There's a part they're not saying out loud when they talk about supply and demand. Just because there's more demand than supply doesn't mean landlords have to charge more, they can get away with charging more, but it doesn't mean they should charge more.
@@ramboshamone9888 but what landlords charge is determined by supply and demand. Contrary to popular opinion, most landlords are not mega wealthy, a significant proportion own only one BTL, often from when a couple moved in together, and both owned a home, so they rented one out. So what they do when they let a property is to go on a rental website, and see what is available. If there are only one or two available, they may list a little higher (as you can always reduce) and see if anyone applies. I did this (well, I listed at £50 below, but it was almost double the previous tenants rent) and had around 16 applicants. One offered me £100 more per month. But if they look around and see 20,30,40 similar properties, they will have to either have a higher spec than the others, or drop the price, or take offers from tenants who might have red flags.. What they won’t do is simply leave the property there for months with no income, since they can’t afford to. So more supply, landlords start to charge less, but why wouldn’t you put your product into the market at the going rate and see what offers you get? Unfortunately, with supply and demand to out of kilter, you are competing with equally good, or possibly better, applicants and an individual landlord is going to go with the best option, and 20 people are left to apply for the next one. A private rental contract is a negotiation, the landord and tenant come to an agreement on the rent, and that’s it. In a renters market, the tenant has more choice, in the current environment, I’m afraid, landlords seem to have more choice.
@@JS-ie1xoso basically what you are saying is the amount you need to charge is not even considered in determining what you charge. So you could end up making 100% return and you'd be fine with that. Theres no other business where what needs to be charged doesn't come into consideration. That's greed.
@@David-bi6lf no, totally the opposite. Almost all businesses try to charge based on value to the customer, not cost plus. Just watch some Rory Sutherland for some insight into creating value in counter intuitive ways. Also, for me costs can be hidden. It might look on paper that I’m making £400 ‘profit’ after mortgage and agent fees, but then I end up spending two grand fixing a roof, or 25k on a large refurb between tenancies. I don’t feel particularly greedy. Especially when I think of the effort and sacrifices I made building up my deposits.but that’s a bit off topic, which is that it’s not at all unusual to charge against the value a thing brings, not based on cost.
@@David-bi6lf as an aside, in the early 2000s it wasn’t uncommon for people to be renting out property for more than it was costing in mortgage. You’d hear people say ‘well, I pay £100 per month to meet the mortgage payments, but I consider it to be a payment into my pension’ so that attitude used to exist, but when a huge repair bill, or non paying tenant, came along, they were suddenly in trouble.
Every year i get a letter saying "The price of housing has gone up in your area so we're putting yours up to match it". And i know that everyone else in the area is getting the same letter throughout the year. It's not a supply issue, it's a greed issue.
I had a landlord wanting to put the rent up by 42% because prices in the 'local market' had risen. That anyone thinks that increasing rent by over 40% for no legitimate reason is acceptable is absolutely bananas. We negotiated it down to only going up by something like 25%. One of the fundamental problems is there's zero incentive to be a good landlord because what little housing legislation there is is rarely enforced. People are living in squallid properties with damp, mould, rats, dodgy plumbing, holes in the roof, holes in the walls, exposed wires, etc, because there are rarely any actual consequences for landlords. The only chance of owning a home many people have is if they inherit their parents home and either live in it or sell it and use the money for a deposit on their own house. For many that won't even be an option.
@@deusex3124 be careful not to lump every landlord into the same basket. We're not all bad. I wouldn't ever dream of raising rent on my property by that much and I look after the place as I understand my tenants want a warm comfortable place to live.
If your rent has been increased higher than market rates you can challenge that increase, if it has raised that much and is below market rates I would suggest your landlord may have been subsidising your rent for a long time, however with increased costs specifically interest rates they probably can no longer afford to do that, you could get rates at 1.5% now they are more like 5%. That is an increase of over 300%..
'People living in squallid properties with damp ........' Another person that hasn't watched the video! It was just pointed out during the select committee hearing that tenant dissatisfaction is way worse than tenants in the private rental sector! Yes, a few landords have made it onto the news for providing sub-standard accommodation, but I can say with some confidence that the majority of the private rental properties are in a good state of repair. Last week my tenants had new carpets fitted downstairs when the only problem with the previous carpet, was an iron burn, made by the previous tenants! I could have left it, but felt uncomfortable about not replacing it. They were so delighted to get a house, they didn't even ask. They are only paying £750 p/m for a modern 2-bed terrace in a nice part of Peterborough. The house next door is no nicer and has just been let for £950 p/m. Landlords can charge high prices at the moment because the number of properties is reducing and more people are chasing what there is. When you sell your car, you want the best price. Do you feel guilty accepting a grand more from a man in a suit or do you take a grand less and sell it to the scuffy teen that clearly has less money! Supply and demand. Rental prices had to rise above inflation ever since the government introduced Section 24 a few years back. Instead of paying just tax on any profits, they now pay tax on the income! For most landlords, they would typically pay tax on around £1000. Now they typically pay tax on £7000! Per property! If they also have a normal job, they will be now in the 40% tax bracket. On £7000 that's £2800 of tax that landlord needs to find! Ultimately who's going to pay it, yep the tenants of course. Or the landlord sells up and the tenants become homeless!
