Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

A correction: I think she was left some money with which she bought the property. It was the crux of the story. 'My old mum left me this money and she worked so hard and now I have this extra house which I am now having to spend money on for basic maintenance. Oh woe is me'. Think you're projecting the other stuff.

pinno

JimD666 said:

pangolin said:

pinno said:

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

Stuff...

There's your problem. Had a similar conversation with a new client. Among other things they want to solve a mould problem in their loft shower room. Turns out they have no extractor fan and no openable windows in the shower room.

There's a ceiling fan in the bathroom and I set a timer delay of only 3 minutes because tenants were switching it off at night due it it 'disturbing their sleep' and not switching it back on again. It comes on with the lights but can be switched off manually. The bathroom window had not been opened for so long, it was actually seized up.
When it fails (and the others), I will replace it with one that you cannot remotely switch off.
In that property, I installed a dehumidifying ceiling fan that runs constant in the upstairs hall ceiling. It's a mere 1.9 watts, cost around £150, will run at a pittance and can be set in 10% humidity intervals from 40 to 80. Probably the best money I spent on the property.
People don't realise that damp air is far harder to heat. That fan will probably save the tenant money on heating. It's amazingly quiet.
However, the tenant has common sense.

Link?

I was assuming one with a humidistat fitted, as opposed to a actual dehumidifier. Really hoping for Pinno to prove me wrong though...

Yes, it has a humidstat.
Here it is (my bad 2.9watts):

https://www.extractorfanworld.co.uk/airflow-iconstant-icstt-continuous-ventilation-dmev-unit-with-timer---72687117-3999-p.asp

JimD666

Back to the really trivial stuff...

Hair.

Mine's disappearing backwards at a reasonably rapid rate. I have no issues with this. What I do take umbrage about though is it seems to be sprouting from my shoulders and ears with alarming rapidity instead. 😠

pinno

Well, it was Thatcher who removed 'Rent authorities'. They should be reinstated except that if rents are set too low, those houses will get sold and there already is a shortage of housing.
The problem with a lot of landlords is that:

a) They think that £x per month = £x per annum
b) Many of them haven't been long term tenants.
c) They hand over the properties to letting agents.

I went into this with my eyes wide open and my calculations are in the ball park.
Take at least 30% off your expected annual income because of bad debt, maintenance, insurance, gas/oil servicing, renovation (like any house), repairs and painting and decorating.
If a tenant has been in for 6 months or 6 years, guaranteed, you will be re-decorating.

I have paid for: re-roofing, 2 boilers, re-carpeted 3 times after buying new carpet upon purchase of all of them, hired skips, replaced 3 shower units, new guttering and downpipes, loft insulation, re-wiring of 2 properties, flood damage repair* and forked out for other costs such as fixtures and fittings that needed replacing.

*FFS; make sure you do not claim on the insurance or your premiums sky rocket. Flood damage was in excess of £2k but that came put of my pocket because it would have taken approx. 5 years without claims to get back.
One of my tenants got pregnant, had baby, gave up working for 2 years and because that was classed as unemployed by the insurance companies, the premium for the house more than doubled to over £900 pa.
The irony is that she was a model tenant. I would have her back in a heartbeat.

pblakeney

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

Just back from a trip into the countryside for a nice lunch and the amount of newbuilds under construction contradicts this. Regional variations may well apply...

rick_chasey

Pinno is a landlord? On the side of an actual job?

Pross

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

Just back from a trip into the countryside for a nice lunch and the amount of newbuilds under construction contradicts this. Regional variations may well apply...

What I was saying was that there are still the same number of houses in total irrespective of how the split is made between those that are owner occupied and those that are rented. I'm not suggesting there is enough housing (of either type) available. There is a definite need for significantly more housing in general. From a rental point of view I'd rather that the vast majority was owned and operated by proper housing associations or Councils than private landlords hoping to make a profit for the bare minimum amount of work and expenditure.

rjsterry

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

Just back from a trip into the countryside for a nice lunch and the amount of newbuilds under construction contradicts this. Regional variations may well apply...

What I was saying was that there are still the same number of houses in total irrespective of how the split is made between those that are owner occupied and those that are rented. I'm not suggesting there is enough housing (of either type) available. There is a definite need for significantly more housing in general. From a rental point of view I'd rather that the vast majority was owned and operated by proper housing associations or Councils than private landlords hoping to make a profit for the bare minimum amount of work and expenditure.

I'd sooner take my chances on the private market. HAs are responsible for some of the worst housing conditions in the country. People have literally died from the property neglect of some HAs.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

Pinno is a landlord? On the side of an actual job?

What do you mean?

Pross

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

Just back from a trip into the countryside for a nice lunch and the amount of newbuilds under construction contradicts this. Regional variations may well apply...

What I was saying was that there are still the same number of houses in total irrespective of how the split is made between those that are owner occupied and those that are rented. I'm not suggesting there is enough housing (of either type) available. There is a definite need for significantly more housing in general. From a rental point of view I'd rather that the vast majority was owned and operated by proper housing associations or Councils than private landlords hoping to make a profit for the bare minimum amount of work and expenditure.

