Every seven minutes a private renter in England is given eviction notice even though they have done nothing wrong.

MerylStreep

Callistemon
Tell me about it ? I had money in Equitable life and Robert Maxwell took a shine to the company pension fund where I worked.
My money was certainly safer in property ?

Yes, my SisIL's pension went overboard with Maxwell.

Signed. I don't think people should be vilified for owning properties I do think there should be a system which ensures that fair rents are charged and families are not priced out of property. It seems very wrong to me that some people should be making huge profits whilst others can't afford to live anywhere and are forced into inadequate emergency housing for years. It seems very wrong to me that there are companies making huge profits from public money for providing substandard accommodation www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/13/private-landlords-profits-housing-crisis-homelessness-councils-england

Signed.
I do think if someone is making a 15% return on their property they can afford to lower the rent. Private rentals are much higher than council housing and leave many with little to live on.

Is that 15% figure not dependent on different areas nationwide though? And even locally, the landlord who invests in the right kind of property on the right side of the track will naturally charge a higher rent and see a higher return. I'm guessing in some places the figure might be half the 15% figure mentioned.

I thought 15% yield was unlikely, so I checked. According to HomeLet's Rental Index, the average UK rental yield sits at 3.38%. Therefore, anything over that percentage can be considered a good rental yield.5 Oct 2021

Casdon

I thought 15% yield was unlikely, so I checked. According to HomeLet's Rental Index, the average UK rental yield sits at 3.38%. Therefore, anything over that percentage can be considered a good rental yield.5 Oct 2021

You're correct. That's what advisers tell new landlords. The 15% I mentioned is what landlords are told to factor in for maintenance and repairs. My ex-hubby makes more because he's a surveyor and is very hands on.

What people forget is that most BTL properties are mortgaged. The landlords don't "own" the properties any more than the tenants do. The owners are the banks.

The profit is likely to be the difference between the mortgage repayments (often only interest only) and the rent minus expenses.

A contributory factor in some areas in the rise of Air B&B in certain areas. I live in a seaside town, and a number of rental properties have been changed to accommodate tourists. This is much more profitable than regular rents, so more potential homes for local people are taken out of housing stock. This isn't to vilify Air B&B's- I have used them myself, but it does impact on what is available to rent, and, perhaps, on the prices for renters.

growstuff

Callistemon21

How much did the hole in the wall cost to repair? Did it exceed the amount they factored in for damage?

I have no idea how much it cost to repair - why on earth would I?

I don't expect you would, but the point is that the owners should have factored in damage from the start. Experienced landlords reckon on 15% of the rent for damage and maintenance. Unfortunately, some small landlords forget that.

This view of a personal economy is exactly what I commented on earlier. Since the time of Thatcher, the idea of "get rich quick" has pushed out sound business.

growstuff

Casdon

I thought 15% yield was unlikely, so I checked. According to HomeLet's Rental Index, the average UK rental yield sits at 3.38%. Therefore, anything over that percentage can be considered a good rental yield.5 Oct 2021

You're correct. That's what advisers tell new landlords. The 15% I mentioned is what landlords are told to factor in for maintenance and repairs. My ex-hubby makes more because he's a surveyor and is very hands on.

What people forget is that most BTL properties are mortgaged. The landlords don't "own" the properties any more than the tenants do. The owners are the banks.

Well we own our rentals (both commercial and housing).

I am sure that we cannot be the only landlords who are mortgage free?

No you're not GG we're mortgage free too on our two remaining properties; one commercial and the other a flat.

Apologies for not being able to remember who posted about their D only being given a months notice to vacate and being told by the council they couldn't be helped as she wasn't homeless, but that is illegal.

A section 21, no fault termination of tenancy gives 4 months notice and if served is the evidence needed to show the LA that the tenant will be made homeless.

As I have already posted, if the tenant then refuses to leave the landlord has to go to court, incurring legal costs. It makes no difference if the tenancy is for a fixed term, even for as little as 6 months, a section 21 still has to be served and if the tenant refuses to leave a lengthy and expensive legal process is the only alternative.