Lack of supply... But landlords don't create supply... They don't invets their profits into building more homes, they extract profits and nothing more.
There like a lot of industries will have a natural cycle, older landlords will sell and younger landlords will buy, however what we are seeing is older landlords selling at a higher rate than normal and younger landlords not buying. It has nothing to do with profits being invested, it takes a lot of properties until you can invest in more properties from profit alone, the vast majourity of landlords have just one or two properties and also work, it is this work income that they often invest with instead of say a pension.. The simple fact is that the demand for rental property is growing but the number of properties available for rent is reducing.. That causes prices to rise.. this bill does nothing to change that situation, in fact it makes it worse as landlords have more potential cost and risk..
Rubbish, landlords buy more properties to let out, using some of the equity built up from existing properties. Thus increasing national supply. Or should I say, this used to happen, hence why the private rental sector increased in the past. Now the private rental market is contracting, section 21's (No fault evictions) are being served on tenants, making them homeless and the properties are being sold. All the anti-landlord people here, you have no idea the shit storm that is coming down the tracks thanks to your anti-landlord rhetoric. You blame landords for high house prices all the time, when it is the property sellers that set the prices. You blame private landlords for not investing in their properties, taking out the profits, but you clearly didn't just watch this video. Tenant dissatisfaction was much higher in council housing than the private rental sector, so clearly landlords were providing a better standard of accommodation! Oh and they are investing in property. Any investment needs to make a return. You wouldn’t put your money into a savings account if it paid no interest! It has become popular to slag off private landlords and as a result, governments have seen them as fair game cash cows. A sort of vote winner. But now the penny has dropped and millions of families are about to become homeless! They are now U-turning on Capital Gains Tax increases on property, because the landlord exodus has began and they are panicing! So funny! 😂
There's an initial investment into the property. If it's a new build that's increased supply. If it's not they'll push someone else into buying a new build. Either way it's creating supply, so long as the government doesn't prevent new houses from being built
Not exactly. Loads of landlords refuse to rent to people because it’s often more costly for them and more problematic than simply keeping the property empty. There is also an issue of AirBNB which is an absolute curse to the state of todays house availability
So many empty properties, empty homes, empty flats above shops, empty pubs, empty churches, empty brownfield sites. All keeping the rent prices high. There is no lack of housing crisis, just endless greed.
The home office buy up newly built private developments of 2 bedroom swish, fully furnished apartments. And fill them with illegals, rent free. That way, they bypass the council housing list. Only 700,000 to do this for. That's why there are no houses. And councils are going bust. Just as promised if they agreed to jump on the dinghy scheme. It's been going on years.
@@No1washere The empty homes in London are mainly owned by Chinese people who have invested their money in the London property market. They see these properties in the same way investors speculate in the stock market. I blame successful governments for allowing this to happen. There should be a ban on this sort of thing. What's worse is these properties are treated like people treat vintage toys that are kept inside their original boxes and never played with, these properties are sealed off, drained down and never used to protect them from damage. It is wrong, but the reason governments won't do anything about it is because it relies on overseas investment to get things done, so it doesn't need to pay. Take nuclear power stations. They rely on partnerships with French energy supplier EDF. This country sells everything and owns nothing!
"The fundamental issue is supply" The problem is also too much demand. Artificial demand. Created by people and companies who view housing as an investment.
A fair number of those are now ad hoc guest houses, air b&b. Ask the bin men, they know which houses are really occupied & which never put out a bin bag.
It's been shown that house prices rise in line with inflation, so they're poor investments to make money on here, but good for stability against a chaotic rental sector
@@randomdaveUK The average house price in 2000 was £91, 199. If it matched inflation, that would put todays price at £168,400. Except, the average price as of August was £267,100. Houses repeatedly exceed inflation. Not only do they do that, but they generate revenue in the form of rent. They keep saying that housing rises in line with inflation, but the data these same organisations are providing doesn't agree.
@@Thomas.5020 between 2000 and 2024 prices of food and goods have easily more than doubled. The way they measure inflation is terrible. Between 2021-2023 we had an inflationary impact on costs of 20-40% but the overall figure was what? 10% 😆 Sorry but no. Costs in 24 years have gone up greater than 2.5x on average, I'm talking about costs that impact savings so food, energy, petrol, childcare. The house price you stated is in line with that.
@@Wasssssup-3 probably someone who has successfully been saving for a deposit on a mortgage, then the bank of England increases interest from nearly zero to 5.25% making mortgages unaffordable.
