Buying a house (and renting)

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Curls wrote:So, does anyone on the forum rent out a house/second home? Or is it seen as immorally wrong? I mean my house...I'll never actually live in it. My dad lives there, he maintains it and gives me a small amount of cash (about 50% of rent in the area) so when he dies, what will I do, rent it to someone else or sell up? I'll likely have my own place I actually live in by then, so this will likely be a second home.

Sell it and don't be a piece of gooseberry fool.

Surely people still need to rent though? It's a property for somebody to live in either way. I would say the more important thing is that if you decide to let, be a good landlord. Budget for repairs if required and get them done as quickly as you would if you lived there. Ensure you can let it out for as long as the tenants may wish to live there (as a forced move is horrible as tenants). Be reasonable with rent demands and accomodating of their lifestyle as much as you can without risking damage to the property. Allow pets, even if you ask for a slightly higher deposit or similar to protect yourself. And get landlords insurance.

Or you could sell, overpay on your own mortgage and bring your payments or term down, or invest the money.

I appreciate the apparent contradiction between this and my previous post talking about shortages of property pushing up prices, but there is also a shortage in the rental market. We had the same experience renting as we did buying, viewed on day one and had to compete with several other people to secure it.

Do not delude yourself into thinking that being a private landlord is in any way morally acceptable.

Whats your solution for the millions of people who choose or need to rent? There are many issues with the housing market, but if houses are only offered to those who can buy, the poorest in society will end up homeless or living out of hotels. As I said before, there needs to be a huge increase in house building including council houses, but as things currently stand, renters need houses to live in too. The current system needs private landlords. I don't like that, but I do think it's the reality. Change the system yes, but be careful of punishing renters through punishing those who let to them.

I rented for years before I could buy. I wish I could have bought sooner and that the rent was cheaper, but ultimately I needed to put a roof over my head first and foremost.

Nationalise it?

Sprouty wrote:
Whats your solution for the millions of people who choose or need to rent?

What did millions of people do before Thatcher?

Moggy wrote:

Sprouty wrote:
Whats your solution for the millions of people who choose or need to rent?

What did millions of people do before Thatcher?

Council housing and private rental.

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Curls wrote:So, does anyone on the forum rent out a house/second home? Or is it seen as immorally wrong? I mean my house...I'll never actually live in it. My dad lives there, he maintains it and gives me a small amount of cash (about 50% of rent in the area) so when he dies, what will I do, rent it to someone else or sell up? I'll likely have my own place I actually live in by then, so this will likely be a second home.

Sell it and don't be a piece of gooseberry fool.

Surely people still need to rent though? It's a property for somebody to live in either way. I would say the more important thing is that if you decide to let, be a good landlord. Budget for repairs if required and get them done as quickly as you would if you lived there. Ensure you can let it out for as long as the tenants may wish to live there (as a forced move is horrible as tenants). Be reasonable with rent demands and accomodating of their lifestyle as much as you can without risking damage to the property. Allow pets, even if you ask for a slightly higher deposit or similar to protect yourself. And get landlords insurance.

Or you could sell, overpay on your own mortgage and bring your payments or term down, or invest the money.

I appreciate the apparent contradiction between this and my previous post talking about shortages of property pushing up prices, but there is also a shortage in the rental market. We had the same experience renting as we did buying, viewed on day one and had to compete with several other people to secure it.

Do not delude yourself into thinking that being a private landlord is in any way morally acceptable.

Whats your solution for the millions of people who choose or need to rent? There are many issues with the housing market, but if houses are only offered to those who can buy, the poorest in society will end up homeless or living out of hotels. As I said before, there needs to be a huge increase in house building including council houses, but as things currently stand, renters need houses to live in too. The current system needs private landlords. I don't like that, but I do think it's the reality. Change the system yes, but be careful of punishing renters through punishing those who let to them.

I rented for years before I could buy. I wish I could have bought sooner and that the rent was cheaper, but ultimately I needed to put a roof over my head first and foremost.

See all the posts above. Private landlords are not the solution to what you describe - council or nationalised rental is the solution. Private landlords are actual subhuman scum who wholeheartedly deserve to be put to the sword. Doing so would not harm renters in the slightest.

