No Fault Evictions

[Ozi]

That's good!
A pity it isn't done more often - but local authorities have been deliberately underfunded for years, to render them powerless and allow the economic jungle of "free-market" economics to spread.

Just been reading "Debt, The First 5000 Years" by the late great David Graeber.
He has a lot to say! He quotes Keynes:
"I see, therefore, the rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear when it has done its work. And with the disappearance of its rentier aspect much else in it besides will suffer a sea-change. It will be, moreover, a great advantage of the order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain, and will need no revolution."

"...functionless investors"...spot on JMK! Nobody needs them, they have no value to society except their limited and often ineffective property management functions. They are in it for the free ride, as they often say themselves "....it's my pension.....etc etc".
So much self pity...the poor things!
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-is-rentier-capitalism

OK I will bite at that one. As a "functionless investor" to achieve my "unearned income" I spend about 20 hours a week and £17,000 a year on maintenance most of which I do myself with the exception of work on gas or electricity where I am not qualified to do so. Now I'm retired this is much easier than it used to be. How in the name of (insert deity of choice or Marks if you prefer) is it self pity to consider this my pension?

I started this thread following the unacceptable behavior of a tenant.

Final tally

Unpaid rent £3000
Damage £1774
Unpaid water bill £608
Unpaid gas and electricity £885.63
Unpaid council tax £2123.11 plus arrears at two previous addresses

At the same time said scum bag was driving without a license, selling drugs by the KG and subletting to two other scumbags all of whom were making the neighbors lives a misery. It still took me £250 in legal costs and 6 months to get him to leave. He tried to keep his deposit which I have just had refunded £850 by reporting me to the council over the condition of the house. Fortunately I have before and after photos some of the before with him in shot.

After a significant amount of work the place is now in good order, slightly better than when he moved in and re-let, this time to a family who I hope and believe will behave in a manor that almost all of my tenants have, in return they will get a well maintained house and any maintenance issues attended to promptly as did the tenant I visited this morning who reported a leaking sink yesterday.

In return I get an annual return on investment after tax of around 4%, (this used to be around 3% but rents are as we can agree far to high which is why I don't raise them as I could for tenants who keep their side of the bargain and keep tenants often for years, the agent I was discussing this with last week tells me I should aim for 7%) plus what ever capital gain I may make if I sell up and it has to be said with the exception of the few scum I run into the pleasure of providing a good service to some every nice people I have rented to over the years.

Wave your red flag all you like you just get socialists like me (who believe we all have a duty to contribute to the state in exchange for the safety net and services the state provides) a bad name.

 

[NorthernSteve]

45-50% of BTL landlords in the UK own just 1 rental property, a further 20-25% own 2, and a further 10-15% 3. So at least 75% of landlords have less than 3 rental properties. Net yields on capital employed are probably <5%, capital growth adding to this over time. Is it unreasonable for a person to decide not to buy the 4 bedroom detached and instead buy a 3 bed semi and a 2up 2down, in order to provide income, so they do not need to rely on the state? If I did not own rentals, I could live in a much bigger house than I currently do. I invested in property, because I trust me, more than a fund manager to manage my money in my interests. That and the fact that I do not what any government controlling my investments. I suspect the next hit from Labour will be the 25% tax free cash draw down on attaining the age of 55.
According to the rentier view, buying a smaller house in order to afford a second, to provide to people who want to rent, would be seen as selfish and 'money for nothing'. So instead, what would the socialist suggest is done with this extra capital to earn an income? Invest it in an index fund? But that would surely just make them greedy shareholders, (even benefiting from fossil fuels and the tobacco industry, or exploiting child labour in 3rd world countries) - another group of people who are vilified, often by people who have pensions that are invested in the same stock. Genuine question Jacob, what asset classes are viewed by you as morally worthy, such that the investor is no longer a walking target for abuse?
Jacob if my memory serves me correctly, you live in a converted chapel, with a price tag of c£1/2m, have you considered living in a smaller property, in order to afford a second property, that could be renovated, and let to people looking for somewhere to live?

 

[Jacob]

OK I will bite at that one. As a "functionless investor" to achieve my "unearned income" I spend about 20 hours a week and £17,000 a year on maintenance most of which I do myself with the exception of work on gas or electricity where I am not qualified to do so. Now I'm retired this is much easier than it used to be. How in the name of (insert deity of choice or Marks if you prefer) is it self pity to consider this my pension?

I started this thread following the unacceptable behavior of a tenant.

Final tally

Unpaid rent £3000
Damage £1774
Unpaid water bill £608
Unpaid gas and electricity £885.63
Unpaid council tax £2123.11 plus arrears at two previous addresses

At the same time said scum bag was driving without a license, selling drugs by the KG and subletting to two other scumbags all of whom were making the neighbors lives a misery. It still took me £250 in legal costs and 6 months to get him to leave. He tried to keep his deposit which I have just had refunded £850 by reporting me to the council over the condition of the house. Fortunately I have before and after photos some of the before with him in shot.