Probably the only country in Europe that has a completely unregulated rental market. Such a strange country, Just look at Germany or Switzerland or anywhere in Europe. Its a perfectly normal way of life to rent a flat for 10 or even 20 years.
They're talking about landlords leaving the market as being a bad thing. Any landlord that isn't a council providing genuine affordable housing is a cancer. Landlords selling up means houses are going back on the market meaning demand will drop making housing more affordable to buy. Landlords buying assets like houses has driven prices up.
Demand isn't dropping because all 8 billion people in the world are allowed to buy British real estate. We need legislation introduced that says that for a period of 25 or 50 years, only British citizens can buy homes in the UK. Currently, nothing is stopping an Emirati from buying a block of 1,000 flats and renting them out, in order to extract labour/wages from Britons. Banks aren't lending to young Britons as we cannot compete with the world in financial heft, nor in ability to secure credit. If a Brit is on £30k per year, the bank will only lend x4, or if you're very lucky, x5. There aren't many freehold homes available for £150k....and the ones that do exist aren't located near to economic centres/ abundant work.
sadly the houses will just go to more wealthy landlords. the government should really just be flooding the market with new housing like its a war effort
@@ince55ant likely you're right, but one or two will make their way into the hands of the people. But agreed, even tho it would harm my own house value, massive building is needed by the council, not "affordable housing" built by new house builders.
@@ince55antyep, then using compulsory purchase powers to buy the houses that fall into disrepair because they can’t be let privately and letting them at truly affordable rents. That’d increase the supply of good social housing twice as fast.
Yep, the biggest correlation with this massive increase in rents was the creation of the buy-to-let mortgage. Suddenly anyone could become a landlord without actually having the money to buy a second house. And that also means an increase in the sort of landlord who doesn't actually have the disposable income to deal with the cost of upkeep. They should be made illegal for a start.
@@roryokane5907 I agree but when you can't rely on others to live you need to step up and make more money to survive. All you can do is vote or start public movements for change but for the short term people need to step up and make more if they really care about it.
@@Trebor74 yes people are doing this and getting a house in their mid to late thirties... might pay it off just before retirement. Wages haven't really risen for 15 years... prices have more than doubled in that time. We're getting poorer
That last comment from the lady is insane. They’re scared that they’re going to be held more accountable so they’re making people homeless now while they can. WTF is wrong with landlords
@@Odi_Ano, but they may be hmos, so suddenly that’s multiple households now competing for other stock, they will likely be sold to an owner occupier or maybe be moved from residential let, to a corporate let or an airbnb.
There’s a balance between landlord and tenant. Landlords want good tenants, rent on time and knowing they can get a bad tenant out. Tenants want to know they have a long term home, and that problems will be fixed. Landlords are not public bodies, they can take their money and spend it where they want, like any private citizen, so there’s nothing wrong with them: if they decide investing in property has become too risky or demanding for them, they can go do something different. For me, I have no problem with the removal of section 21, or, to be honest most of this bill, but with something like 170 pieces of legislation to follow, and the risk of it taking the best part of a year to evict a non paying tenant, I can see why many have had enough.
How many people have a deposit and a good job but are still forced to rent because the landlords have driven up the cost of buying a house because they've bought all of the stock?
A landlord often needs 25% deposit to buy a property, a normal buyer needs as little as 5%. It's the banks who have inflated house prices by increasing lending to as high as 5.5 times salary and stretching out loans over 40 years. It's actually a deep rooted flaw in the monery system, as new debt creates new money which is then used to bid assets up, which then in turn creates the demand for debt. - This is the reason why house prices have soared over the last 40 years.
If we built far more homes there would be more available to rent or buy. Banks could not persuade people to borrow 5x salary over 40 years. Landlords wouldn't have 20 people competing for a flat.
"Won't someone think of the landlords? Some are considering selling one of their many, many homes..." wouldn't that solve the issue by making more housing stock available? "no, who will be able to rent if there are no landlords around to rent a house from?" well, the increase in supply would make houses affordable to an entire generation wanting to buy but currently forced to rent at the cost of half their salary... it's not that they can't afford to pay a mortgage, it's that they can't afford to pay twice in rent what a mortgage cost AND save for a deposit... landlords: *pikachu face*
People definitely need to be able to rent as well as buy. Studying, moving for a new job, looking after a sick family member. Many reasons to rent. Both buying and renting are too expensive as there is not enough supply. Build more homes. Far, far, more homes.
It is if that house was renting 5 rooms out and now its housing a couple, where do the other 3 people go? I'm not a LL but high rents are a symptom not the cause.
It is in rental supply. Many forget there are many people who are not in positions to buy or don't want to buy. These people need more options in the renting market not less. I fear having less and less private landlords and having big corporations controlling the rental sector will be worse for tenants over the long term. I rent through and agency and getting through layers of sign off takes ages. Increasing the amount of built property is the only way out.
