Jump to content

Recommended Posts

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I think historically, it

> has been a lot easier to buy a house for first

> time buyers than it is now, which is why the

> market is saturated with renters...?


xxxxxx


This probably isn't at all helpful, but in many areas of the UK house prices are actually relatively low. You just have to read the Guardian colour supplement on Saturdays which has a feature each week about houses in various parts of the country.


I guess salaries are probably equally low in those areas, however.


Maybe the best option is to do work where you can work from home, at London rates and then move to a cheap area?


Probably not at all helpful, as I said.


The upside of being as ancient as me is that I bought my first place for ?650 in Dundee (no bathroom, shared bog with the flat next door - honestly) and now have a house in ED which I could never afford to buy now.


The downside is - well, most things really :))

"If you ask for the tenant just to cover the mortgage you're one of the good guys"


DAVE R: No - you're either an idiot or someone with enough money not to need to make a return on your capital


If the landlord's aim is solely to make a viable yield per month or year then maybe you have a case, but even then calling someone who's plan is not working an idiot is a bit strong.


All plans are just that, plans, and often need a re-think. I have never made a penny profit on a particular property in terms of rent v mortgage, but as of next month that'll change, with a modest rent increase giving me the first profit in 6 years. I've been holding the rent low to help the tenant who's a single Mum, but her circumstances have changed positively and we both agree rent increase is long overdue. The increase will not mean a significant 'yield', certainly not significant enough to get me out of the 'idiot' zone which Dave R mentions - However it'll be paid off in 10 years and I certainly will be happy to be called an idiot for that..

SJ and KK - by definition you didn't 'need' to make money on your rentals, because you chose not to. Altruism is admirable, but it doesn't follow that people who are commercially motivated are (by implication) the 'bad guys'.


BTW, I could have added a third category - where the circumstances don't allow you to either make a return or get your capital out, but 'asking a tenant just to cover the mortgage' implies that this is by choice rather than force of circumstance.

Dave R - who said that commercial motivation is for the bad guys only ? Someone else maybe, but not myself or SJ, so no need to try convince us otherwise !! I have a commercial motivation regardless, I'm just not (in THIS property) wringing every last cent out of the tenant.


There are plenty circumstances, especially recently, where there is no option to make a (decent) return or get your capital out. I actually question these days why people even bother to buy to let when there's not even an indication of property price rises.

"I'm glad you're entertained ClaireC but I standby what I say. Mortgages are quite often lower than rental amount. KK, I know this because I have first hand experience of it. If you ask for the tenant just to cover the mortgage you're one of the good guys and believe me, there aren't many of you around. Maybe you just aren't aware of that. Maybe you think most people in your position are like you.


A guy I used to know paid less than ?500 a month mortgage on his one bed property in Brixton Hill. He rented it out for ?1000 and got it because that's the amount he can command for rent in that area. I guy I used to date paid less for his mortgage on a one bed property in Balham/ Clapham South than I pay rent for a studio flat in ED. My friends landlord was commanding a ridiculous amount of money from her and the other tenants in her house- squashed in as many as she could so must have been getting about ?1600-2000 a month and it was ex council so she sure as hell was making some serious bucks from that one.


I'm not saying ALL landlords are rolling in it. Those that have just one property and aren't really in it for the moeny, more to cover themselves until they sell and make their money that way, but most will take advantage if they can. "


This is the full original post from which the 'good guys' quote is lifted. I think the implication that commercial landlords are 'the bad guys' is pretty clear. Maybe where it says 'most will take advantage if they can'.


I'm just pointing out that a landlord not charging roughly the market rent is great if they can afford to be charitable but can't be the default expectation. It's like saying if your salary is more than you need you should give the rest of it away if you want to be considered a 'good guy'.

Sorry KK, we may be talking at cross purposes here, but what I am saying is that charging the market rent for a flat cannot, in and of itself, be regarded as taking the piss/taking advantage/being a 'bad guy'. Charging the market price for something is what most businesses do, all the time, and there's no reason for residential landlords to be treated any differently.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...