No tax rises

I’m sure their are professionals who make money but most landlords aren’t, it’s just like pubs and restaurants some do well a great many do not because they aren’t or have the wrong property in the wrong area.

David49

I’m sure their are professionals who make money but most landlords aren’t, it’s just like pubs and restaurants some do well a great many do not because they aren’t or have the wrong property in the wrong area.

Oh yes, they are professionals. Some landlords have a portfolio with hundreds of properties. Some of the biggest estates are worth billions.

The Duke of Westminster is the UK's richest landlord - I hardly think he fixes leaky taps himself.

A handful of landlords own the majority of rental properties. Some, like my ex-husband, own between 10 and 20.

Incidentally, your friend should consider selling one of the properties as soon as a tenant vacates. He could then employ a contractor to use the proceeds to refurb the other properties and pay an agent to manage them on a day-to-day basis. If he wants to get rid of the properties, he needs to wait until tenants vacate and sell them off gradually.

There is clearly some disagreement over the profitability of being a landlord. I don't know if this is helpful. Taken from the government's English private landlords survey 2024.(Note 'English', figures might be different in Scotland, Wales and NI)

I feel the figures support both contentions.

45% of landlords owned one rental property, representing 21% of tenancies.

A further 38% owned between two and four rental properties, representing 30% of tenancies.

17% of landlords owned five or more properties each, representing 49% of tenancies.

So, although it appears that most English private landlords have relatively few properties, it is noticeable that the 17% who own 5 or more properties represent almost as many tenancies as the 83% who own 5 or fewer properties. There are some big timers who have considerable influence on the market. And, presumably, hold onto their properties as they give a good return on their 'investment'. I can't see them as being landlords just augmenting their pensions...

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-private-landlord-survey-2024-main-report/english-private-landlord-survey-2024-main-report

“The Duke of Westminster is the UK's richest landlord - I hardly think he fixes leaky taps himself.”

I don’t think he’s going to be looking for a buy to let mortgage either.

If an urgent repair needs to be done, why would getting it done to a B2L be any different to getting it done to one’s own home? I have home insurance which gives me 24 hour emergency cover on certain things. I assume the same can be obtained for B2L.

If people have any sense they also have a contact list of tradespeople they know to be reliable who will come out and fix non-urgent things within a reasonable time. In fact, it is my decorator, who I have known for 20 years, who has proved me with names of carpenters, electricians, plumbers etc when people I have employed in the past have retired or moved away.

You won’t get the same return on simple cash investments and, unless very, very lucky, you won’t see the same return on stocks and shares for many years. This was the argument many people were putting forward a few months ago, especially older people, when Emma Reynolds was talking about potential moves to reduce cash ISA savings limits to encourage people to invest in the stock market. No guaranteed return on S&S and a long wait for growth.

Even with agents fees at the upper end, B2L on a property owned outright with average maintenance costs will still net short term more than a cash investment on which there is no capital growth and why so many people are doing this.

Why do people who form personal relationships and decide to co-habit, keep one of the two properties they individually own and rent it out? I know many people who do this. Why don’t they sell the one they no longer need? Why do people who inherit properties with no sitting tenant, so no contractual obligation, keep them and rent them out? Ditto. Why do people deliberately B2L?

Why has Homes Under the Hammer been on our screens for so many years and why are the questions at the end all about rental income and profit? It's a boring format. Buy a house. Tart it up. Rent it or sell it on. Not all auction properties are wrecks. They all do it as they know they make will make more money more quickly than they could from any other investment and for very little effort in many cases. If it was such a bother they wouldn’t bother.

I have no personal experience of this and have no wish to, only what I hear from the many people I know who don’t find owning rentals onerous at all. They see it as easy money.

It offends me that so many people consider domestic property as a vehicle for personal gain while others struggle to find anywhere affordable to live. It needs to be taxed more highly as a deterrent. It might deter the hobbyists and the Rachmanites who want the personal gain but don’t want to provide a decent service to tenants paying exhorbitant rents. I'd introduce rent control at the same time.

It offends me that so many people consider domestic property as a vehicle for personal gain while others struggle to find anywhere affordable to live. It needs to be taxed more highly as a deterrent. It might deter the hobbyists and the Rachmanites who want the personal gain but don’t want to provide a decent service to tenants paying exhorbitant rents. I'd introduce rent control at the same time

I totally agree Silverbrooks.

I’d go even further.

In my view, in a country where many people have nowhere to live, no-one should be allowed to own more than one property.

I find the terms ‘property portfolio’ and ‘the property is my pension pot’ offensive.

If you don’t need the property to live in yourself, sell it, so that someone else may have the chance to own their own home - a property is a home not a bluddy pension pot. No individual should be allowed to own a ‘property portfolio’.

