Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged


Recommended Posts

The letters to MPs by 118 are gold. Absolutely serve HPC agenda by rubbing up the decision makers the wrong way. To be frank we could not do a better job at ensuring Clause 24 goes through than just leaving it to Ros and Co.

I wish an MP would reply:

"Many thanks for you submission. Unfortunately we receive many scripts every week and are unable to respond individually.

However, I would encourage you to keep up the good work and continue to submit your book/poem/play or whatever the [email protected]£k it was to other jackanory type publishing houses."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 13.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dont really know either, but PT seems like one of the more responsible BTL news-info sites, and forums - in very murky world of property.    There are many property vested interests on murkier si

Although all that 'creating personal brand' pushing many of the BTLers are into... / have been into for years and years. It's used by many other sectors in a similar way - there's a lot in self-p

Previous video in the link below (Landlord 29 years 'experience / greatness'), for anyone who didn't see it first time around + latest round of other BTL comments, although I skipped the ones by PB.

Posted Images

"

One of thee best ways to max out on LHA I find is to put a 3 bed entitlement family into a 2 bed property, a 2 bed family into a 1 bed etc . Such is the demand for accommodation that many of my applicants are quite happy to do this if it moves them to the top of the waiting list.

I always get paid direct since the housing amendment regs changed in 2011 and I will often get a months rent and a deposit funded by the council up front. They even paid up on one property I bought for a client before we had even exchanged contracts. ."

Is this legal?

I suspect it is, and that the market would be left to sort that out assuming the 3 bed rate actually covered a 3 bed house.

Durham Born should have a more authoritative answer then me however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For so many years I've seen that blue-eye avatar gushing property - then come back to the excuse-givers / 'emotional-breakdown squad' / 'they didn't know what they were doing' - HPC them then instead of HPI protection stimulus, and make way for those who only want 1 home at fair price... who don't think they deserves loads of properties backed by mega debt.

http://www.propertytribes.com/my-predictions-for-property-investors-property-market-for-t-127622428.html

.... is a Solihull, West Midlands-based Landlord who started investing in the late ’60’s.

http://www.propertytribes.com/blog/landlord-wisdom-curated-mary-latham/

Mary

08-10-2012,12:36 PM
****
Posts: 1,710
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 4 Subscribers: 0
RE: What I love about property ...
I love everything about property from the excitment of buying, the refurbishment that means a new "baby" has arrived, the finding new tenants who are as pleased with my creation as I am and the great relationships I enjoy with my tenants. I no longer get excited about the rent coming in although it is comforting to see my bank balance but I am mindful of the fact that the way I earn my living is also my favourite hobby and that I am very lucky to be in that position. I cannot imagine any way that I could have earned my living over these last 40 years that would have been so fulfilling or rewarding.

I have just finished the last major refurbishment that I will ever do and I had very mixed emotions, relief that I had made that decision, sad that I have come to the end of a very happy road but I know that the time has come and that this is right for me.I know that I am not able to stand back and let others take control of my projects and I no longer have the time nor energy to devote to them. I don't think that I will ever stop being a landlord but it is important to know when something that you have enjoyed is about to become a burden and to stop when you are on a high.
http://www.propertytribes.com/what-i-love-about-property-t-6500.html#pid81279

Angela B
Landlord & published property author
10-10-2012,09:25 AM


I love everything about property too (and babies!)

I love that it's such a basic human need - the need for a roof over our heads and a safe place to sleep at night... so recession proof:-)

I also love that it's simply the best and easiest way to wealth.

[...]How anyone can get through life without being in property is beyond me!!

Angela

It would be easier if we didn't have hyperbubble, bailout stimulus galore hpi protection and reflation to new peaks - the breakdown squad - and BTLers with 100 houses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Times, 23 July 2014

The statistics confirm that an accommodation revolution has taken place: 44 percent of the 24 to 35-year-old age group are renting, compared with 30 percent six years ago. Around two thirds of them expect to have a place of their own day, according to the EHS. How they will achieve this is unclear.

