Bastard Landlords Part II

[Brains]

Absolutely. In fact, the request for no DSS is illegal but agents and landlords still do it.

"No Blacks, No Irish" was the old traditional one, this indeed would be illegal, discriminiation, racist etc.
"No DSS" however is because of the appaling reputation of the DSS have in paying the right amount on the right day. They are simply incapable of operating on a commercial basis. Therefore, their reputation precedes them, they will not be touched with a barge pole by any commercial operator unless they are charging a massive premium to deal with such a dreadful organisation

http://www.newsmedianews.com/no-dss.php

 

[Gromit]

Discriminating against someone, my friend for instance who through no fault of her own will never be able to work again due to a major f**k up by the NHS after a cycling accident. She is on benefits, if for some reason her partner left her and she needed to apply for housing benefit to pay her rent she would be in a bad situation with a landlord who didn't want to let a house to someone in recite of benefits. Would you turf a disabled person out onto the streets? Money grabbing landlords would........

 

[Brains]

The reason why Landlords are well aware of how bad the DSS are is because we have usually had the bad experiences that the tenants get.

I currently have one family who have been on benefits for over a year now. Lucky they had enough savings to make up the difference when the DSS were predictably months late in paying.

I am not a bank.
I don't loan money
I don't charge interest.
I don't do credit
My business is providing a roof, you pay for the roof, you get the roof

 

[SteelUn]

Interesting that you see only those alternatives and the thought of small local startups and the like doesn't enter your head. Not that I consider you unusual in that respect but this very attitude is right at the core of economic problems. It's 'rent seeking' activity, using the term in the broader context so please excuse the pun effect it has in this case. Now I'm sure you would reply along the lines of how hard you work etc, but that only means you haven't risen far enough, nor captured enough wealth, to have the hard work all done by others.

Cornering part of a scarce resource, that you don't personally intend to use, and then leveraging it for your own ends isn't actually helping the economy in any way shape or form. I'm afraid that on the economic scales you would count as a drain not a service.

I can understand why some people would think these are reasonable and upstanding points.

It is because they haven't thought it through or don't know, e.g., that the typical target return requirement for investing equity in small startups is 25% p.a. and up - nobody can survive for less because of their high failure rate. What proportion of "business ideas" that have gone to the Dragon's Den do you think have a chance of making good?

In comparison, currently the average yield (rent divided by property value) for residential rental property in this country is approximately 5% p.a. with slight (+/- ~1%) variation based on e.g. location, size of property. 5% also happens to be roughly the same as the current mortgage interest rate of a 75% mortgage - without capital gains to speak of at present, most landlords are subsidising their tenants' cost of living, although this is not and can not be the case over a long time span.

If there are no rental properties, everybody will have to own the property they live in (assuming properties are not generally available for free, probably a safe assumption). The rental market is a fundamental enabler for workforce mobility.

 

[Gromit]

The reason why Landlords are well aware of how bad the DSS are is because we have usually had the bad experiences that the tenants get.

I currently have one family who have been on benefits for over a year now. Lucky they had enough savings to make up the difference when the DSS were predictably months late in paying.

I am not a bank.
I don't loan money
I don't charge interest.
I don't do credit
My business is providing a roof, you pay for the roof, you get the roof

So you would see someone out on the street after having a serious accident making them disabled? I think that is typical of landlords.

There are going to be a lot of family's out on the street once these cuts start taking effect. As long as landlords have a portfolio of houses that they can rent out for ridiculous amounts of money over inflating the rental market price as well as the housing market in general.

People who have more than one property should be made to sell them to allow a young couple or family just starting out to be able to afford to buy. There should be enough state housing to afford people who may not be able to buy a place to live.

People who wish to live in the places they were born in should be allowed to without fear that the second homers are pricing them out of the market. village economies should not be left at a standstill because holiday homes are occupied for a few months at a time.

The first rung of Maslow's hierarchy of need states that the first rung of the ladder for a persons sense of well being, the basic needs is to have food in their belly and a place to live in order for them to feel safe. If the economy stopped encouraging greed and put buying property as the forefront of investment there would possibly be no homelessness.

 

[Spinney]

So you would see someone out on the street after having a serious accident making them disabled? I think that is typical of landlords.