Stugene wrote:

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Curls wrote:So, does anyone on the forum rent out a house/second home? Or is it seen as immorally wrong? I mean my house...I'll never actually live in it. My dad lives there, he maintains it and gives me a small amount of cash (about 50% of rent in the area) so when he dies, what will I do, rent it to someone else or sell up? I'll likely have my own place I actually live in by then, so this will likely be a second home.

Sell it and don't be a piece of gooseberry fool.

Surely people still need to rent though? It's a property for somebody to live in either way. I would say the more important thing is that if you decide to let, be a good landlord. Budget for repairs if required and get them done as quickly as you would if you lived there. Ensure you can let it out for as long as the tenants may wish to live there (as a forced move is horrible as tenants). Be reasonable with rent demands and accomodating of their lifestyle as much as you can without risking damage to the property. Allow pets, even if you ask for a slightly higher deposit or similar to protect yourself. And get landlords insurance.

Or you could sell, overpay on your own mortgage and bring your payments or term down, or invest the money.

I appreciate the apparent contradiction between this and my previous post talking about shortages of property pushing up prices, but there is also a shortage in the rental market. We had the same experience renting as we did buying, viewed on day one and had to compete with several other people to secure it.

Do not delude yourself into thinking that being a private landlord is in any way morally acceptable.

Whats your solution for the millions of people who choose or need to rent? There are many issues with the housing market, but if houses are only offered to those who can buy, the poorest in society will end up homeless or living out of hotels. As I said before, there needs to be a huge increase in house building including council houses, but as things currently stand, renters need houses to live in too. The current system needs private landlords. I don't like that, but I do think it's the reality. Change the system yes, but be careful of punishing renters through punishing those who let to them.

I rented for years before I could buy. I wish I could have bought sooner and that the rent was cheaper, but ultimately I needed to put a roof over my head first and foremost.

See all the posts above. Private landlords are not the solution to what you describe - council or nationalised rental is the solution. Private landlords are actual subhuman scum who wholeheartedly deserve to be put to the sword. Doing so would not harm renters in the slightest.

I agree with the suggestions made. Council houses should be built. My point is simply that there is a shortage of housing for both home owners and renters and as things stand today, a dire need for both. In the short term, more should be done to tackle second home ownership and vacant properties. I fail to see how moving one property to or from a homeowner occupied to rental solves both issues, it just shifts supply from one group of people to another and solves neither issue.

But things need to change. More council houses would reduce the need for private rentals, but today there is a need for those as there is no solution in place to move those living in, or needing to find a rental property right now. There is also no political desire to build more council homes. Forcing all private landlords to sell would create problems for a huge number of people who can not afford to buy.

OrangeRKN wrote:If I owned a house but was renting elsewhere as I moved around a lot for work, would I sell the house? I'd probably keep it if I could, because if I sell it that's going to be money that's depreciating in value while the housing market keeps rising. If you're on the ladder it's very self-defeating to get off it.

For all my dislike of private landlords, there are some situations where it is ok. Your example is morally fine if you are working away/abroad for a couple of years, as long as you are not charging ridiculous sums for rent.

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Curls wrote:So, does anyone on the forum rent out a house/second home? Or is it seen as immorally wrong? I mean my house...I'll never actually live in it. My dad lives there, he maintains it and gives me a small amount of cash (about 50% of rent in the area) so when he dies, what will I do, rent it to someone else or sell up? I'll likely have my own place I actually live in by then, so this will likely be a second home.

Sell it and don't be a piece of gooseberry fool.

Surely people still need to rent though? It's a property for somebody to live in either way. I would say the more important thing is that if you decide to let, be a good landlord. Budget for repairs if required and get them done as quickly as you would if you lived there. Ensure you can let it out for as long as the tenants may wish to live there (as a forced move is horrible as tenants). Be reasonable with rent demands and accomodating of their lifestyle as much as you can without risking damage to the property. Allow pets, even if you ask for a slightly higher deposit or similar to protect yourself. And get landlords insurance.

Or you could sell, overpay on your own mortgage and bring your payments or term down, or invest the money.