I mean, literally everyone who provides any goods or services to anyone else is “in it for the money”. We all need money to buy food, clothes, somewhere to live. Are you greedy for asking for a wage when you go to work? If you are going to take on the costs and risks of providing housing for someone, and you are not funded to do that, like a council or housing association, you should be paid according to the value of what you supply.
@@JS-ie1xo providing a house for someone? you should be paid according to the value of what you supply? i wasnt aware landlords built the houses themselves
@@supernube6659 bit facetious, but hey ho. Landlords may not build it, but they commonly add physical value, through renovation, and tenant value is somewhere to live for that period, possibly also that they can’t buy (so renting is valuable) or they want to be mobile , or have a short term contract, or live in an area while looking for somewhere to buy. So while they may not be producing new doodads, they are providing places for doodad maker to live, which is often overlooked in the argument that landlords don’t ‘produce’ anything. Also, lookup ‘build to rent’ for a nice little insight into tomorrow’s giant property companies, which was the last governments stated aim, get rid of little landlords and replace them with big companies, in the name of professionalisation. I’ll be interested to see their pricing models. Finally, one of my thoughts was to allow landlords to roll forward their CGT if they spent their profit building a property or two to let out. I did a whole post on my thoughts on how to increase supply, because I don’t want to live in a world where people don’t have anywhere to live, but we need to all understand the problems and work together,not hate, if we’re to fix the current crisis.
@@wbay3848 im not a parasite. I work for 6 months renovating a property to bring it up to a high standard and then rent it out. That is 5 days a week of 7h days (plus travel) for 6 months. I don't get paid a wage to do this, but over the long term I make a profit. I use my labour and technical abilities to provide something useful for society. Can you not see beyond the stereotype of a landlord? There are loads of different LL's out there. Some are mega wealthy, some are really very poor and just using debt to try and accumulate some small pot of wealth over the long term. Then you have everyone else in the middle, grinding away doing a lot of work generally. All the comments on here are so uniformed.
Landlord's, Cartels organized on the backs of Workers, you can't raise rents three times higher than the minimum wage in the economy. Germany has stopped the increase in house prices at zero
The population has increased by about 10 million since 2000 and we've only added around 3 million properties to the housing stock. In the same period France has added 7.6 million people and added 3.8 million to the housing stock. And Germany has added 1.8 million people and added 3 million to the housing stock. It's nothing less than a gross failure of government.
Greed, greed and more greed. Landlords blaming their extortionate rental prices on the lack of social housing is an embarrassingly transparent scapegoat. The reason so many people are having to rent in the first place is because of landlords driving up property prices by buying multiple homes.
Thankfully, now I'm living in my own flat on my own in my own space now. It's bloody expensive but having my own space has been essential to my mental wellbeing. I earn about £2000 after tax most months. And my one bed flat in Bristol, bills and council tax included, comes to about £1300 a month. Some months, my business isn't so great and I'm down to around £1600 for the month, the ensuing month being very uncomfortable indeed. BUT - and getting to the point of this comment - the previous property I lived in... It was originally a cheap home for a family of three to live in. The living room got turned into a bedroom, and so did the office space. I had to compete with five other people who simultaneously attended the viewing with me for the one spare room going, and I was under pressure to move out in a month by my current landlord of the time. Thankfully I got in. But it was still 5 people jammed into that house, paying £550 per room. In a property that could house a young family where the total rent would likely be a lot less than £550 x5... The industry is literally rewarding greedy landlords to gut houses of their souls to be a roof over the heads of desperate millenials just trying to get by. I was also living with violent junkies who caused serious damage to the kitchen. Hence my gratitude to leave and have my own place. But Jesus, this is what it's come to. Even these good people who recognise there's an issue, I don't think, really REALLY realise exactly "what it's come to".
You’re right, there’s a massive WhatsApp group with every landlord in the UK and we’ve all collectively agreed to raise our rents to line our pockets!
@@vvwalker7261 when it's a life necessity people are willing to pay beyond their means, doesn't make it right to charge that... you'd pay everything you owned for drinkable water if you had none. that may soon be the price (:
Genuine question: say a distant relative dies and leave your their house. For various reason you can't move into it and decide to rent it until you can move in. How do you decide how much to charge? Do you look at your costs and add 10%? Do you look at the local rents? Say you decide to charge about thr going rate and then one prospective applicant offers another £50 a month? Do you turn them down?
So where are these 20 additional potential tenants living now? They are certainly not on the streets. At any one time there are 750k houses lying empty in the UK. Add in orphaned holiday lets etc and it’s over a million. The issue is not supply, its affordability, lack of regulation about vacant housing stocks, and lack of investment in existing social housing and planning. In our area we have had a social housing complex of 174 homes demolished to make way for 221 homes. A laudable endeavour, but there is no sign of the new homes. The place is a wasteland so far. That puts pressure on the rest of the housing stock and drives people into the private sector. The Govt are just not radical enough to see the problem and then deal with it.