There are going to be a lot of family's out on the street once these cuts start taking effect. As long as landlords have a portfolio of houses that they can rent out for ridiculous amounts of money over inflating the rental market price as well as the housing market in general.

People who have more than one property should be made to sell them to allow a young couple or family just starting out to be able to afford to buy. There should be enough state housing to afford people who may not be able to buy a place to live.

People who wish to live in the places they were born in should be allowed to without fear that the second homers are pricing them out of the market. village economies should not be left at a standstill because holiday homes are occupied for a few months at a time.

The first rung of Maslow's hierarchy of need states that the first rung of the ladder for a persons sense of well being, the basic needs is to have food in their belly and a place to live in order for them to feel safe. If the economy stopped encouraging greed and put buying property as the forefront of investment there would possibly be no homelessness.

Bit of a simplistic view?
You are advocating no homes rented out at all by private owners, it seems. You only mention state-owned rental properties for folks who cannot afford to buy.

So - no-one can rent a cottage to stay in for their holidays? Lots of second home owners rent out their property for holiday lets.

Someone moving to a new area for a job has to buy a house there before they move? What if the job only lasts 6 months? It takes about 2 months to buy a house if you have the cash, nearer 3 if you need to get a mortgage, and moving quickly is virtually impossible if you have to sell your current house first, which will be the case for most folks.

Someone's getting divorced and needs to move out from the family home asap. Do they have to buy a house before they can move out? Or might it just be better if there was a house they could rent for 6 months while they sorted themselves out?

 

[MacB]

I can understand why some people would think these are reasonable and upstanding points.

It is because they haven't thought it through or don't know, e.g., that the typical target return requirement for investing equity in small startups is 25% p.a. and up - nobody can survive for less because of their high failure rate. What proportion of "business ideas" that have gone to the Dragon's Den do you think have a chance of making good?

In comparison, currently the average yield (rent divided by property value) for residential rental property in this country is approximately 5% p.a. with slight (+/- ~1%) variation based on e.g. location, size of property. 5% also happens to be roughly the same as the current mortgage interest rate of a 75% mortgage - without capital gains to speak of at present, most landlords are subsidising their tenants' cost of living, although this is not and can not be the case over a long time span.

If there are no rental properties, everybody will have to own the property they live in (assuming properties are not generally available for free, probably a safe assumption). The rental market is a fundamental enabler for workforce mobility.

Nice idea, but wrong, you're making an assumption about lack of thought without considering the context of the reply, in that it was merely highlighting that investment examples had been chosen to try and show 'landlording' in a better light. I'm not sure why you leap to the idea that I'm suggesting some sort of solo Dragons Den approach. Personally I think microfinance is the way to go in this respect and if you don't know what that is you can look it up. It doesn't have to be invested in startups only, that was just one of the alternates.

I also didn't suggest that there would be no rental properties, rather that property ownership would be limited to one title deed per person...not company....person. The State would have no such limitation and would need to buy up the excess property anyway. Nothing to stop a person owning a property, renting it out and renting accomodation for themselves from the State, or a couple/partnership doing the same. Think of it as some more QE from the State that frees up the housing market and forces capital into growth style, rather than rent seeking, investment. We'd still have right to buy in place, it would just stop individuals hoarding a scarce resource that is an essential for living. If they want to try and hoard in non-essentials then that's entirely up to them.

 

[Gromit]

Bit of a simplistic view?
You are advocating no homes rented out at all by private owners, it seems. You only mention state-owned rental properties for folks who cannot afford to buy.

So - no-one can rent a cottage to stay in for their holidays? Lots of second home owners rent out their property for holiday lets.

Someone moving to a new area for a job has to buy a house there before they move? What if the job only lasts 6 months? It takes about 2 months to buy a house if you have the cash, nearer 3 if you need to get a mortgage, and moving quickly is virtually impossible if you have to sell your current house first, which will be the case for most folks.

Someone's getting divorced and needs to move out from the family home asap. Do they have to buy a house before they can move out? Or might it just be better if there was a house they could rent for 6 months while they sorted themselves out?

Most holiday homes stand empty for a lot of the year, there are places in Cornwall for instance that turn into ghost towns, local shops and business close because there are one to trade with. The people who were born there have been priced out of the market having to move elsewhere because of the high demand for second homes.

