Updating post from Reddit.
"Could be"? Already has been.
BlackRock are waiting in the wings to buy up all the properties landlords are selling it's collusion between government and corporations disgusting
Yep, and then all the people here who I'm stuck of calling me a parasite will be desperate for private landlords who actually care about their tenants.
But it'll be too late by then. They'll be one more step to their shelter being tied to a job, like healthcare in the USA is.
Yep - PE got into buying vets practices. Guess what - prices up by 30-40%+ and there is nothing you can do about it, except find a local vet that hasn’t sold out. The principle is identical - screw down costs, maximise profits. And if tenants don’t toe the line - they’ll be arguing with big corps and legal teams, who will have legal procedures off pat. Given the scale, they will have people whose sole jobs will be efficiently evicting tenants who cause trouble, and not taking on tenants who are likely to incur costs and reduce profits.
We REALLY need a new model of capitalism. This shareholder primacy/supremacy is DISGUSTING. People (and animals) are dying and suffering due to their greed.
End shareholder primacy
Or move away from capitalism all together.
Private for-profit rentals are only one aspect of the larger rental market. There are other alternatives but I suspect I’ll be banned from this sub for daring to mention something that challenges the status quo.
Is it appalling that asset management firms can buy up and hoard property - yes. That doesn't make it ok that many landlords squeeze as much profit as possible out of something essential for humans to survive.
To refer to large scale landlords as parasitic is a fitting metaphor as housing is essential for survival and they are sucking every penny possible out of the poor and working class. To hoard something that is finite, in short supply and essential for survival is not beneficial to society.
There are solutions that don't involve a significant percentage of our property market being owned by "investors"/landlords and asset management firms, you know. If only our government had been investing in social and low income housing and putting caps on how much property people can buy and rent out on Airbnb, such as in Switzerland, we wouldn't be in this position.
It's weird seeing that sentiment in the UK, there's still significant public housing stock even if it's lower than certain countries in the EU or Singapore which is a prime example of how to do it, even if highly localised. Australia went the private landlord route around the time the UK went more social housing, the Aussie model has shown itself to be a giant failure unless you're an investor, private landlords have way too much power for the service they're offering and investors just put even more pressure on supply. So you get shit value for money, less rights than everywhere in the EU, and no way out because it's unaffordable to buy.
And people want this model? People think landlords provide a necessary service rather than just being growth hindering rent seekers and a lazy out for a government that doesn't want to do its job
Don't expect that you yourself will escape the consequences of the US private equity take over.
I'm so benevolent type shi
The same private landlords that also increase their rent prices stupid amounts that cause mothers to commit suicide?
This might be an awful decision but to act like Private Landlords somehow care more about their tenants is laughable.
Still a parasite though
as someone who has rented from both, private landlords and large firms, I much prefer renting from the large firm. Not only do they care far more about me, they actually follow the law…
I've heard there is also an exemption on stamp duty if you are buying more than 8 properties at a time...
has to be from the same owner. So only really suits buying up new builds directly from the developer
That's even worse
Buy them up and do what with them, exactly?
They will rent them back out they have the resources to do it whilst most people rent one or two houses they will rent hundreds even thousands and the rent will go sky high trustme
"Trust me, bro".
Absolute rubbish. If anything, a huge corporation renting thousands of houses will have cheaper rents. Economies of scale and less greedy than some prat with a BMW M3 and an interest-only buy-to-let mortgage.
Anyway, BlackRock aren't buying up UK rental properties so you're talking shite.
You're on crack if you think a giant investment corporation is going to have lower prices than a private landlord because of "economies of scale".
It's a completely demand driven market with little supply. They can and do buy up large swathes of houses and can up cost across the board, they do not care about being undercut, this isn't someone who relies on the rent to pay their own mortgage.
I'm a little confused. Why would a huge corporation want to charge less for rent? How exactly did these huge corporations become "huge"? It's definitely not by being nice and empathetic to people. XD
>less greedy
Mate, they are literally HUGE corporation BECAUSE they are greed! Bru what?!