I believe second / third / fourth etc home ownership should be outlawed. When someone purchases a house, the contract should state they must live in it.

And as for ‘but to let mortgages’ - despicable!

David49

“The Duke of Westminster is the UK's richest landlord - I hardly think he fixes leaky taps himself.”

I don’t think he’s going to be looking for a buy to let mortgage either.

I don't understand the relevance of your last sentence.

However - think about it! It would make a huge difference to the country's economy if the Duke of Westminster sold his property portfolio and invested it in more productive businesses (he won't, of course, because property generates so much money and there's almost no risk).

I agree LizzieDrip. It's part of the reason my ex-husband is my ex. He's lazy but likes the finer things in life and that was reflected in our relationship as well as his choice about generating an income. Not only that, but he's just inherited half of his mother's property portfolio (and the b wouldn't even pay me maintenance when we divorced - gggrrr! - but that's personal to me).

Thanks for the stats Maizie. I knew the gist of them, but I didn't have the details to hand. My son wrote his MSc dissertation about residential property ownership, so knows how it works. He's also a rebel, which is why he now works for a not-for-profit housing association - despite his father's business.

Well done to your son growstuff👏

If anyone wants to make their blood boil even more on this hot day, here are some 2024 stats on empty homes from Action on Empty Homes - almost a million.

On average, one in every 26 properties is standing empty.

One story that sticks in my minds is from 2017, when Kensington council was struggling to find accommodation for survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire. Meantime 1 in every 8 properties in the borough stood empty - almost 11,000 at the last count.

static1.squarespace.com/static/6553693f7d629a133b6a4ece/t/673e128bbaec355e0f66be58/1732121228754/TotalVacancy2024AtoZ.pdf

www.actiononemptyhomes.org/

I think there is a fair bit of envy from many of these comments.
If, as has been suggested, all the small landlords with 1 or 2 properties were to sell up where would their tenants go? They wouldn't be eligible for council/social housing so basically you would be making them homeless and who do you suppose would buy these properties? Not these tenants who might not want to buy or might be unable to afford the deposit required.
We owned an ex-council flat in central London which had a lovely gentleman tenant for many years. We wanted to sell but we were very worried (as was he) about making him homeless. There would have been no way, as a single man, he would have been housed by the council. I spent weeks looking at alternatives for him and finally found him a lovely flat in sheltered accommodation in an outer borough, but it wasn't easy.
Many private landlords help the local councils with their housing, suggestions that all landlords be made to sell is very shortsighted

growstuff

David49

“The Duke of Westminster is the UK's richest landlord - I hardly think he fixes leaky taps himself.”

I don’t think he’s going to be looking for a buy to let mortgage either.

I don't understand the relevance of your last sentence.

However - think about it! It would make a huge difference to the country's economy if the Duke of Westminster sold his property portfolio and invested it in more productive businesses (he won't, of course, because property generates so much money and there's almost no risk).

Exactly the same as your reference to leaky taps

I find the terms ‘property portfolio’ and ‘the property is my pension pot’ offensive.

My niece, now a single mum, who’s been working hard at several jobs to pay her mortgage, but none of her jobs include a decent pension.
So when she inherited a property that she decided to rent out to give her a pension, you think that’s wrong?
If she sold it, the money would soon vanish, disappear in taxes etc.
We sold my parent’s house, rather than rent it out, partly because the money needed to be split.
The person who bought it rents it out. I wish we’d kept it.

That really has got my blood boiling Silverbrooks. It’s so unfair!

If all the rental properties (many of which are terraced, small semis etc) were put on the property market, young people e.g. first time buyers would have a chance of getting a foot on that, currently elusive, property ladder - owning their own home rather than being locked into the rental trap.

Many owners of multiple properties have benefited from that property ladder in the past - but have now well and truly pulled up the ladder to stop others accessing it

I think there is a fair bit of envy from many of these comments

Ha, ha - I was waiting for the ‘envy’ comment.

It’s not about envy, it’s about fairness!

Indeed, LizzieDrip. I am sure many FTB would like the opportunity to buy a long term empty property that they could do up. Back in the 1970s when I was young, that's what a lot of young people did to get started and make their first home. Now they are all bought up by "developers" to make a fast buck.

sundowngirl. There is no envy here.

Of course, there was always a private rental sector but never to the extent that it has grown since Thatcher’s Right to Buy and the consequences of the 2008 financial crash. A global crash that began in the USA becuse people could not afford their mortgages has resulted in some people here owning multiple properties while some cannot afford anything at all. How is that fair?