Savills; Jan 2013

[..]The under 35s

Our analysis shows that the under 35s own less than 4% of the total equity held in the UK's owner occupied housing stock. In the past five years the number of first time buyer purchases has averaged just 200,000 per annum, down from 390,000 in the previous five. As a direct consequence, the rate of growth in renting among this cohort has increased sharply since 2007. Rental growth decreases a tenant's ability to save for a deposit, locking them in renting for longer. We therefore also expect increasing tenant demand in the young family sector as well as among young singles and childless couples. Ultimately, for all these groups, affordability will act as a cap on rental growth. Our forecasts assume that average growth will be limited by disposable household income growth. This will create clear distinctions between markets where there are high concentrations of tenants reliant on housing benefit and those that are supply-constrained, where affluent tenants increasingly compete for lettings.

circa 2011-13

The private rented sector has grown by 72 per cent since 2001 and there are now over nine million people in England renting privately. The renting population has also changed. A third of renting households are families with children, and half of households renting are 35 or older.

Guardian, May 2014

Over the past 15 years, though, Hilton explains, something drastic has happened. Between the censuses of 2001 and 2011, the numbers of households in the private-rented sector in England and Wales went from 1.9 million to 3.6 million; the proportion had risen 69%. The total number of people living in privately rented homes is now put at around 9 million, and Generation Rent reckons that in the UK as whole, it is in advance of 10 million. A watershed has therefore been reached: privately renting tenants now outnumber those in social housing.

This change has been met by a ballooning in the number of private landlords, 72% of whom let out just one home. The increase in tenants, meanwhile, has been driven by escalating house prices, stagnating wages, an ongoing failure to build enough social housing, and for many people, the impossibility of amassing enough money for a deposit for a mortgage.

"Now, a lot of people who can't raise a deposit are relatively wealthy: people on average earnings or more," says Hilton. "And they've got to a situation where the difference between them buying a home or not is whether their parents have assets they're going to leave them when they die."

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/10/generation-rent-whos-listening-private-rental-market-ed-miliband

Work hard, be productive... but be lucky enough to rent in a bubble and be lucky to have parents with a house to leave you one day.

What sort of economy would that be?

Labour's offering for the election... 2015

They're also planning to strip tax relief from interest payments on BTL mortgages if landlords don't keep their properties "up to basic standards": http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/25/ed-miliband-peg-private-rent-rises-to-inflation

Yet more bureaucracy, overpaid Labour-type jobs to police it, that won't be followed through anyway onto Landlords - who will appeal it if they do lose tax relief... and how long such a sanction for, for individual landlord.... .

How long did it take to get deposit x3 payback system if landlord didn't protect deposit properly working - only very recently after so many many years.. with landlords for years able to wriggle out of it at the last minute if tenant took them to court by simply repaying the deposit.

In a first Labour Queen’s speech of a new parliament, Labour will also introduce legislation requiring landlords to disclose rents charged to their last tenants so that householders have proper information and can negotiate the best deal at the start of their contract. Rogue landlords who do not keep their housing stock up to basic standards will have their “buy to let” tax relief slashed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it is, and that the market would be left to sort that out assuming the 3 bed rate actually covered a 3 bed house.

Durham Born should have a more authoritative answer then me however.

LHA effectively sets a floor under rents so anywhere where that is happening a lot - with landlord's encouraging 3 bed entitlement families to rent 2 bed properties in order to maximise the rent the landlord can extract - 2 bed properties will effectively become out of reach of the LHA for a 2 bed entitlement family. The market doesn't work properly when the government is pumping money into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HMRC doesn't consider BTL to be a business, is my understanding. Quasi investment, and has long/always been viewed so. (Unless incorporated)

Yet Ros and others, carrying £1m+ of BTL mortgage debts, with multiple properties, think themselves business entrepreneurs....