I think you're comparing properties with supermarket products.
Wishful thinking. There have already been examples of price gouging from corporate landlords in the US.
There are also loads of examples online where private equity has bought into the private rental sector over the last few years.....
unlike private landlords who are paragons of virtue and genorousity ofc.
It's absolutely the case. Look at Lloyds banking group, John Lewis, and the American PEs. If you don't know, don't comment. Simple.
L&G, Lloyds, Blackrock they are all at it.
But you don't know. John Lewis are building, creating supply. You're against more rentals?
I am against corporations owning absolutely everything. From the music you stream to the water you drink, and yes, to where people rent. They make obscene profits, legally avoid taxes, and are treated favourably by governments. Why? Because they yield influence due to their size and connections in governments and industry. Do you think it's a coincidence small Landlords have been exiting ever since the first of the tax reforms?
Tenants think Jim & Sue, the middle-aged Landlords, have power. Wait till the entire market is controlled by two or three megacorps, and you are a user ID on a system. Good luck negotiating a rental increase, or trying to explain your employer paid you late this month while you're charged admin fee. I mean you just need to look at America for what's coming.
So you're against more rental supply. Interesting take. I am a landlord, I'm not exiting.
> They make obscene profits,
Wrong again
I didn't realise I was debating a parrot. Polly wanna a cracker?
Edit: and now you've blocked me because you can't put a counterargument forward.
Ha. You're clearly unable to debate and are upset you were wrong to begin with. Nevermind eh.
The one thing prices don't do when there are huge monopolistic suppliers is go down.
For tenants to have real choice, there needs to be not just a choice of properties, but a choice of landlords. Forcing small BTL landlords out of the market to be replaced by large corporations is harmful to tenants who will see their choice of landlord reduced or even eliminated.
Also, how many PE investor-types do you know? They are mostly in it to maximise a return, and, done through a company, have the advantage that, unlike BTL mortgages, commercial loans are tax deductable.
They are. Its in the public domain.
"Trust me bro" - ie. do a google you cretin
Bollocks. Link or GTFO, parasite.
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
> If anything, a huge corporation renting thousands of houses will have cheaper rents.
Exactly! That's why diamonds are so cheap too! /s
Economies of scale relates to producing the same good for less-per-unit when manufactured at a larger scale. These homes are already produced and so they either have or haven't benefited from scale. Any investment firm wouldn't see that benefit, even if they were benevolent instead of profit-driven.
Thanks for Ur reply UV obviously been to the same school of economics as Donald trump Ur the one talking bollox
Rent them out.
When they pass the tipping point, they'll end up tied to jobs.
[deleted]
I was talking about UK housing not usa
BlackRock is absolutely not going to buy up thousands of individual houses and flats in converted houses across the UK. It would be a massive operational burden which would eat up most of the rental income. They can make more money on their investment with less risk elsewhere, especially when LL yields are low (eg building new blocks of build-to-rent flats which is becoming very common for institutional money).
If for arguments sake they really, really wanted to do this then they would just buy a company that already does it.
>we could see a landlord exodus when the new rules are introduced
You will see the same line verbatim on every change, all the way back to George Osborne taxing BTL on revenue instead of profit.
Some will certainly vacate; these rules are terrible for the bottom end of the market. I can't see how any landlord whose target market is DSS/LHA/Universal Credit tenants would think a new tenancy is viable. Others will shrug it off, just a bit more vetting or tougher requirements.
There won’t be any private landlords for the bottom end of the market IMO.
There’s a multi-flat DSS a few doors down from me, 9 flats all getting the standard rate from social services, how would that be at risk? (I think it’s rubbish BTW, forcing people to live in such cramped spaces, but that is a different conversation)
With the new regulation, tenants get three months of free rent until the landlord can take action. Then, they must arrange a court hearing, which will take months. Taking under a year to evict a tenant will be a win.