I'm so happy I made productive decisions about my finances that changed my life forever. I'm a single mother living in Birmingham uk, bought my second house in August and hoping to retire next year at 41 if things keep going smoothly for me…,
Congratulations dear. You're really doing well for yourself, I'm 48 and my financial life is in a mess. Any great tips would really go a long way in shaping my life. I want to buy my own house, that's really a big flex
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear that you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small Investment, thank you Jihan Wu you're such a life saver
As a beginner in this, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Jihan Wu is also my trade analyst, he has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.
I'm favoured, 90K every week! I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support God's work and the church. God bless America,, all thanks to Mr Jihan Wu😊🎉
There are over a million empty properties in the UK. Too many houses owned as part of an investment portfolio rather than as homes. Stop that happening and you also put an end to a well known loophole for laundering money.
Build as many as you want but if the rich can outbid you then it doesn’t matter how many you build the rich will just continue to buy them up. They have so much cash.
For too long Business landlords have lived off of cheap mortgages, loans and rates with their tenants cover: the mortgage, bills, maintenance and making them a profit. Now that they are making less profit they are getting then pants all knotted up. Well over 500k long term empty properties including large commercial properties that could be converted. Local councils should start building homes and central government should be taking ownership of broken down, derelict properties in order to convert them. We have more office space than businesses so such a waste. Rents being so high is just down to greed, demand does not mean mandatory increases, it's a choice. They increase rent simply because they can. Demand for food and water is high but you don't see them increasing that by 30% - 100%. The response of just because you can, you should is not an argument.
A big problem is that the London property market was allowed to become the worlds biggest money laundry. This pushed up prices massively. The other issue is rentier capitalism. It's toxic because it enriches those who don't contribute either labour or entrepreneurship.
So just to be clear, landlords selling up and turning rented properties back into homes is terrible for renters because...? Are these people thick or something? THEY ARE GREEDY.
Why cant they just cap rent at £700 per person(arbitrary number). As the maximum you are allowed to charge? Just so people can afford rent and food etc. £2000 for renting a flat is insane.
That would cause mass homelessness. Landlords would sell, people with money would buy and live below capacity, demand would grow, house prices increase, more landlords sell and so on. At the end of it, you have lots of people living 1-2 people in 3-4 bed houses and everyone else on the streets
@@alexsmallwood9895 But with a mass selling of property, the prices would drop. As there would be such an increase in supply. So lots of renters would be able to afford homes, and they would be in a position to then rent their spare rooms out. At the new affordable rent rate
How would that work? No one would buy a house/flat as mortgages are mostly much higher. In the South not even Housing Association rents are that affordable, or even single rooms in house shares (there are exceptions).
We should do what we did after ww2, build prefabs. Immediately after ww2 there wasnt the infrastructure to build a high number of houses so they built prefabs. We cant build enough houses now, so gov should do the same. Go up faster, less cost, lower labour requirements. Private sector isnt going to get it done, its been years and isnt going to change. They should build a bunch of prefabs for council tenants
very interesting commentry. I bought a single property and have rented it out for 10 years. I don't like the term 'amateur' or 'accidental' landlords. I provide a fantastic property to my tenant and act professionally in all matters. I currently charge below market rates. When the tenant moves out I am very likely to sell up as there is too little profit for the risk. £1320 per month for a property worth £450000. You can't get a mortgage at this monthly rate for a house of this value.
Landlords complaining about supply is because they want to buy more houses. If this supply was purely council housing they'd be up in arms because they only want a supply they can extort. It's why as I wrote this post he started to deliver some horror story about council properties & concluded that private properties are much better... c word
Landlords of the age of approximately 60-70 who have been professional landlords will most likely have purchased the property/properties at least 20-25 years ago paid sweet FA for them by todays valuations and subsequently they can walk away with huge profits for doing nothing. It’s all biased towards those baby boomers sadly and there’s nothing the millennials can do about it. With a million new homes in 5 years, prices will stabilise rents, meaning house prices should stabilise, meaning mortgage rates will stabilise at a medium rate of 3-4% and then it compounds everyone.
Landlords “leaving the market”, i.e. sitting on their hoard of an empty property while people are freezing to death outside. Well, when we can’t count on their humanity the government must act to force good, empty properties back onto the market-for rent or fire sale
The house I bought in 2001 was 6 times my salary. 2024 would be 12.5 times salary! In 2001 the percentage of population renting privately was 10.1%, and was 19.1% in 2022. From 2001 to 2024 population has risen from 58,000,000 to 69,000,000. Can’t anyone see the problem here?
❗ Landlords saying "build more homes" is just a delay tactic to allow them to continue un-bothered by regulations! Plus they know demand will outpace building due to rampant immigration.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG! housing is a right, shouldn't be in the profit sector (when will we even get rid of the profit motive) and all I'm hearing from landlords and real estate folks is windbaggery of the highest level and pity me the poor billionaire.