After a significant amount of work the place is now in good order, slightly better than when he moved in and re-let, this time to a family who I hope and believe will behave in a manor that almost all of my tenants have, in return they will get a well maintained house and any maintenance issues attended to promptly as did the tenant I visited this morning who reported a leaking sink yesterday.

In return I get an annual return on investment after tax of around 4%, (this used to be around 3% but rents are as we can agree far to high which is why I don't raise them as I could for tenants who keep their side of the bargain and keep tenants often for years, the agent I was discussing this with last week tells me I should aim for 7%) plus what ever capital gain I may make if I sell up and it has to be said with the exception of the few scum I run into the pleasure of providing a good service to some every nice people I have rented to over the years.

Wave your red flag all you like you just get socialists like me (who believe we all have a duty to contribute to the state in exchange for the safety net and services the state provides) a bad name.

Sounds like a very bad investment. I'd sell up if I were you.
Oh wait a minute - you will probably make a massive capital gain if you just hang on a bit longer.

 

[Jacob]

........
Jacob if my memory serves me correctly, you live in a converted chapel, with a price tag of c£1/2m, have you considered living in a smaller property, in order to afford a second property, that could be renovated, and let to people looking for somewhere to live?

I wouldn't choose to live on the backs of my neighbours.

 

[Jacob]

..... You might have a comfortable pension but I certainly don’t. .....

nor me. Lowest level of state pension for me and 'er indoors plus small savings after selling up and downsizing.

 

[woodieallen]

I issued a S.20 notice on the 1st July this year for the tenant to be out on or by 1st Sept... The housing officer has rejected it that twice on the most spurious of grounds. The tenant whilst initially upset on reflection realised it was a good thing to be moving on - he is close to being disabled, is diabetic, has to visit the hospital for dressings 3 times a week. He is looking for a ground floor flat or one served by a lift. The Tenant and I finally met with with the man yesterday and we now have a final leaving date of the end of Oct.

The tenants have been in the property for 21 years and in all that time I've only increased the rent by £75 (so I'm not profiteering - Jacob!). That lack of increase hasn't done the tenant any favours as the rent increase for a new place for them is quite large. In fact with Rachel Theives likely increases on CGT I haven't done myself any favours either.

One of the reasons I'm getting out of the business is the cost of improvements on a 1930's cottage; I've already spent £9k on insulation and a hefty sum on other improvements only some which I will see relief when I sell.

But according to Jacob you are a parasite and bleeding your tenants dry, apparently.

 

[woodieallen]

I compartmentalise my tenants into the following - (1) men who have left the family home due to relationship breakdown and are in need of temporary accommodation (2) young couples who want to try living together before making the commitment to buy somewhere together (3) temporary residents, people who have come in from out of town to fulfil a temporary employment contract or to rent before buying locally if permanent employment as they need to move in with speed (4) corporate lets, where a company wishes to provide accommodation for contractors, employees, visitors (5) people who don't want the responsibility of buying and maintaining a home (I do not understand this type of person but they do exist) (6) people who rent because they do not have the funds and are not able to borrow the funds to buy.
Currently my composition is (1) 40% (2) 25% (3)10% (4)0% (5)10% (6)15%. I provide houses that are finished to a higher standard than others in the locale. I charge a higher rental to reflect the added costs I incur and in the hope that I will attract tenants who look after houses. This may influence the composition of my tenant types. The question I have is once us "Rentiers have been euthanised", who is going to provide the accommodation for people in categories 1,2,3,4,5?

There's another category of renter and that is people who have sold their house and moving to a new area and need a base for six months to decide where to buy.

 

[Jacob]

But according to Jacob you are a parasite and bleeding your tenants dry, apparently.

No not at all Diver Fred said he's selling up anyway.
The general point I'm making is that the private sector has completely failed to solve the housing problem since it was freed up over 40 years ago. In fact it has made it worse and turned it into a disaster.
Like the curate's egg I'm sure it is excellent in parts but maybe you haven't seen the news lately: https://news.sky.com/story/dagenham...e-middle-of-having-cladding-replaced-13203744
This is 7 years after Grenfell Tower!!! and there are thousands of similar properties at risk.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The general point I'm making is that the private sector has completely failed to solve the housing problem ...

It's not the job of private sector to solve it.

 

[Jacob]

All social housing should be means tested. If people earning decent money choose to live in social housing they can pay a free market rent.

But free market rents are astronomical, which is the whole point of "social" housing.
Nobody who could afford a typical rent would choose to live in social housing. https://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/average-rent-london/

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Explain why I should subsidise through my taxes the rent of somebody who earns way more than me. I won't be holding my breath.

We have union leaders, good old socialists that they are, "earning" £100,000+ while living in social housing. Bob Crowe did - he "earned" £135,000 p. a. more than ten years ago.

 

[NorthernSteve]

There's another category of renter and that is people who have sold their house and moving to a new area and need a base for six months to decide where to buy.

You are correct, I've had a few of those over the years, not of late though

 

[NorthernSteve]

I wouldn't choose to live on the backs of my neighbours.

How is providing a service that people want, that helps them, living of their backs?