Remember, these are DSS tenants - no assets or income, so any CCJ is worthless. The deposit is capped at one month's rent.
Now multiply that by nine.
Unless you have a homeowner guarantor, it's going to get very difficult. So let's hope Angela Rayner can get those social houses built.
Housing doesn't get destroyed just because a landlord has to sell up. The housing is still there, despite the fact that the landlord has forgotten that the value of investments can go down as well as up.
Their investment hasnt lost value though, government regulations have just made renting it out too much of a liability
This will hurt renters as LLs exit and sell up to owner occupiers (driving up prices) or to PE funds who will seek higher yields (driving up prices)
The only solution to not having enough housing is to build more housing
It's going to be massively unpopular to say but there is enough housing. There is too much of the wrong type of housing owned by the wrong people. I can't find the link to the study now, but the findings suggest that we need much more social housing, much fewer single and dual occupancy dwellings and more densely packed housing.
You could not be more right, there needs to be far more social housing etc as you have said. But who is going to build it? The government? With what funding? Development companies have zero incentive.
Trick is not to incentivise them to do it, but rather tell them. In France the Local Authority will say 'we want x built here' and developers apply. In the UK LA's say 'we have this plot of land, who wants to build what and how much will you pay us? Hardly surprising we lack social housing with such a system.
Hang on...who gets given social housing? It's meant to be " those in need". In practise it seems to be mainly crooks and their associates. Most of the "single mum" seem to have dealer boyfriends or brothers etc Read the local paper, the vast majority of those caught for drug offences and violent crime are all living in social housing - why? Because they gave no legal source of income so they rent in the PRS
First and foremost, reform who receices social housing and have a way of removing the privilege for people who commit crime etc.
You sound like actual scum
>Most of the "single mum" seem to have dealer boyfriends or brothers etc Read the local paper, the vast majority of those caught for drug offences and violent crime are all living in social housing - why?
Because poor people commit more crime and poor people are more likely to be in need of social housing. It's not rocket science bloody hell
It's not about poverty. Plenty of poor people work hard. My parents did when we were young family. Social housing is handed out too easily. It is a safe harbour for criminal activity. If it was removed in the case of criminality, suddenly you would give a disincentive for criminal behaviour in council housing
Do poor people commit more crime or not?
Additionally, if you have unspent convictions you can't get social housing so
No I don't think the poor do commit more crime. Unspent convictions may block social housing for you, but your gf probably still has a council house, or your sister, or your mum, so you just use that as a base for your dealing / mugging/ stabbing
>No I don't think the poor do commit more crime
You're just divorced from reality.
… poor people are overwhelmingly more likely to be convicted of a crime and experience crime. Every available statistic we have confirms this.
Not only because poverty breeds desperation, poor mental health, etc, but because our legal system is emphatically pay-to-win.
Poverty is a loop where you enter it from bad family luck, bad genetic luck, or just flat bad luck (single mum with useless or gone dad), then you're stuck in it with an addiction or depression or a kid so the climb out becomes incredibly difficult (not impossible).
That some people have the traits to escape doesn't make them attainable to others, plenty of people escape poverty through hard work, but many more just don't have the capacity to simply 'learn to code' or otherwise pick themselves up out of it. These people still need housing else you enter a tailspin of crime, degeneracy, enclaves of disadvantage and eventually fascism (see: reform UK)
Australia and the US both have single digit social housing, both still have crime, the US in particular far more. It's all pegged to poverty mate
>Most of the "single mum" seem to have dealer boyfriends or brothers Read the local paper, the vast majority of those caught for drug offences and violent crime are all living in social housing
Wow. You don't see what's wrong with that reasoning? Really?
Not at all....I bought houses with council tenants in them. They have in large part ended up being crooks. Some charged with some very nasty offences prior to me becoming the landlord. Have booted them, too much headache
I'll take that as a "Yes."
Yes because we have such little council housing it will more likely go to people a small minority of people who know how to get it.
But if we had a lot more of of it, it would not only be available to a broader group of people but also mediate private housing costs down.