Yep. The Government is at fault for not building enough social housing but Landlords with large property portfolios are a huge problem as well. Strange how they don't mention that fact. There should be a limit to how many properties a landlord should own. And if they wish to rent a property then they should own it outright. Then rents wont be affected by mortgages fluctuating.
Rents increase is not just supply and demand it’s the added cost to insurance, service charges, maintenance, increase in interest rates. Which is linked to inflation
No one is talking about the fact that councils are selling land and council homes to private developers who are building mostly private property on the land.
@@alexsmallwood9895 increasing housing supply but not affordable council houses. Gentrifying areas and selling to foreign investors who don’t even live there. Also the government paying housing benefit for low income families makes no sense. Councils should pay developers to develop it for them. That way rent will be more affordable. Landlord buying 15 houses in this tiny little island. Bring on capital gains tax 40% so they sell their houses and house prices crash 😂😂. Makes no difference there isn’t anywhere to rent anyway. Some people brought a house for 3-5000 in the 60’70’s and now they want that same amount monthly makes me sick. Bring in rental caps too.
the thing I hate about "economic wisdom" and "the market".....why should increased interest mean you can gouge people for more money? it hasn't become more expensive to manage that property, your expenses are still the same. but for some reason, because 21 people are interested in buying, you get to whack the price up? I know people will talk about supply and demand, but that's my point. why should that dictate increasing the price of something, when they already know what the fair and reasonable price of that thing should be?
I wish you were right, but it's more complex. Section 24 increased the tax burden for landlords. Increased interest rates have significantly increased costs. Licensing requirements, agents' fees, maintenance/builders' costs and insurance costs have all gone up. Homeowners' mortgages have gone up too, often by large amounts, in the last couple of years. They have to pay too and have no choice. Should they just accuse the banks of greed? Maybe understand that an international money market, domestic monetary policy, inflation and swap rates influence how much mortgage payments are, for home owners and renters.
Landlord reform was needed to tackle people who neglected their tenants by leaving properties in dangerous conditions and those who kicked people out with little to no notice for no reason. However, the whole sale changes made and in the process of being made has led to some of the good landlords out there deciding to get out and sell up. This has left shortages in key areas and when that happens demand pushed prices up due to lack of availability. I remember people on some of these channels cheering when interest rates went rocketing up as they thought it meant hundreds of thousands of houses would be repossessed and the market would crash. Didn’t happen. The country needs good landlords, no one is selling their £400k house for £200k! Even then someone on minimum wage wouldn’t be able to afford it.
There are apparently 700,00 empty properties with over 260,000 empty more than 6 months. If these were brought back into use, it would help the housing crisis.
True true true. Another factor is people living longer, seriously, my mum got to 90, lived alone in a 3 bedroom house. Clearly I didn't not begrudge that, but in the past that house would have come back to market sooner. Also more people choosing to live alone, again, no issue there, but it clogs up say two bedroom flats. Conversely you got rich people with massive houses and few residents. I recon there are enough bedrooms in the country, but they are in the wrong units for modern living ...
You could have 10 million more homes and all that will happen is those with money would buy them even quicker. Between 2020 and 2023 the UK TREBLED (Boris, Tories and Covid, coincidence?) the number of billionaires (177) it has when 2010 - 2019 (10 whole yrs) it only doubled to about 55. Property is one of the best ways to grow wealth. Who do you think is going to buy all these new homes. Demand will always be higher than supply because housing is a industry above all else and making huge amounts of money, owning assets is the priority so most of the public will not benefit from more stock UNLESS rental prices are regulated. As long as House buying is regulated so only first time buyers, low income earners are given first option. Everything else is just a snatch and grab for those that already have wealth and assets.
I got a letter today saying my rent has gone up again £50, it went up twice last year to a total of £100 and in January it will go up again £50, for similar properties in my area, even on my block are £75 - £100 cheaper but the landlord will not budge. Estates UK own all there houses, they buy them for cash!!
landlords mortgage has probably gone up more than that and suspect that will be the reason for forcing the increase. its either that, or they sell up which will take another house out of the market to rent (assuming its bought by a future home owner); causing even less supply and in turn, pushing rents up even higher....
This is like a ticket tout buying up all the Taylor Swift tour tickets, and then increasing the price to sell it on and saying "supply and demand made me do it".
get rid of giant housing associations, if its gonna be run badly at least the profit shud go t councils t recycle the money into social housing let landlords leave if they cant keep a house livable and affordable the industry doesnt need them. people can then buy build n the market gets some breathing room. no more 2nd homes in key areas in uk
Agree, more Tory enabled private industry grift that took housing stock control out of local authority remit so they could syphon off money from the public purse. Much like the water companies & the NHS. They offer cost efficiency & jack up the price once they have the golden goose & there are no other options.
people are really missing the point, net migration last year was 750,000 but new homes built was less than 250,000. by most estimates the uk is under supplied by about 3 million properties, even under labour 1.5 million new homes we will be way off. plus with net migration still expected to out strip house building the deficit is only going to get worse.