Housing needs to be seen as a basic right for all and gainful employment for much longer than 6 months needed to give people a sense of safety and self worth.

 

[Gromit]

Nice idea, but wrong, you're making an assumption about lack of thought without considering the context of the reply, in that it was merely highlighting that investment examples had been chosen to try and show 'landlording' in a better light. I'm not sure why you leap to the idea that I'm suggesting some sort of solo Dragons Den approach. Personally I think microfinance is the way to go in this respect and if you don't know what that is you can look it up. It doesn't have to be invested in startups only, that was just one of the alternates.

I also didn't suggest that there would be no rental properties, rather that property ownership would be limited to one title deed per person...not company....person. The State would have no such limitation and would need to buy up the excess property anyway. Nothing to stop a person owning a property, renting it out and renting accomodation for themselves from the State, or a couple/partnership doing the same. Think of it as some more QE from the State that frees up the housing market and forces capital into growth style, rather than rent seeking, investment. We'd still have right to buy in place, it would just stop individuals hoarding a scarce resource that is an essential for living. If they want to try and hoard in non-essentials then that's entirely up to them.

+1

 

[ASC1951]

The State would have no such limitation ...... Nothing to stop a person owning a property, renting it out and renting accomodation for themselves from the State, or a couple/partnership doing the same......... it would just stop individuals hoarding a scarce resource that is an essential for living. If they want to try and hoard in non-essentials then that's entirely up to them.

Ah, State monopoly of essential services. An economic failure in every country that has been deluded into trying it.

Never mind, it is still a success in Lala Land. And is fiercely advocated by people who have never lived there.

 

[MacB]

Ah, State monopoly of essential services. An economic failure in every country that has been deluded into trying it.

Never mind, it is still a success in Lala Land. And is fiercely advocated by people who have never lived there.

You think? then best you brush up on your reading and comprehension, had you said State monopoly of the surplus of essential services then you would have been correct....but don't let the facts get in the way of your devastating put down

But then, if memory serves, you're one that thinks privatisation has been a rip roaring success

 

[Gromit]

Ah, State monopoly of essential services. An economic failure in every country that has been deluded into trying it.

Never mind, it is still a success in Lala Land. And is fiercely advocated by people who have never lived there.

If you value the gain of money and materialistic wealth over the basic human needs.

 

[Brains]

So you would see someone out on the street after having a serious accident making them disabled? I think that is typical of landlords.

There are going to be a lot of family's out on the street once these cuts start taking effect. As long as landlords have a portfolio of houses that they can rent out for ridiculous amounts of money over inflating the rental market price as well as the housing market in general.

People who have more than one property should be made to sell them to allow a young couple or family just starting out to be able to afford to buy. There should be enough state housing to afford people who may not be able to buy a place to live.

People who wish to live in the places they were born in should be allowed to without fear that the second homers are pricing them out of the market. village economies should not be left at a standstill because holiday homes are occupied for a few months at a time.

The first rung of Maslow's hierarchy of need states that the first rung of the ladder for a persons sense of well being, the basic needs is to have food in their belly and a place to live in order for them to feel safe. If the economy stopped encouraging greed and put buying property as the forefront of investment there would possibly be no homelessness.

I am not a bank.
I don't loan money
I don't charge interest.
I don't do credit
My business is providing a roof, you pay for the roof, you get the roof

I should also add I am not a social service,
If I did not chuck out a family who did not pay their rent, guess who's family is going to be the next one on the streets ?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I am not a bank.
I don't loan money
I don't charge interest.
I don't do credit
My business is providing a roof, you pay for the roof, you get the roof

I should also add I am not a social service,
If I did not chuck out a family who did not pay their rent, guess who's family is going to be the next one on the streets ?

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the big thing in business these days. I take it you don't think you have any social responsibility at all?

This may be a very western attitude. In contrast, when I lived in Japan, it was considered essential for landlords and tenants to have some kind of good social relationship that went beyond what was paid or provided. That wasn't always what tenants wanted, mind you!

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

Ah, State monopoly of essential services. An economic failure in every country that has been deluded into trying it.

Never mind, it is still a success in Lala Land. And is fiercely advocated by people who have never lived there.

It has considerable advantages. If you fall foul of the authorities, then you can be evicted. Rioters who have private accommodation can't be evicted by the council.