I'd sooner take my chances on the private market. HAs are responsible for some of the worst housing conditions in the country. People have literally died from the property neglect of some HAs.

There are some really good ones around here doing a lot of new builds. They do more than just the rental side - they have development arms and social care teams that manage tenants with varying support needs.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

Just back from a trip into the countryside for a nice lunch and the amount of newbuilds under construction contradicts this. Regional variations may well apply...

What I was saying was that there are still the same number of houses in total irrespective of how the split is made between those that are owner occupied and those that are rented. I'm not suggesting there is enough housing (of either type) available. There is a definite need for significantly more housing in general. From a rental point of view I'd rather that the vast majority was owned and operated by proper housing associations or Councils than private landlords hoping to make a profit for the bare minimum amount of work and expenditure.

I'd sooner take my chances on the private market. HAs are responsible for some of the worst housing conditions in the country. People have literally died from the property neglect of some HAs.

There are some really good ones around here doing a lot of new builds. They do more than just the rental side - they have development arms and social care teams that manage tenants with varying support needs.

Good to hear. There's a chap who lives near me who has become a national campaigner on housing off the back of an appalling experience with his HA. Some of them are little more than slums.

pblakeney

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

Just back from a trip into the countryside for a nice lunch and the amount of newbuilds under construction contradicts this. Regional variations may well apply...

What I was saying was that there are still the same number of houses in total irrespective of how the split is made between those that are owner occupied and those that are rented. I'm not suggesting there is enough housing (of either type) available. There is a definite need for significantly more housing in general. From a rental point of view I'd rather that the vast majority was owned and operated by proper housing associations or Councils than private landlords hoping to make a profit for the bare minimum amount of work and expenditure.

Fair point.
From what I've seen we need more affordable housing, not more 4 bedroom detached, which is what seems to be getting built.

briantrumpet

Argh. Wordpress upgrade options. Thought I'd solved the problem by linking from Google Photos, but instead Wordpress just re-uploads photos from there to their own server, so my storage is full again, and it's a relatively high monthly fee for just a modest storage upgrade. Might head back over to Blogger if the can link directly from Google. PITA.

Jezyboy

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

Just back from a trip into the countryside for a nice lunch and the amount of newbuilds under construction contradicts this. Regional variations may well apply...

What I was saying was that there are still the same number of houses in total irrespective of how the split is made between those that are owner occupied and those that are rented. I'm not suggesting there is enough housing (of either type) available. There is a definite need for significantly more housing in general. From a rental point of view I'd rather that the vast majority was owned and operated by proper housing associations or Councils than private landlords hoping to make a profit for the bare minimum amount of work and expenditure.

Fair point.
From what I've seen we need more affordable housing, not more 4 bedroom detached, which is what seems to be getting built.

Meh the people moving into 4 bed detached are likely freeing up more affordable homes surely?

I think the shortage of homes is pretty uniform across sizes/specs.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

Pinno is a landlord? On the side of an actual job?

What do you mean?

Well some people make being landlord their job. Run multiple properties etc.

Some treat it as passive income. And then do their actual day job.

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

Just back from a trip into the countryside for a nice lunch and the amount of newbuilds under construction contradicts this. Regional variations may well apply...

What I was saying was that there are still the same number of houses in total irrespective of how the split is made between those that are owner occupied and those that are rented. I'm not suggesting there is enough housing (of either type) available. There is a definite need for significantly more housing in general. From a rental point of view I'd rather that the vast majority was owned and operated by proper housing associations or Councils than private landlords hoping to make a profit for the bare minimum amount of work and expenditure.

Fair point.
From what I've seen we need more affordable housing, not more 4 bedroom detached, which is what seems to be getting built.

Meh the people moving into 4 bed detached are likely freeing up more affordable homes surely?

I think the shortage of homes is pretty uniform across sizes/specs.

Anecdotally the rent goes up every time a tenant moves out.
Kind of skews the affordability part.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

Pinno is a landlord? On the side of an actual job?

What do you mean?

Well some people make being landlord their job. Run multiple properties etc.

Some treat it as passive income. And then do their actual day job.

I work part time. So it's a bit of both.

pblakeney

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

Pinno is a landlord? On the side of an actual job?

What do you mean?

Well some people make being landlord their job. Run multiple properties etc.

Some treat it as passive income. And then do their actual day job.

I work part time. So it's a bit of both.

Slacker! You need to increase your productivity. 😉

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

I'm sure the market will take care of those who think being a landlord is a license to print money.

True, the total number of properties doesn't change but the reduction in properties available to rent doesn't really help those who can't buy.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

I'm sure the market will take care of those who think being a landlord is a license to print money.

True, the total number of properties doesn't change but the reduftion in properties available to rent doesn't really help those who can't buy.

It's a problem across the market - we've had a few clients delay projects because they can't find a temporary rental - and boils down partly to tax changes for rental income but mostly to the lack of building. Local politics is full of people alternately wailing about the lack of affordable housing and vigorously resisting any proposals to build anything.

pinno

pblakeney said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

Pinno is a landlord? On the side of an actual job?

What do you mean?