It's like councils should be able to build houses and rent them to those who would normally rent a private one. We do need more housing, it should not go into the hands of private landlords.
@@DavidManser but with all due respect private landlords are the only ones putting up capital and offer a solution (all be it not a great one). Either we start cranking out half a million homes a year for the next 10 years or cap immigration until we have housing sorted. But most politicians own property portfolios so why would they want to build more and decrease their own investments value.
@@williamkeane255 they don't build the houses, they just help ensure that prices stay high. I agree we need more housing, but both the landlords and the majority house building firms are ensuring that we don't get enough and that demand outstrips supply. What we need is a public building organisation and a national on the job training scheme for the trades required to build and maintain them.
@@DavidManser I don't think house builders are against building more, it's the government who over regulate the industry along with our planning system.
Im lucky enough to have been given a council flat after a year of bidding, its a brand new apartment in a tower block, there is an identical block across the way which is privately owned, which has exactly the same layout of flats and rooms as the council one I'm living in (Ive gone and had a look inside), the outside and inside of the building is the same and even has the same carpark out-front and has the exact same lift systems in the same position in the entrance of the block (it was built at the same time too I might add) The rent PCM to the privately owed block is £1150 PCM for a 1 bed flat (they was asking for 6 months up front if you cant get references) The rent to the council Block (social housing) is £600 PCM for a 1 bed flat its literally the same block...10 metres distance between the 2 properties how is that fair to people trying to rent who cant get a council property?
Whatever happened to a mortgage costing less than renting, the demand for rent has increased because buying is no longer affordable for new people on the market.
It shouldn't be a market, it's not a means of production so there is no true market just bring in rent controls now...the true free market economy will win out and create new jobs with that cash
What never seems to be mentioned is, if landlords sell up, someone has to buy. Maybe that buyer has been trying to buy for some time, but couldn’t because all the houses get bought up by investors/landlords? It’s swings and roundabouts. We don’t need landlords, we need supply and especially social housing for those who cannot or do not wish to buy a home and renting is the better option.
The government needs to ban, or HEAVILY restrict, commercial entities buying domestic homes and private individuals owning 2 or more homes. In addition, foreign buyers should be flat out banned from buying UK properties for at least 10+ years.
I'm a private landlord. I deem myself to be a good one too. I rent out at market rate and I have a mortgage on the property. I pay alot of tax on my profit, I work full time and will likely have to up until retirement age. This property gives me security and that's all that people want. I'm privileged yes, I've used my situation to my advantage and anyone in my shoes would do the same. If you're gonna blame anyone then blame previous governments for not building enough affordable housing. Not enough supply naturally drives up the market rate. Supply and demand. It's simple economics!
As a landlord, I am in the same situation, I just don’t pretend that I’m actually providing a service, because the brutal truth is, it’s me versus you.
Landlord also, makes me laugh reading all the comments from 'tenants' or landlord haters. End of day the government is to blame with all the meddling. Section 24 tax now means 80% of my houses are taxed at 40% add on higher mortgage intrest plus repairs and of course rents are going up. The silly thing is people think this renters bill is a great idea, periodic tenancy from day 1.... despite it costing a landlord £700 to find and reference tenants that might only stay 2 months, guess what.... higher rents for tenants to cover the costs..... epc to a level C average costs £8000 guess what, yep higher rents for tenants. You want to moan at someone its the government mixing in a world they don't understand and instead making it miles worse
@@Andy5c honestly, the amount of people that are so quick to bash but are clueless about the actual situation. It's very easy to hate on landlords. I don't bother trying to defend myself to much as most don't understand.
@@SuperIAmSamiAm exactly.. they dont understand and they know not what they say. it comes from a lack of understanding. but they will understand if rents go up because the supply reduces (which it will if LLs exit, as there are less LLs buying up new stock) and the government fails to deliver any viable alternative (which it will as it has suggested nothing to counter the coming exodus)
Also: too many people who saw no other option to have a nestegg overstretched themselves to buy to rent, and do not have the means to keep them in good repair once they have paid their mortgage. So, between the bad landlords and the helpless ones, too many properties are in bad condition and it is becoming the new normal.
What we need is a rent freeze. Rents have been going up by 10%/annum for 40 years whilst wages have gone up 2%/annum in the same time. It's just sheer greed, Landlords are stealing people's savings and giving them no chance to save up a deposit to buy a house.
Normal investing caveat: The value of your investment may go down as well as up, and you may not get back the amount you invested. Landlords' investing caveat: The value of your investment may go up... as well as up a lot... Nah, who am I kiddin'? They'll go up a f*****g shed load!
This is what gets me about landlordism. I invest in a pension and ISA for retirement. I have to contribute money each month out if my normal job to that for it to gain value, it's invested and could all be wiped out in seconds. A landlord buys a house funded by a mortgage, expects the renter to pay the mortgage and all costs of ownership together leaving a profit for them and for them to have a hugely valuable asset to sell to fund the retirement. I'm lost, what do they do for that? I mean if I don't put money into my pension I'll have nothing there and that money costs way more than a couple of hours of my time each month. They don't put anything in apart from a couple of hours. They effectively want free money.