Disturbing to see one of them comparing their slightly less favourable tax treatment to the plight of people who have had FGM inflicted upon them. Just another sign that some of them have no sense of perspective or real empathy for actual human suffering, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally when I have seen posts about evil BTL LL I have tended to ignore them. My view was If you climb into bed with them this is what happens. Also by doing so you are helping to out bid (my hero's) young people that stay in their childhood bedrooms and save.

However

I have been thinking what happens when one of my hero's comes across one of these monsters with a 100 BTL's in his belly at an auction. Coming to the end of the auction my hero sticks his hand up one last time knowing that the debt he takes on will land him in financial slavery for the rest of his life. He out bids the monster by £1,000.

Does the monster walk away with his tail between his legs?

Far from it by out biding him he has set a new higher price a £1000 higher and seeing as he has 100 BTL's he walks out of the auction room £100,000 richer. He is bound to win the next auction.

The LL wins when he wins he also wins when he loses.

BTL is pure evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You and 35 years old professional couples with 3 kids who should be in their parents box room 100 miles away from where they work... does my head in gf3. 'Climb in to bed' complicity with the BTLers when little real choice. Grrr.

It's true the portfolio landlords have done that at auction and in wider market, to create two losing situations, but no one forces anyone to buy. Some of the HPCers have bought homes at the lower side of the market (to reduce debt risk), where without the bubble they would have been able to buy better homes. Point is, some of us stay renting waiting for the HPC, and many more younger people coming through into system vs house price bubble.

Isn't it time for another of your equity release posts, where bankers print money from nowhere, that they should give you a big chunk of capital-equity out of your own home for 0.5% rate? Maybe you can then get your boiler fixed.

Edited by Venger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally when I have seen posts about evil BTL LL I have tended to ignore them. My view was If you climb into bed with them this is what happens. Also by doing so you are helping to out bid (my hero's) young people that stay in their childhood bedrooms and save...

Your "hero" doesn't win the auction, the BTLer does (also, by your twisted logic they would be entirely to blame for the BTLer's increase in portfolio worth and subsequent increase in purchasing power if they did win - or even if they bid at all and thus raised the final sale price - and by any reasonable assessment anyone who does bid up house prices actually is contributing to house price increases and all of the negative impacts that they bring). If they want to have any independence or any children of their own they will have to give up and rent eventually, unless the IO BTLers are removed from the equation. Renters are not climbing into bed with BTLers. That would imply that renters have a reasonable choice, which they do not, and benefit in some way, when in fact they are the central losers from this arrangment created by the BTLers and the banks.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have parents who will tolerate them living at home into adulthood. Not everyone is lucky enough to have parents who own their own home, or to have their own seperate and individual bedroom in it if they do. Not everyone is lucky enough to have parents who live in areas where they would be able to find reasonable work, let alone such highly paid work as to be able to outbid a BTLer without already having equity of their own to trade. Not everyone is lucky enough to have been born at a time when they could benefit from the same advantages in life that you've had:

What would you do with your savings if negative interest rates on bank savings were introduced?

In truth I would laugh my rocks off.

I have a tracker mortgage 0.17% above base. The thought of the banks having to pay me would put a smile on my face a yard wide.

People shouldn't have to put their lives on hold indefinitely - to give up on all prospects of living independently, of having children, of earning a reasonable wage - just because BTLers got into bed with the crap banks. It is immoral to expect them to do so, as if their lives were cheap and worthless and their years could be spent and wasted as if they were nothing.

It's as offensive and illogical as suggesting that people who have been mugged have gotten into bed with their muggers - because if there weren't muggees the muggers would have no income and there would be no muggings - and that whatever happens to them in the mugging is therefore a problem of their own making.

You've also yet to explain how young people going out and doing what young people have done for generations could possibly be to blame for the new problems created by BTL and other assorted speculators which have manifested in the last 15-20 years?

It wasn't the choice of youngsters to go out and live independently - which is really what we are talking about here - that caused the problem.

BTL was created in the mid 90s.

Many people went out and rented for a few years and then bought houses at sensible income multiples before this point.

