’s lower than average in Europe (and much lower than, for example, Romania 95.8 per cent, Norway 80.3 per cent or Spain 76.2 per cent)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/246 ... in-europe/
ETA: https://www.statista.com/statistics/503 ... opulation/

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Buy to Let and private renting

Post by discovolante » Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:08 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:35 am
tom p wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:18 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:34 am
And I cannot see how buy-to-let is in any way a bad use of wealth, unless you think people should only be allowed to live in houses that they own.
If the number of houses being built were unconstrained by archaic planning regulations or the number of buy-to-lets was constrained or the rents were not constantly ratcheted upwards while the houses are not in any way improved, then that would be a reasonable position.
So the problem is not with buy-to-let, but with these things.
The instability of living in a buy-to-let house also means that local society is harmed 'cos you don't invest time in your area when you might need to leave in a year.
There is no inherent instability in buy-to-let. In fact, it should be more stable than letting for other reasons (such as a homeowner needing to relocate termporarily). A sensible landlord will jnow that changing tenants incurs a cost, so it is always better to keep the one you have rather than get a small increase in the rent.

And there is no inherent stability in homeowning either. Mortgage rates can go up, and can do so to the point where the homeowner can no longer afford to pay, so is forced out. And, of course, a homeowner's financial circumstances can change to the point where they can no longer afford the mortgage (e.g. losing their job), again forcing them out. When forced out, you still have to keep paying until you find a buyer, whereas if you are renting you just give notice and move out. If the landlord cannot find a new tenant, that's their loss.
The English Housing Survey for the private rented sector over 2019-2020 (methodology not checked): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ted-sector found that private renters had lived in their accommodation for 4.3 years on average, compared to 12.2 years for social renters and 17.4 years for owner occupiers. 53% had lived in their accommodation for two years or less (compared to 20% of social renters and 14% of owners). So, quite a difference that is unlikely to be accounted for by lets that are short term by design e.g. temporary relocation.

I would speculate that this skew is partly due to the number of houses in multiple occupation, which again I assume generally have pretty high turnover (based on personal experience at least). I'm quite happy to say that that's just speculation though, rather than asserting it as some self-evident fact without trying to back it up.
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

Post Reply