Well some people make being landlord their job. Run multiple properties etc.

Some treat it as passive income. And then do their actual day job.

I work part time. So it's a bit of both.

Slacker! You need to increase your productivity. 😉

Yeah it's true but if I did that, I would have to reduce pedalling time.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

I'm sure the market will take care of those who think being a landlord is a license to print money.

True, the total number of properties doesn't change but the reduftion in properties available to rent doesn't really help those who can't buy.

It's a problem across the market - we've had a few clients delay projects because they can't find a temporary rental - and boils down partly to tax changes for rental income but mostly to the lack of building. Local politics is full of people alternately wailing about the lack of affordable housing and vigorously resisting any proposals to build anything.

Fair enough, we had very briefy considered a short term rental when our planned 2021 house purchase fell through when our sale was quite well, advanced. There was naff all out there and what there was costed a fortune. (Luckily we didn't need to do that as our current house came back on the market at the same time).

But still, the lack of rentals is going to make it harder for people who can't afford to buy rather than at the higher end of the market.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Landlords who use the "I will have to evict my tenants" argument for arguments against landlord/rental/building regulations.

"You made me do this" arguments. No-one made you invest in properties and rent it out, and if you can't make money running your property in a way that abides by the latest regs, that's on you.

Suck it up.

Except that if the end effect is to reduce the supply of rental properties when they are in demand, not sure that you feeling like vengeance has been done on evil capitalist landlords is really much compensation for anyone.

Why would that be the end effect?

It's just some landlord (who happens to also be a well known DJ) whinging that they have to meet a really basic standard to let their property. It's not much more onerous than getting the boiler serviced annually, let alone managing agent fees, etc. A basic cost of doing business.

To be at risk of enforcement action to upgrade the property it must have an EPC band F or G. That means single glazed windows, no loft or other insulation and an outdated inefficient heating system with the most basic thermostat. There's no need to evict someone to upgrade any of those.

Pretty obvious really. If landlords sell up because its no longer economically viable to rent them out, then unless other landlords buy then there will be less properties available for rent. How likely is is that all of these properties being sold will be bought by landlords rather than owner-occupiers?

Run me through the sums whereby an inherited mortgage free property is rented out so cheaply that the rent doesn't cover a one off purchase of few rolls of loft insulation and a new thermostat.

The original tweet was talking bollox. These rules have been in place since 2018. You've just been sucked in because you thought Rick was making some anti-capitalist point.

How many of these properties are inheritances? And how does that explain the trend of landlords selling up currently?

Rick seems to see these as a type of capitalism that he doesn't approve of. Which is a bit leftie really.

If chancers who watch too much Homes Under The Hammer stop buying ‘investment properties’ in the mistaken belief it is money for old rope then maybe there will be more affordable housing available for people to buy to live in. Ultimately there is the same amount of housing in the country for people to live in so it’s just how that is split between whether it is owned or rented. Responsible landlords understand the market and the risks.

I'm sure the market will take care of those who think being a landlord is a license to print money.

True, the total number of properties doesn't change but the reduftion in properties available to rent doesn't really help those who can't buy.

It's a problem across the market - we've had a few clients delay projects because they can't find a temporary rental - and boils down partly to tax changes for rental income but mostly to the lack of building. Local politics is full of people alternately wailing about the lack of affordable housing and vigorously resisting any proposals to build anything.

Fair enough, we had very briefy considered a short term rental when our planned 2021 house purchase fell through when our sale was quite well, advanced. There was naff all out there and what there was costed a fortune. (Luckily we didn't need to do that as our current house came back on the market at the same time).

But still, the lack of rentals is going to make it harder for people who can't afford to buy rather than at the higher end of the market.

There's just a shortage across the whole market and particularly at the affordable end. That is caused by decades of poor planning and housing policy, not by requiring landlords to meet very basic standards of habitability. The requirements that the original tweet complained about and that they've had 5 years to plan for are of the same order as getting your boiler serviced every year or maintaining a functioning smoke alarm. They don't require anyone to be evicted. If the landlord's margins are that small that they can't cover a couple of grand one off payment, then they don't have a viable business.

First.Aspect

Ffs stop banging on. Got it. Pages ago.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

Ffs stop banging on. Got it. Pages ago.

Does it annoy you? 😉

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

Ffs stop banging on. Got it. Pages ago.

Does it annoy you? 😉

Er.

No. Not at all.

pblakeney

It annoys me when people post in this thread about things that don't annoy them. 😉

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Ffs stop banging on. Got it. Pages ago.

Think of yourself as ahead of the crowd 🙂

Pross

Overpowering aftershave / eau de toilette. I was out running just now and could first smell the aftershave on a bloke walking in front of me when I was 50m or more behind him. Any time I use public transport or sit in a public space it feels like various people are trying to outcompete on who can smell the most. I've got a few nice aftershaves myself but hardly ever wear them as it feels like even the slighest splash or spray leaves you in a cloud of the smell for hours. Why can't they be made more subtle?

briantrumpet

Getting onto a Strava Top 10 leaderboard... for *walking* up a mountain. Given how much riding I do, that is slightly annoying.