Getting Rid of Tenant? Advice please?

[Sue]

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 :))

[DaveR]

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

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

[StraferJack]

As a landlord who charges just enough to cover the mortgage I can say the latter is definitely not the case. You might think I'm still an idiot tho'. I would argue that you are looking at too small a picture

[KidKruger]

"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..

[DaveR]

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.

[KidKruger]

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.

[DaveR]

"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'.

[KidKruger]

I made the same point myself, but not about landlords as opposed to tenants.

I said PEOPLE will generally take the p!ss if they can.

Not exclusively a landlord's trait.

[DaveR]

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.

[zeban]

Very good article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/14/cathy-come-home-lesson-rents-mortgages?commentpage