I appreciate the apparent contradiction between this and my previous post talking about shortages of property pushing up prices, but there is also a shortage in the rental market. We had the same experience renting as we did buying, viewed on day one and had to compete with several other people to secure it.

Do not delude yourself into thinking that being a private landlord is in any way morally acceptable.

Whats your solution for the millions of people who choose or need to rent? There are many issues with the housing market, but if houses are only offered to those who can buy, the poorest in society will end up homeless or living out of hotels. As I said before, there needs to be a huge increase in house building including council houses, but as things currently stand, renters need houses to live in too. The current system needs private landlords. I don't like that, but I do think it's the reality. Change the system yes, but be careful of punishing renters through punishing those who let to them.

I rented for years before I could buy. I wish I could have bought sooner and that the rent was cheaper, but ultimately I needed to put a roof over my head first and foremost.

See all the posts above. Private landlords are not the solution to what you describe - council or nationalised rental is the solution. Private landlords are actual subhuman scum who wholeheartedly deserve to be put to the sword. Doing so would not harm renters in the slightest.

I agree with the suggestions made. Council houses should be built. My point is simply that there is a shortage of housing for both home owners and renters and as things stand today, a dire need for both. In the short term, more should be done to tackle second home ownership and vacant properties. I fail to see how moving one property to or from a homeowner occupied to rental solves both issues, it just shifts supply from one group of people to another and solves neither issue.

But things need to change. More council houses would reduce the need for private rentals, but today there is a need for those as there is no solution in place to move those living in, or needing to find a rental property right now. There is also no political desire to build more council homes. Forcing all private landlords to sell would create problems for a huge number of people who can not afford to buy.

Allowing private landlords to exist already creates a situation where a huge number of people cannot afford to buy. By moving these properties to a nationalised rent system you would still be able to rent them.

I've discussed this in the past, where if such a scheme were created you would offer the current occupiers discounts on the property in line with how long they've lived there and how much their rent was compared to the value of the mortgage. Ultimately it would make more sense for the properties to remain in public hands in the long run for the public coffers, but it would also be of great benefit to have all of these people free from large rents and moved into smaller mortgages. Having more disposable income means more money enters the economy and doesn't end up in the hand of some Tory banana split Landlord.

Renting still needs to exist, but it's too quickly becoming the norm due to absolutely immoral scum buying up every property as an "investment" rather than "a place to live" and reducing the number of affordable properties on the market.

We rented out my partner's house for a bit. It was in negative equity and also caught in the cladding crisis, and impossible to sell, but we needed to move city for work and couldn't afford to rent there and pay a mortgage. The last tenant trashed the place and didn't pay his rent but covid happened so couldn't kick him out. As soon as we could, we did, fixed it up and managed to sell to a cash buyer at a massive loss but not lower than the mortgage was worth. It was the only solution at the time, really, and not one we'd try again unless, again, there was no other option. Also being renters at the same time as renting out was an unusual situation.

Stugene wrote:

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Sprouty wrote:

Stugene wrote:

Curls wrote:So, does anyone on the forum rent out a house/second home? Or is it seen as immorally wrong? I mean my house...I'll never actually live in it. My dad lives there, he maintains it and gives me a small amount of cash (about 50% of rent in the area) so when he dies, what will I do, rent it to someone else or sell up? I'll likely have my own place I actually live in by then, so this will likely be a second home.

Sell it and don't be a piece of gooseberry fool.

Surely people still need to rent though? It's a property for somebody to live in either way. I would say the more important thing is that if you decide to let, be a good landlord. Budget for repairs if required and get them done as quickly as you would if you lived there. Ensure you can let it out for as long as the tenants may wish to live there (as a forced move is horrible as tenants). Be reasonable with rent demands and accomodating of their lifestyle as much as you can without risking damage to the property. Allow pets, even if you ask for a slightly higher deposit or similar to protect yourself. And get landlords insurance.

Or you could sell, overpay on your own mortgage and bring your payments or term down, or invest the money.

I appreciate the apparent contradiction between this and my previous post talking about shortages of property pushing up prices, but there is also a shortage in the rental market. We had the same experience renting as we did buying, viewed on day one and had to compete with several other people to secure it.