All new Social Hoysing has a short term tenancy now. I'm not sure what the term is but I think its only 5 years. You have to renew your tenancy and if you have been a good tenant they will renew it, if not you will be evicted. So even Social Housing is trying to give some protection to neighbours and landlords. There are landlords who give 10 year tenancies but maybe they need the property for themselves or their families. It's the cost that needs some form of regulation. If you are renting already you can rent again.

We'll see what happens from May 2024. I cant see much changing because all MPs are the same regardless of which party. They protect those that pay them and protect those that can't (correctly) or won't (incorrectly) work. The average income tax paying person looses out every time.

a section 21 gives 2 months notice and you have a right to stay until the LA authorises alternative housing. There is more information here:

england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/section_21_eviction/section_21_eviction_process?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIt4OO1PC49wIVy-7tCh2xtgVvEAAYASAAEgJeD_D_BwE

You do not have the right to stay until alternative housing is provided by the LA JaneJudge. If the courts approve the eviction, the tenant has to leave.

That’s correct Smileless. The court will stipulate the period within which the tenants must leave.

To be fair, due to the shortage of housing stock local councils/homeless departments have available, they usually tell tenants NOT to move out when they receive a court order, but to wait until the bailiffs actually arrive. To just sit tight.

Councils know they will have to help some people, but they put it off until the last possible minute.

Once a tenant is literally out on the street, assuming they are in a group eligible for help, councils are legally obligated to provide a roof over their heads.
.

DaisyAnne

growstuff

Callistemon21

How much did the hole in the wall cost to repair? Did it exceed the amount they factored in for damage?

I have no idea how much it cost to repair - why on earth would I?

I don't expect you would, but the point is that the owners should have factored in damage from the start. Experienced landlords reckon on 15% of the rent for damage and maintenance. Unfortunately, some small landlords forget that.

This view of a personal economy is exactly what I commented on earlier. Since the time of Thatcher, the idea of "get rich quick" has pushed out sound business.

get rich quick

Perhaps you didn't read my original post.

This was merely one anecdote about someone who let out their family home whilst they worked overseas for a couple of years. It was let out through what they thought would be a reputable source.

A house near us has been left empty for years while the owner worked overseas - that could in fact be preferable than letting it out by the sounds of it.

When I worked in a local authority legal department (a county council, not a housing authority) I once had to attend the eviction of a family from a county farms cottage by bailiffs (for non-payment of rent so not a no fault eviction). That would have been late 70s/early 80s. A horrible experience which I will never forget but it doesn’t change my opinion that a landlord should be able to regain possession of their property if they wish and that changing the current law in this regard would have disastrous effects on the availability of rental properties.

Of course 15% or even 10% is not the average, but it's greedy.
I couldn't in all conscience charge a rent that would generate that much profit. Your bank wouldn't pay that for savings. People who rent privately often pay too much of their income in rent, and therefore have little left for other essentials.
For me, it's the same principle as paying a low wage when you can afford to pay more.
It's taking advantage.

It’s not all profit nadateturbe. You have read above about the cost of maintenance, repairs and replacements. Buildings insurance is another cost and many buy to let landlords also have a mortgage to pay. If it’s a leasehold flat the landlord will also be paying the service charges. And remember that the rent is also taxed. When the property is sold capital gains tax will be charged. It really isn’t a way to make a quick buck.

No "it isn't a way to make a quick buck" for private landlords and since when was providing a decent home for someone who cannot afford to buy, taking advantage.

The law did need to change to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords but sadly there are many who continue unabated.

In seeking to protect tenants, decent landlords have been left virtually unprotected.

That's right DL. Our solicitor told us that private landlords are viewed by LA's as providers of social housing. The costs of eviction can be horrific; legal fees, court fees and if successful, bailiff costs.

LA's are effectively encouraging people to break the law by telling them to wait for a knock on the door from the bailiffs.

I wonder how much monthly expenses amount to for landlords, what % of the rent it actually

is

Despite all the negative comments about letting out property for an income I still believe it’s a fantastic way to invest for the future.
I’m talking about the medium to long term of course to enable the investor to ride out the inevitable periods when property prices will drop, but, as we all know, the trend is always up often by an extraordinary amount.
Who on earth for example would have predicted how much property prices have shot up over the period of the pandemic?