May I ask, how is it that you own an ex-council flat? Had around 3 million local authority properties not been sold since 1980, there wouldn’t be a need for private landlords to fill the gap and there would be sufficient accommodation for single dwellers in the first place.

41% of ex-local authority properties are now being rented out by private landlords at three or four times social rent often paid for by housing benefis. That is scandalous and profiteering on a grand scale.

Mollygo

^I find the terms ‘property portfolio’ and ‘the property is my pension pot’ offensive.^

My niece, now a single mum, who’s been working hard at several jobs to pay her mortgage, but none of her jobs include a decent pension.
So when she inherited a property that she decided to rent out to give her a pension, you think that’s wrong?
If she sold it, the money would soon vanish, disappear in taxes etc.
We sold my parent’s house, rather than rent it out, partly because the money needed to be split.
The person who bought it rents it out. I wish we’d kept it.

What I think is wrong is that there doesn't appear to be another place where she could invest her money, which would be as safe and give such a high yield, but be of more benefit to society and the economy.

PS. Maybe she should read some of the comments on here - allegedly letting property is hard work and doesn't make the landlord any money. Hmmm ...! (I wonder which is true)

No envy here either! I'm a very contented person.

David49

growstuff

David49

“The Duke of Westminster is the UK's richest landlord - I hardly think he fixes leaky taps himself.”

I don’t think he’s going to be looking for a buy to let mortgage either.

I don't understand the relevance of your last sentence.

However - think about it! It would make a huge difference to the country's economy if the Duke of Westminster sold his property portfolio and invested it in more productive businesses (he won't, of course, because property generates so much money and there's almost no risk).

Exactly the same as your reference to leaky taps

Errr ... not at all!

Mollygo

^I find the terms ‘property portfolio’ and ‘the property is my pension pot’ offensive.^

My niece, now a single mum, who’s been working hard at several jobs to pay her mortgage, but none of her jobs include a decent pension.
So when she inherited a property that she decided to rent out to give her a pension, you think that’s wrong?
If she sold it, the money would soon vanish, disappear in taxes etc.
We sold my parent’s house, rather than rent it out, partly because the money needed to be split.
The person who bought it rents it out. I wish we’d kept it.

Personally would have advised her to pay her own mortgage off as first prority that’s always the safest investment and untaxed unless there is a very good reason why not.

growstuff

No envy here either! I'm a very contented person.

Me too growstuff.

First house bought (as a young couple) in mid 70s; tiny little terraced house with no bathroom. Did it up bit by bit. Turned it into our happy little family home. Sold it (to another young couple actually) in 80s.

Moved up to next rung of property ladder - small semi-detached. Sold it in 90s.

Moved up to next rung - small detached, where we still live, very happily. That’s how the property ladder should work.

My daughter and her husband have done similar with their house moves, even though they could afford to buy a second property and rent it out - they choose not to.

We’ve viewed each house we’ve owned as our family home not a pension pot or cash cow. We’ve made profit on each house sale, enabling us to move gradually up that ladder. That’s been more than enough for us, and I feel sad that many young people today simply won’t ever experience what we’ve experienced.

No reason to feel envious here

I don’t like the term property ladder as it suggests something that has to be climbed.

We need something better to describe the natural progression from one place to another as family needs change. Young person or couple starting out ➡︎ arrival of children ➡︎ changing jobs and so on.

The capital gain is incidental and just a reflection of general inflation over time, supply and demand and other market forces at the time e.g. interest rates.

I do think TV is responsible for encouraging property greed. The schedule are filled with property porn.

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jul/13/property-porn-tv-homes-housing-crisis-uk

Silverbrooks

I don’t like the term property ladder as it suggests something that has to be climbed.

We need something better to describe the natural progression from one place to another as family needs change. Young person or couple starting out ➡︎ arrival of children ➡︎ changing jobs and so on.

The capital gain is incidental and just a reflection of general inflation over time, supply and demand and other market forces at the time e.g. interest rates.

I do think TV is responsible for encouraging property greed. The schedule are filled with property porn.

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jul/13/property-porn-tv-homes-housing-crisis-uk

Agreed Silverbrooks. The likes of Homes under the Hammer etc have got a lot to answer for!

Take your point about the term ‘property ladder’ but couldn’t think of another way to describe my own particular experience. I agree that every house move doesn’t necessarily have to be a ‘step up’ as the term ‘ladder’ implies.

Of course, for many would be first time buyers the term ‘home ownership’ is now just a pipe dream.

If something is a ladder it doesn't follow you need to climb it.

I have climbed lots of ladders for all sorts of reasons, and have never felt any desire to get to the top of any of them. Just far enough to feel secure and do properly the job I ascended it tto do.