 

[NorthernSteve]

Explain why I should subsidise through my taxes the rent of somebody who earns way more than me. I won't be holding my breath.

We have union leaders, good old socialists that they are, "earning" £100,000+ while living in social housing. Bob Crowe did - he "earned" £135,000 p. a. more than ten years ago.

The cognitive dissonance that many socialists can live with is staggering.

 

[NorthernSteve]

But free market rents are astronomical, which is the whole point of "social" housing.
Nobody who could afford a typical rent would choose to live in social housing. https://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/average-rent-london/

London is exceptional, not least because the indigenous population is a minority, liberal immigration policies amongst other things have and will continue to outstrip housing supply. Looking at many parts of the UK, a 95% mortgage and rent are not far apart in terms of monthly cost. London can not be extrapolated to the rest of the UK.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I wouldn't choose to live on the backs of my neighbours.

People in social housing don't have those qualms.

 

[Jacob]

London is exceptional, not least because the indigenous population is a minority, liberal immigration policies amongst other things have and will continue to outstrip housing supply. Looking at many parts of the UK, a 95% mortgage and rent are not far apart in terms of monthly cost. London can not be extrapolated to the rest of the UK.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/property/what-now-costs-rent-home-25936813

"As of July 2024, the average monthly private rent in Birmingham, UK was £1,003, which is an 11.4% increase from July 2023. In the city center, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is between £900 and £1,200 per month, and a two-bedroom apartment can cost between £1,200 and £1,600 per month"
"As of April 2024, the average rent for properties in Derby, Derbyshire was £902 per month, which is a 7.1% increase from the previous year. Derby's rental market has seen strong demand, and the city offers relatively affordable property prices compared to other regions."

and so on. There is a massive housing crisis, with booming rent and house price increases.
Blaming immigrants is nonsense.
https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/housing/housing-supply/

 

[woodieallen]

Explain why I should subsidise through my taxes the rent of somebody who earns way more than me. I won't be holding my breath.

We have union leaders, good old socialists that they are, "earning" £100,000+ while living in social housing. Bob Crowe did - he "earned" £135,000 p. a. more than ten years ago.

Excellent point, Phil, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a sensible reply.

 

[Ozi]

Sounds like a very bad investment. I'd sell up if I were you.
Oh wait a minute - you will probably make a massive capital gain if you just hang on a bit longer.

I will indeed. Then I will pay tax on it, however much I might moan about that it's a good thing. What's left I will in due course pass to my children, also a good thing. That's how the world works, how it's supposed to work, why I still work. For our society to continue we on average must put in as much as we take out.

Despite your opinion to the contrary there is nothing wrong with one person owning anothers home. To feed my family I buy food from a shop I don't own, grown on farms I don't own, I drive there on roads I don't own, in a car I didn't build. In short I depend on the effort of others, they need an incentive to support me, call it capitalism if you will but good luck surviving without it. It's biggest problem is that the system requires either coercion or mutual respect. Our previous government was to me characterized by a monumental lack of respect for the people of this country, I place as much of the blame for recent riots on that as I do on the scum endangering life and livelihoods on our streets and none on the rightfully angry people protesting peacefully with the genuine grievances of having burdens disproportionately dumped on areas of our country least able to support them, I'm not expecting the current lot to solve this either. My point is to prosper we need to play by the rules, as tenants, as landlords, as tax payers at all levels and as politicians. How we deal with those who will not is important. It's important that it can be seen to support those who do in preference to those who do not. In a coercive society they disappear, in a more civilized society there have to be consequences, people who repeatedly trash houses and leave a trail of dept yet have the capability to abide by the rules should suffer those consequences. They don't because our councils then have a duty to house them personally I'd bring back work houses for people like that.

over and out

 

[Jacob]

I will indeed. Then I will pay tax on it, however much I might moan about that it's a good thing. What's left I will in due course pass to my children, also a good thing. That's how the world works, how it's supposed to work, why I still work. For our society to continue we on average must put in as much as we take out.

Despite your opinion to the contrary there is nothing wrong with one person owning anothers home. To feed my family I buy food from a shop I don't own, grown on farms I don't own, I drive there on roads I don't own, in a car I didn't build. In short I depend on the effort of others, they need an incentive to support me, call it capitalism if you will but good luck surviving without it. It's biggest problem is that the system requires either coercion or mutual respect. Our previous government was to me characterized by a monumental lack of respect for the people of this country, I place as much of the blame for recent riots on that as I do on the scum endangering life and livelihoods on our streets and none on the rightfully angry people protesting peacefully with the genuine grievances of having burdens disproportionately dumped on areas of our country least able to support them, I'm not expecting the current lot to solve this either. My point is to prosper we need to play by the rules, as tenants, as landlords, as tax payers at all levels and as politicians. How we deal with those who will not is important. It's important that it can be seen to support those who do in preference to those who do not. In a coercive society they disappear, in a more civilized society there have to be consequences, people who repeatedly trash houses and leave a trail of dept yet have the capability to abide by the rules should suffer those consequences. They don't because our councils then have a duty to house them personally I'd bring back work houses for people like that.

over and out

How would you solve the housing crisis?