Do not delude yourself into thinking that being a private landlord is in any way morally acceptable.

Whats your solution for the millions of people who choose or need to rent? There are many issues with the housing market, but if houses are only offered to those who can buy, the poorest in society will end up homeless or living out of hotels. As I said before, there needs to be a huge increase in house building including council houses, but as things currently stand, renters need houses to live in too. The current system needs private landlords. I don't like that, but I do think it's the reality. Change the system yes, but be careful of punishing renters through punishing those who let to them.

I rented for years before I could buy. I wish I could have bought sooner and that the rent was cheaper, but ultimately I needed to put a roof over my head first and foremost.

See all the posts above. Private landlords are not the solution to what you describe - council or nationalised rental is the solution. Private landlords are actual subhuman scum who wholeheartedly deserve to be put to the sword. Doing so would not harm renters in the slightest.

I agree with the suggestions made. Council houses should be built. My point is simply that there is a shortage of housing for both home owners and renters and as things stand today, a dire need for both. In the short term, more should be done to tackle second home ownership and vacant properties. I fail to see how moving one property to or from a homeowner occupied to rental solves both issues, it just shifts supply from one group of people to another and solves neither issue.

But things need to change. More council houses would reduce the need for private rentals, but today there is a need for those as there is no solution in place to move those living in, or needing to find a rental property right now. There is also no political desire to build more council homes. Forcing all private landlords to sell would create problems for a huge number of people who can not afford to buy.

Allowing private landlords to exist already creates a situation where a huge number of people cannot afford to buy. By moving these properties to a nationalised rent system you would still be able to rent them.

I've discussed this in the past, where if such a scheme were created you would offer the current occupiers discounts on the property in line with how long they've lived there and how much their rent was compared to the value of the mortgage. Ultimately it would make more sense for the properties to remain in public hands in the long run for the public coffers, but it would also be of great benefit to have all of these people free from large rents and moved into smaller mortgages. Having more disposable income means more money enters the economy and doesn't end up in the hand of some Tory banana split Landlord.

Renting still needs to exist, but it's too quickly becoming the norm due to absolutely immoral scum buying up every property as an "investment" rather than "a place to live" and reducing the number of affordable properties on the market.

I think that the main difference between us is you are looking more long term, policy change etc, whilst my comments were more based on here and now. I do agree that there are many awful landlords out there and I agree with many of your points. But I don't think that somebody who lets out one property is a scumbag.

Anybody want to play a game of "spot the landlord"?

Kezzer wrote:even with a 100% mortgage houses are going for over the asking price, which means you have to have even more cash at hand.

Yeah, I get that, but you've missed the point - the whole saving for a deposit requirement isn't actually necessary.

Drumstick wrote:I've had to get indemnity policies for my last two house moves because the sellers made changes which they either failed to obtain permission for or never got signed off as safe by an appropriate professional.

The policies are pretty simple and relatively cheap.

Awesome seems what I did afterall wasn't so bad then.

Curls wrote:

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote: Ur right.

No-ones ever said that to me before.

You're welcome!

Sprouty wrote:From a lending perspective, I do understand the need for a deposit. The risk of a decline in value puts the banks at risk of a loss in the case of repossession. This is reflected in the fact that the higher loan to value mortgage you take, the higher the interest rate. The problem is simply supply and demand. If there were enough houses, there would not be a fight over every one that came on the market. We were viewing houses on the first available day when we were looking and continually up against multiple other offers on day one of a house coming on the market.

Every scheme to help first time buyers just seems to push prices up further. More council houses would help. Those who need to rent shouldn't be paying as much as it takes to have a mortgage and a higher supply of affordable rentals would squeeze the private rental market and make more of those homes available for buyers.

Behave, the amount of money banks make would easily cover any alleged risk. Nobody that can rent for years is suddenly going to stop paying especially when it's their own equity.

God, I must sound like I love the system. I really don't. It was a real effort to get on the housing ladder and a fortune spent in rent and with some proper assholes as a landlord over the years. I'd love for everyone to be able to buy affordable housing, no deposit required, no gazumping, no landlords letting sub standard accomodation, no homeless people on the streets. Hopefully one day, we'll have a government which invests in housing and everyone in this country lives in good quality housing. Until then, we'll just be debating small tweaks to a big problem.