Since BTL (and for a while speculative IO OO loans, liar loans and 125% mortgages) really got going around the turn of the millenium youngsters going out and doing exactly what youngsters had been going out and doing for generations started being priced out of owner occupation and getting stuck at the renting stage.

The behaviour of the youngsters hadn't changed.

They weren't doing anything differently to what previous generations had done and so they couldn't be the cause of this new problem.

They hold none of the blame.

The thing which changed was the banks started lending money in a different way and BTL borrowers were amongst those lapping it up, and are the last remaining cohort to still be doing so.

They created the problem together and they perpetuate it together.

They reaped all of the benefits from it, creating a captured market of priced out tenants they could squeeze for maximum rents, and they forced all of the negatives onto tenants who only suffer from this arrangement between the banks and the BTLers and to which they are not party.

The banks and the speculators are the problem, not the priced out.

Edited by Neverwhere
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted elsewhere but it seems appropriate to this thread as well:

Peter Johnson 07/11/2015 at 16:40

Reply to the comment left by “Robert Mellors” at “07/11/2015 – 16:07“:

Let me run an example by you please –

Family of 6 kids, husband and wife, wife stay at home mother, 250 per week child tax credit, 50 per week child benefit, husband works 35 hours and gets paid 13K. This family qualify for £1650 of the maximum £1684 of LHA 4 bed rate for my area so the fact that my house is a 3 bed can I still get HB to pay me the £1650 of their maximum entitlement of HB even though the ‘market rent’ for a 3 bed in my area is £1500?

Thanks

Peter Johnson 07/11/2015 at 18:52

Reply to the comment left by “Robert Mellors” at “07/11/2015 – 17:08“:

I really appreciate your first class advice, thanks you!

Do you find as I have discovered that the HB departments have a reluctance to pay the 4 bed rate once you tell them that your property is a 3 bed sized property? I am having this problem, last week I had numerous problems with a person in HB that kept saying to me that the market rent is not 1684 for a 3 bed property in my area and is more near 1500 so why am I charging 1684 as the 4 bed rate? I gave them the reason why and they claimed they had never herd of anything like this and that I should charge the 3 bed LHA rate as the property is 3 bed. I realise that they are wrong but is there something I could quote them in the HB regulations that would make them accept what I am saying and convince them?

Just so others members dont think I am just simply abusing the system, the 3 bed I offer is simply immaculate with nothing lacking, completely refurbed but for that I search out a 4 bed LHA family

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disturbing to see one of them comparing their slightly less favourable tax treatment to the plight of people who have had FGM inflicted upon them. Just another sign that some of them have no sense of perspective or real empathy for actual human suffering, I guess.

Perhaps its worth having another thread, detailing these bizarre comparisons by BTL'ers .

The more reasonable ones could be scrutinised by HPC forensics

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted elsewhere but it seems appropriate to this thread as well:

What a f**ked up place the UK has become. So many living off the teat of the genuine (not the 16hr nail bar "owner") hard working taxpayer who refuses to accept 'charity'. I must say as one of those I've just about had enough...

...Counts to 10 and then remembers not much longer now...

In edit: Even worse, those living off my back and trying to drag me to the bottom of the ocean are also ensuring that my cost of living (on top of my already excessive taxes) is higher than it otherwise would be if they didn't get my 'charity'. Doubly glad I don't have much longer now.

Edited by wish I could afford one
Link to post
Share on other sites

LHA effectively sets a floor under rents so anywhere where that is happening a lot - with landlord's encouraging 3 bed entitlement families to rent 2 bed properties in order to maximise the rent the landlord can extract - 2 bed properties will effectively become out of reach of the LHA for a 2 bed entitlement family. The market doesn't work properly when the government is pumping money into it.

Every time you think you've got the measure of the stupidity of the LHA/BTL interaction, it's not long before you discover that it's actually worse. Looking at the .gov info pages, it's totally clear that LHA paid is based on entitlement. Does this mean that there is an interaction with the 2011 rules (if they are still in place) which increased the extent of direct payment to tenants via with two mechanisms?