The fix is still more council housing lol
Agreed - so much so that houses struggle to sell.
I also think that there may be enough council housing, but it is poorly managed. Council housing shouldn't be for life, it should be to help deperate people get back on their feet. Once they have enough savings etc, they should be encouraged to move into private renatals or buy. Frreing up the council house for another homeless / desperate person.
There's not enough because if there were, then housing would be cheap enough to allow people who weren't desperate to move out of it. I think what you are describing would happen, and did happen, when there is enough social housing.
Wonder if we did build more housing how many landlords would leave the market.
I can see it now 'pushing down rent income will just make more landlords sell up to mega corps. This will hurt tenants'
> if we did build more housing how many landlords would leave the market.
Lots.
More rentals on the market = Lower rental prices
Funded by the regime? Rent control was a sure gem to quality safe housing.
Corporate landlords vs private
aka
You're not going to be paying less
This is inevitable. It's agglomeration of capital. Feature of our political economy, not a bug.
Whilst it is true that the same buildings will still exist, the usage generally differs between owner-occupied (typically a single family, even if only one person) and rented (far more likely to be shared between multiple adults, especially larger properties). So rental houses being turned into owner-occupation is likely to reduce the overall capacity available for renters even though the total number of properties is unchanged. London in particular is expected to see this happening.
But how can that be? I was told it was SAFE AS HOUSES. Checkmate, market forces.
Rental properties are lived in more densely than owner occupied properties. As in on average more people live in that house when it’s a rental.
When we have a problem with number of places to live, we don’t need to lower that number.
Yes it’s nicer to live in the property yourself, but as a population we live almost less densely than we ever have and we are seeing those problems in the market.
This is true, anecdotal but I knew a landlord who had a 7 bedroom hmo/bedsit setup. Refurbished and sold to a family. 7 people had to find new accommodation. Place wasn’t cheap either!
I think unlikely... probably the best-off 1/3 of renters will buy and the less-well-off 2/3 will be lodgers, presumably with banks taking that extra income into account when lending. Good for the ones who get to own, more mixed for those who don't... there are advantages to living with your landlord but lodgers have almost no rights and there's the possibility of some ugly kinds of exploitation.
Existing HMOs will likely be less affected since they're already jumping through many regulatory hoops.
Income from lodgers isn't acknowledged by mortgage providers because it's not stable or consistent. Either renters can afford to buy and will buy or a bigger landlord will come along and buy the property.
Most people won't take lodgers I mean yes it's tax free money up to 7.5k but there is alot of hassle which most people don't want to deal with. Also when you finally own your own home do you really want to go back to the good old days of sharing? Being a landlord for lodgers takes a certain kind of person same with being a lodger. It's definitely not for everyone.
Some lenders already will - and almost all offer buy-to-let mortgages for shared houses. So the product will be a buy-to-live-and-let mortgage, with a much larger pool of people looking to lodge to draw from.
But beyond that we're discussing a new paradigm. Shrinking private sector rented stock (assuming LL do exit due to a variety of factors) will drive current tenants somewhere - this seems like the seam that will give because it doesn't actually change anyone's personal circumstances much. No one on the street or back with their parents, for example.
If anything mortgage providers are becoming more risk adverse not less. We won't be seeing a product like that come on the market. Too many potential headaches. Not when there are plenty of cooperate landlord who can buy it instead. Mortgage providers generally have no issues giving constent to have lodgers but they definitely won't consider the income from it. Maybe you had the two things confused?
That puts some figures on it which gives a better view. I think it is already changing peoples circumstances. You might not notice it in your day to day life but I definitely know more people sofa surfing or living with their parents later in life because they can't find anywhere affordable.
I mean here's one: https://www.bathbuildingsociety.co.uk/mortgages/browse-mortgages-by-product-type/rent-a-room/
But you're not wrong, the corporate landlord is one of the other ways this could work out.