Drumstick wrote:

Kezzer wrote:even with a 100% mortgage houses are going for over the asking price, which means you have to have even more cash at hand.

Yeah, I get that, but you've missed the point - the whole saving for a deposit requirement isn't actually necessary.

hes describing trying to get a mortgage for - for example - 120% of a property's value (as far as i know they wont do it and you'll need to come up with the extra 20%). In todays market you're gonna need some savings in order to cover the fact that most properties are going for way over their actual value.

Anyone have tips for best and final offers?

We've found a place we love. It's priced about £100k below our absolute top end that we can afford, so we have put in an offer at asking price. There have been other offers and now it's going to best and final offers. We would probably be okay paying 50k over asking if there was another person interested and we had a bit of back and forth with bidding, but it seems wrong to suddenly jump to a bid of 50k over asking. We can afford it but don't want to pay that much unless we really have to. What to do?

If we went say 25k over and lose do we realistically have any chance of a subsequent higher bid being accepted? I know legally you can bid again but are sellers likely to consider other offers after the BAFO process?

satriales wrote:Anyone have tips for best and final offers?

We've found a place we love. It's priced about £100k below our absolute top end that we can afford, so we have put in an offer at asking price. There have been other offers and now it's going to best and final offers. We would probably be okay paying 50k over asking if there was another person interested and we had a bit of back and forth with bidding, but it seems wrong to suddenly jump to a bid of 50k over asking. We can afford it but don't want to pay that much unless we really have to. What to do?

If we went say 25k over and lose do we realistically have any chance of a subsequent higher bid being accepted? I know legally you can bid again but are sellers likely to consider other offers after the BAFO process?

When I sold my flat, we only had one decent offer and a couple of low offers. The estate agent suggested asking for best and final offers, even though we didn't think the low offerers would up their bids. We were right, it was only the serious bidder that upped their offer.

So it could be bullshit that there are any other bidders at all. Or if there are, they might be much lower than you and may not up their bids.

Of course, the opposite could be true, there might be lots of competitive bids!

So this post isn't much help, other than to confirm estate agents are full of gooseberry fool.

satriales wrote:I know legally you can bid again but are sellers likely to consider other offers after the BAFO process?

Depends on the sellers. We did BAFO and received a bigger offer after the fact. We chose to sell to the BAFO winners as doing otherwise wouldn't have sat well with us, but the estate agents were very clear with us that we did not need to honour the BAFO process.

Ask yourselves; how likely are you to find a house that you would be as happy with, that suits your needs to a similar degree, for the same price bracket in that location.

Do not get emotionally invested in property, but equally ensure you recognise the value of a property to you (not the market).

Like Cora said, some people can just sort of stumble into being a landlord, and it isn’t always them sat on hypothetical piles of money watching their tenants struggle. I’ve been living in my sisters home since 2016 - she met a guy so moved out, got married with kids, had a couple of awful tenants and so rented it to me ‘at cost’ just to have the property in a safe pair of hands.
Sad ending I’m afraid - I’m moving, so she’s immediately decided to put it on the market and it got sold within 5 days to an ‘investor’ based in Canterbury, which is…340 miles away

satriales wrote:Anyone have tips for best and final offers?

We've found a place we love. It's priced about £100k below our absolute top end that we can afford, so we have put in an offer at asking price. There have been other offers and now it's going to best and final offers. We would probably be okay paying 50k over asking if there was another person interested and we had a bit of back and forth with bidding, but it seems wrong to suddenly jump to a bid of 50k over asking. We can afford it but don't want to pay that much unless we really have to. What to do?

If we went say 25k over and lose do we realistically have any chance of a subsequent higher bid being accepted? I know legally you can bid again but are sellers likely to consider other offers after the BAFO process?

Do you have the extra cash to hand? Only advice I can give is to put forward an irregular offer, like £5,400 rather than £5k cuz thats an obvious choice and your bid would still end up higher. Worked out for us, we paid that much over the home report value which was literally all we had spare after deposit and moving costs and managed to snag it. But we got beat by 20k upwards for others.