Firslty, landlord and letting agents can 'educate' LHA recipients, setting out that by going without a room to which they are entitled, they will still receive a larger LHA payment, but they can split the winnings with the landlord. The landlord gets a rent which is above the appropriate LHA level for the actual property and the tenant pockets the difference. For example, in Outer North London the PCM LHA for a 3-bed is £1,316.61 and a 2 bed is £1,066.86. Hence if you can get a 3-bed entitled LHA recipient household to rent a 2-bed they can pocket an extra £250 a month. At this point we get very speculative. You need to find somewhat gullible LHA recipients and get them to rent the 2-bed for say £1,200. This is above the appropriate LHA rate for the property, but the recipients might struggle to get housed by private landlords who are not gaming LHA, hence they may welcome a landlord offering them a nice property. Also as the matter might be presented as a take it or leave it type deal and the LHA recipient household may not be particularly well informed about market rents, it could be 'understood' as a straight forward trade, if you move into this smaller property, you will pocket £116/month (£1,316 3-bed LHA - £1,200 rent for 'nice' 2-bed with a friendly landlord).

Secondly, consider the ARLA page on the 2011 direct payment rules.

What does the landlord have to do to obtain direct payment under the new regulation?

From 1st April 2011 local authorities have a discretion to make payments direct to the landlord where they consider that it will assist the claimant in securing or retaining a tenancy. For these purposes, for a tenancy to be secured or retained the rent must be affordable for the tenant. This is intended to be a temporary provision anyway.
The rent should be at a level which is affordable to the tenant. In most cases this will be the LHA rate which applies to the benefit claimant and on which their rent is based. Even if the tenant pays slightly more than the LHA rate this will qualify so long as they have other resources to pay the rent from.
For existing tenants the local authority will need to see that there is a genuine reduction in the rent charge. In most cases this will need to be a reduction to the relevant LHA rate for the property.
If it is a new tenancy the local authority has to be satisfied that the rent has been reduced and is affordable or, alternatively, the letting would not have been made without direct payments as well as the rent charge being affordable.

Source

Could in principle you have a situation where a BTLer convinced a local authority that a "genuine reduction in rent charge" was being offered, i.e. the landlord says "I could let this two bed for £1,300 (even though the LHA in this BRMA is only £1,066) hence if I offer it to your LHA recipient at £1,200 that is a genuine reduction in rent charge"

Now the landlord can get direct payment (eliminating the credit risk) and a rent well above the LHA for the property, given its size and area. In this situation it might even be worth offering a backhander to the tenant, "This has to be between us, but.. etc" to get them to move into the smaller property.

This does throw a little light on pipllman's insistence that the local authority is at fault as it is local authority employees who need to be gamed in order to exploit the incentives in the LHA set-up.

All a bit speculative, and probably covered earlier by someone else, but new to me.

Interesting.

Edited by Bland Unsight
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a f**ked up place the UK has become.

Without wishing to take a position on the underlying politics it is striking to look at the run of the policy from 1979 to today. The wiki page for Right to Buy asserts that Heseltine identified one of the objectives of Right to Buy to be to reduce the dominance of the state over the life of the individual. However, if you buy the argument that LHA is weighing very heavily on the level of so-called 'market' rents and that via interest-only financed buy-to-let investors those rents are weighing very heavily on the prices of houses (particularly for flats, particularly in London) then you have a situation where the increasing financial liberalisation (giving us the BTL mortgages) combined with the transfer of the housing stock into private hands (Right to Buy) and ill-thought out transfer spending (LHA) so that state dominance now extends beyond the social housing market sector and captures both private renters and private buyers. :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

...This does throw a little light on pipllman's insistence that the local authority is at fault as it is local authority employees who need to be gamed in order to exploit the incentives in the LHA set-up.

All a bit speculative, and probably covered earlier by someone else, but new to me.

Interesting.