That's a very small building society. I stand corrected that they exist. I still very much doubt they will become the norm though especially for bigger financial institutions. Also I can see it working for some areas. Less so for others. Lodgers have so few protections compared to tenents and many people just wouldn't want to be in such an unsecured position.
I mean if your saying that corporate landlords smoothly replace private landlords but nothing really changes from a renters point of view then that could happen.
But if there's upheaval in the rental market as the article posits then there's going to be some upheaval. If we take the view of the whole housing market, then, there's basically the same number of people and the same number of houses, so, it's just a matter of how the pieces get shuffled around.
You mentioned people moving back with family, which can happen - but this describes a situation where those rented houses are now still bought by the best-off (eg) 1/3 of tenants, but for enough less money that they can afford them without lodgers - ie a bigger fall in house prices. Possible, but there'd be much resistance from homeowners to this.
>basically the same number of people and the same number of houses,
It's not though. Net immigration last year was what? 650k plus a not 0 or negative birth to death ratio. We only build 200k houses a year at most. Which is the biggest reason for the crisis atm. (BTW I'm not against immigration). The change to corporate landlords will be gradual though, it will only really start to bite when most rentals are with them. When they control the market they control what market rate is, they own all the properties and can easily black list someone so they can never rent privately again. They have so much money they can buy any house outright outbidding any potential home owners. Also they funnel all their profit offshore so pay minimal UK tax. They will squeeze as much money as possible out of it while letting it all rot and then get the tax payer to bail them out when everything is crumbling, just look at the water companies.
I think you are putting too much faith in changing to a lodgers system. I have lodgers. The extra money is lovely and makes a huge difference to our lives. But it is also painful in many ways and definitely not a long term thing for us. I can see that many people would never entertain the idea. I'd hate to be in a position where I was relying on lodgers to pay the mortgage. I think the stress would kill me.
This logic is so short sighted and frankly idiotic.
The ratio is not 1:1. These properties do not just enter some majestic pool of freely available housing stock for renters.
Who owns the property now? What relationship will you have with them as a tenant?
Private landlords are a hell of a lot nicer to their tenants than a PE firm.
Yes some landlords are scumlord crims, but thats society as a whole.
Increasing regulation and more tax changes have been reducing the number of houses for rent for a decade now. The number of properties being sold by landlords has been higher than purchases since 2014. A government survey in December showed that 31% of landlords are planning to sell off at least some of their properties.
This is one of the reasons that rents have been rising so much, fewer properties available for rent for the same number of renters. As we build so few houses in this country sell offs can easily be absorbed by the owner occupier sector without affecting prices. It's not as if most private renter's have the deposit or income required to buy a property.
I wonder why they can’t buy a property… its a mystery
As a private landlord,
"Fine! I'll jack my prices because the market is going that way"
I don’t get the headline, are the landlords taking the houses with them and are no longer available?
Rental properties are not energy. They can go out of supply and/or be destroyed.
big companies will just buy up the small guys
First paragraph, a ban on biding wars, means we are just gonna ask higher rents anyway, and the article has the audacity to imply it's legislation that will reduce the supply of 'affordable housing' not the actors.
Already happening.
It’s not good.
The UK needs a certain % of the housing market available for rent.
Not everyone can or wants to own all the time. Uber stupid decision making first from the Tories and now from Labour.
Anecdotal but my previous landlord literally said to me as soon as this was given a date to be enacted he would evict me. I've since bought a house.
A reduction in landlords isn’t necessarily a bad thing for everyone.
Affordable ?
Wait. Landlords were providing affordable housing?
Yes, otherwise the properties would be empty.
Lol
"affordable" is subjective. Market rate is more accurate.
Sounds suspect. One means someone can afford it. The other means, screw you if you can’t afford the ‘market’ which has been inflated by a number of predatory practices.
I'd like to live in a penthouse flat in the centre of London. I cannot "afford" it. Where should my anger be aimed?
Edit: another muppet that can't handle differing opinions and just blocks. Grow up
I’m sure you can figure it out.