If there are loads of private rental homes and not enough social housing, why not take the properties from the landlords and tell them to get a proper job?
So many young people living with parents because they dont want to pay ludicrous rents but cannot save enough for a deposit for a home. While there are people still desperate to buy their own home, we should not be incentivising others to own multiple properties or allowing foreign ownership.
What is meant by investment by landlords? Are they paying for more buildings to be built? More units? No. That's developers (who also, with a profit motive, will not build enough to bring rents down). If a landlord doesnt buy a house, it remains available to homeowners. We should legislate that if a property remains empty for a set amount of time or for a percentage of the year, we should put a massive empty property tax on them. And then have councils offer a dirt cheap buyout. The wealth needs to be transferred back to councils to make the properties council owned. We should also be looking at renting caps based on sq ft/metres of the floor plans and what facilities are included with the property. Being a landlord should be immensely penalised because being a landlord doesnt provide anything. It hoards needed resources and holds them hostage at unreasonable pricing where the tenants have fewer rights than council tenants. My partners mum is in a 2 bed house with a big garden for 450 a month in an expensive town. Me and my partner have moved to a similarly priced city and are paying 850 for a studio that is falling apart. We needed to abolish private landlords yesterday
They are just doing their job but the idea we need to preserve landlords current power position. Many of these people made investments when rates were low and have massively benefitted from increase in house prices. If they are forced to sell, so what? They will already have forced as much burden onto their tenants as they can get away with before throwing in the towel because they didn't leave themselves enough room on their mortgage. They keep saying landlords are going to be forced out of the rental sector like those houses just vanish, they don't. They are either bought by a person currently renting or bought by a bigger landlord. Rental controls are vital, the private market is doing what the private market does, making as much money as possible with zero thought for the social consequences.
LANDLORDS ARE LEAVING BECAUSE THEY ARE RETIRING? RETIRING?! - is this woman for real? Does she think that hoarding assets and outsourcing the management of them to a letting agency constitutes a job at all?
So they’re concerned that landlords are selling up which is reducing the supply of rental properties? GOOD! Most people don’t want to rent, get these houses on the market so people can buy
So just tell me why having more people here is a good idea? So we can’t get a hospital, dentist or doctors appointment. Schools are overflowing, we have no room in the prisons and I wonder if having 75 million people in the country might have something to do with it Einstein. Wake up world ffs we are full up.
People should go on a rent strick. It is not the tenants responsibility to manage the "landlords" investment. They knew the risk with interest rates. Rent strick needed.
I believe an area within this debate that has not yet been taken into account is property management agents. If you own a property as a landlord and you manage that property ie hiring services for repairs, manage the financial matters and so on, then you are at least working for the money you make in rent. If a landlord has an agent in the middle which costs them an amount each month they should not include this amount as part of the cost of being a landlord, and in turn should not include this amount when considering what the rent should be. I believe this is an area that has grow over the last 20 years that is also an issue inflating rents. If you own a property and you do nothing as a landlord other then pay a business to do it on your behalf, then its pure investment and you have done nothing to earn money other then be fortunate enough to have the capital to do so. Housing should not be an investment unless its is for your own home and is largely responsible for what we are seeing accross the world.
"Landlords are selling and that will decrease supply". Where are these properties going? If they sell, the property doesn't disappear, it gets handed to someone else. The argument that it will decrease supply and thus lead to increased rent is such an oversimplification. If they were to sell to councils, say, that would lead to more affordable rentals. If they were to sell to first time buyers, that would reduce demand on the rental market. If they were to sell to others who want to rent, supply wouldn't change. And if they were to sell to some group that wants to leave them empty, we'd see decrease in supply with no change in demand. Point is, it's not about how many people calling themselves landlords selling, it's about what is done with them. If more landlords sell and fewer people want part of the rental market, then that could end up being a net benefit to the country by reducing the shortage for first time buyers. Note: this legislation is not existing in a vacuum, this should (and hopefully will) go with more house building and more.
It's only 'supply' because compared to the 1970s (7% PRS), we now have 19% PRS; that's 4 million properties retracted from purchase. We have the same amount of properties per capita as in the 1970s. When there was a rent freeze from 1915 (backdated to 1914), -1918, then rent controls in the 1920s (continued in various forms until 1988) a million properties were sold from the landlords to their tenants. 7% PRS is healthy for temporary accommodation under rent controls. Social housing should be back up to 25% and Owner Occupier 68%. All are doable as land prices crash after rent control. Then 'Asset Welfarism' comes to an end, and government have to face up to Social welfarism, which, Richard Murphy has calculated, is affordable as we don't have 'debt' just money in spent into the economy. However, this is far more complex than this comment, as my recently completed MPhil will testify.