Any at the same time entirely undermines his insistence that this system is better than direct provision: clearly not-really-private sector landlords game the system in order to maximise profits for themselves (why wouldn't they? they've already shown their willingness to engage in dubious moral activity by becoming landlords) and thus maximise costs for the taxpayer; they cause the Council to have to waste money in oversight (whether effective or not) of their attempts to game the system; they provide a lower quality service where they can get away with it (smaller accomodation, for instance); and they force up the prices paid in the private rental market, thus scr*wing over all of the actually private market participants by - in collusion with the state - preventing the operation of a free market.

I suspect that backhanders to tenants for these arrangements are uncommon. If enough landlords are acting like this then they have them over a barrel and HB tenants will just be accepting what they can get and handing over all of the money, plus some of their other income/benefits as well. The median weekly rent after housing benefit is paid to households in the not-really-private rental sector is £29 for ASTs and £40 for private tenancies not offered on the open market (and for some reason £28 when all private renting households in receipt of Housing Benefit are considered - I haven't looked into the methodology of why that is).

Edit: forget to link to the source of that data, which is here.

Edited by Neverwhere
Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wishing to take a position on the underlying politics it is striking to look at the run of the policy from 1979 to today. The wiki page for Right to Buy asserts that Heseltine identified one of the objectives of Right to Buy to be to reduce the dominance of the state over the life of the individual. However, if you buy the argument that LHA is weighing very heavily on the level of so-called 'market' rents and that via interest-only financed buy-to-let investors those rents are weighing very heavily on the prices of houses (particularly for flats, particularly in London) then you have a situation where the increasing financial liberalisation (giving us the BTL mortgages) combined with the transfer of the housing stock into private hands (Right to Buy) and ill-thought out transfer spending (LHA) so that state dominance now extends beyond the social housing market sector and captures both private renters and private buyers. :blink:

+1

I totally buy all of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time you think you've got the measure of the stupidity of the LHA/BTL interaction, it's not long before you discover that it's actually worse. Looking at the .gov info pages, it's totally clear that LHA paid is based on entitlement...

Essentially admitting that he is not renting out property he is farming people, hence why he wants to be paid per head of cattle, and pack them in as tight as possible:

Peter Johnson 08/11/2015 at 12:41

Reply to the comment left by “Robert Mellors” at “07/11/2015 – 23:00“:

Hi Robert,

But is there something I could quote them in the HB regulations that would make them accept what I am saying and convince them that I can charge whatever rent I like and that the amount of rent is set by the family entitlement/make up as opposed to the actual number of bedrooms in the property and market rent? How can I put them straight without causing them to get their backs up?

Many thanks

The property is not the commodity to him. The tenants are.

Edited by Neverwhere
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Dully 08/11/2015 at 11:08

Reply to the comment left by “Ros .” at “06/11/2015 – 20:39“:

I was pondering about placing all the Politicians mugshots on the letters of rent increases to my tenants that sit on the finance committee.

I don’t see why I should take the rap for the increases that I will now have to introduce, that I didn’t want to and I am forced to.

Landlords as a group are now under siege by all politicians and media.

For example: This weeks proposal from our Housing Minister over all HMO’s of all types and sizes will now have to be licensed will also send my rents skywards.

Not because of any room being disallowed, but because of what we will be hit with by the local authorities.

They were promised by GO that they could keep all their business rates and now they will have another revenue source to pick off and screw.

I foresee a change of class for all HMO’s that drag them into business rates.

I can guarantee they will be singled out for massive license fees and increases in Council Tax that Landlords are obliged to pay for that “Class” of accommodation.

I got hammered last year by Cheshire East Council for a change of class change in council tax on a 3 bed semi in Crewe.

That cost was absorbed by me, but I can’t do that anymore thanks to ‘Clause 24’

The smaller HMO usually has a “Box” room that are rented, I have already phased them out in my properties last year.

I was considering restarting them again as a contribution to my tax bill, but the knives are out and it looks like they are this weeks target by our housing minister as he introduces a minimum room size for tenants.

(Estate agents take note, you won’t be able to class a bedroom anymore if it’s a box room below 6.5m sq).