Some do. They keep rent at lha rates and may not increase it for years.
Why keep thinking something which may not happen? I read a news said Tories landlord would stop the bills at the end.
Labour has a huge majority, Tories can do nothing but shout from the sideliness but remember this is a Tory bill anyway. Labour mainly just gave it a new name.
Change your news sources, they are weird.
The bill now is in house of lords. They have power to stop the bills.
What? Do the houses disappear or something?
And what’s going to happen to all these homes in order to reduce the supply?
Will they be dismantled and transported brick by brick to China?…
No. They will be sold to people who actually want to live in them. Or…to other landlords!
This is such a stupid belief, that landlords actually supply anything to the market. Other than their bank details.
Are we still this dumb?
the landlords who are able to exit have exited, the pones who are still landlords are stuck. landlords that have bought years ago have much higher CGT, those recent landlords probably have luttle to no CGT because prices platued for the last 3 years
Exactly what we need to stabilise price increases
I hope they break the "category"
It will affect the housing market with a probable crash if substantial numbers of let properties go on sale. Word to the wise, the decision makers are well aware and will most likely be eyeing a discounted housing market.
The numbers are too low to have much effect on house prices.
There's a supply of affordable housing?
Landlords don't provide housing the hoard it.
Sounds like a great change to the rules honestly. Parasites.
In other news, water is wet
Do houses cease to exist when a landlord sells them?
No but most tenanted properties are more densely populated than owner occupied. Combine that with the population increasing far quicker than we are building and we will continue to have a housing shortage. Supply and demand says prices go up on every front.
...The houses aren't collapsing with them, they'll still be on the market.
No it wont.
Landlords aren't going to stop their income because they have to give an extra months notice. Honestly the whining is just pathetic at this point. Whenever the most insubstantial amount of tenant rights happens they all just throw their toys out the pram and cry.
I'm still waiting for the big "exodus" the moment they Government stopped Landlords arbitrarily banning pets. Any day now right?
If you think they are complaining just about an extra month in arrears, you've not been listening.
There will be no exodus. What else can landlords do for money? Insurance claim deniers?
Dump the money in a low cost etf
An exodus of landlords who operate on margins tight enough to be concerned by the renters rights bills will result in more affordable housing, given that at least some of those houses will be bought for cheaper by people who will actually live in them.
There are currently simply too many landlords and not enough owner occupiers (particularly in younger demographics). Regulations that shift the balance to a more sustainable long term future are good.
Any good landlord should welcome these measures.
You’re right in saying what should happen, but the concern is that the houses will just get bought up by the big corpos and not the couple down the road
I'm a mortgage broker and one of my clients has 53 properties. All starter home type properties in the north of England. He has sold them all off to larger company investors. None have gone to personal ownership.
I can't imagine the new owners will keep rents as they are as the guy hadn't raised them for years.
Simply a case of priorities.
If you have two categories of business:
-
has 4 trigger points that cause price increases
-
has the same 4 trigger points that cause price increases, but also has one additional trigger.
The supply is limited, therefore the group who don’t have the extra price increase sensitivity are free to simply increase their margin when the other group get forced to increase prices. This is a race to the bottom.
There’s loads wrong with the first group as well, but there is a blatant issue that is easily fixed.
The idea that all the properties would simply get bought by the big companies doesn’t scan either. Big companies are already well capable of squeezing smaller landlords out with the flick of a pen. BTL mortgages are often used for properties which don’t come at scale. Those would certainly increase in owner occupancy were BTLs banned or disincentivised beyond viability.
Of course there is a more conspiratorial line of thinking, that big landlords benefit from the lobbying arguments that the existence of unsustainable small holdings bring. Or that the UKs mismanagement of the cost of living and the availability of retirement funds means there is a massive over reliance on property investment to fund an aging population. But neither of those things work as arguments against a current housing and homelessness crisis that requires urgent action.
[deleted]
Seems like a great idea to lump everyone into the same box.