Anyway what are your thoughts on mugshots of politicians on your rental increase notices or are you doing it anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if already posted: BBC - Homeless charity earns agency £5.5m

"Investing Solutions received those benefit payments over the past two years by finding properties for single homeless men.

The letting agent makes money by putting several unrelated people in one house and charging housing benefit for each person, rather than the property. Therefore, the total benefit payout is higher than the rent fee passed on to the property's landlord."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wishing to take a position on the underlying politics it is striking to look at the run of the policy from 1979 to today. The wiki page for Right to Buy asserts that Heseltine identified one of the objectives of Right to Buy to be to reduce the dominance of the state over the life of the individual. However, if you buy the argument that LHA is weighing very heavily on the level of so-called 'market' rents and that via interest-only financed buy-to-let investors those rents are weighing very heavily on the prices of houses (particularly for flats, particularly in London) then you have a situation where the increasing financial liberalisation (giving us the BTL mortgages) combined with the transfer of the housing stock into private hands (Right to Buy) and ill-thought out transfer spending (LHA) so that state dominance now extends beyond the social housing market sector and captures both private renters and private buyers. :blink:

There was a recent radio 4 documentary about housing where David Willetts, who was a young policy adviser back in the day in housing, said more or less just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if already posted: BBC - Homeless charity earns agency £5.5m

"Investing Solutions received those benefit payments over the past two years by finding properties for single homeless men.

The letting agent makes money by putting several unrelated people in one house and charging housing benefit for each person, rather than the property. Therefore, the total benefit payout is higher than the rent fee passed on to the property's landlord."

Seen the report on the news the other night some of the houses they were placing theses people in were close to being derelict ,it also painted a picture of the tenants being what most local authorities would class as vulnerable

Farming is the right term for this lot

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pondering about placing all the Politicians mugshots on the letters of rent increases to my tenants that sit on the finance committee.

I don’t see why I should take the rap for the increases that I will now have to introduce, that I didn’t want to and I am forced to.

There have been a few such BTL landlord claims which have concerned me, including 'encouraging' tenants to sign the petition (leave them alone - no putting them under pressure... 'covenant of quiet enjoyment'.)

If he does that, lets hope he gets into trouble: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1071269/Estate-agents-shame-tenants-putting-rent-dodger-lives-signs-outside-homes.html

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/90365-rent-dodger-live-here/

Although to be honest the BTLers don't irritate me as much as the breakdown squad who lobby for HPI protection, with no stomach for HPC (2008 onwards). and giving excuses for all those who pay crazy prices, and even BTLers themselves with multiple properties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a few such BTL landlord claims which have concerned me, including 'encouraging' tenants to sign the petition (leave them alone - no putting them under pressure... 'covenant of quiet enjoyment'.)

If he does that, lets hope he gets into trouble: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1071269/Estate-agents-shame-tenants-putting-rent-dodger-lives-signs-outside-homes.html

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/90365-rent-dodger-live-here/

Although to be honest the BTLers don't irritate me as much as the breakdown squad who lobby for HPI protection, with no stomach for HPC (2008 onwards). and giving excuses for all those who pay crazy prices, and even BTLers themselves with multiple properties.

That Gary bloke strikes me as the worst of the already bad bunch. Some his past post have been aweful. Obviously not a happy man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a few such BTL landlord claims which have concerned me, including 'encouraging' tenants to sign the petition (leave them alone - no putting them under pressure... 'covenant of quiet enjoyment'.)

If he does that, lets hope he gets into trouble: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1071269/Estate-agents-shame-tenants-putting-rent-dodger-lives-signs-outside-homes.html

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/90365-rent-dodger-live-here/

Although to be honest the BTLers don't irritate me as much as the breakdown squad who lobby for HPI protection, with no stomach for HPC (2008 onwards). and giving excuses for all those who pay crazy prices, and even BTLers themselves with multiple properties.

They're pretty much interchangeable at this point I think. BTL protection is HPI protection, HPI protection is BTL protection. It would be pretty hard to have one without the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Guest featured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.