I just rented out my flat - Council bribed me

I just rented out my flat - Council bribed me

Author
Discussion

Gary C

12,734 posts

182 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
Ken_Code said:
nuyorican said:
Sure. Wasn’t making a judgement. Hate the game, not the player etc. But I’m always mindful of this fact whenever you hear someone saying “so and so gets £1800 benefits a month!”. When £1200 goes to the landlord…

Let’s have it right. If there’s a benefits ‘sponge’ it’s landlords.
It’s hard to know where to start with this level of ignorance.

Landlords are not “sponges”, they are being paid for providing a service.
Do you not see the problem ?

nuyorican

952 posts

105 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
Ken_Code said:
It’s hard to know where to start with this level of ignorance.

Landlords are not “sponges”, they are being paid for providing a service.
A figure of speech. Simile? Or metaphor, I can’t remember…

As in ‘a large portion of a benefit recipient’s money is hoovered up in rent’.

Ken_Code

1,566 posts

5 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
Gary C said:
Do you not see the problem ?
I do see a problem with handing some people with money for rent while others have to work for it, yes.

I also see a problem with the mindset that looks at the situation and manages to find a way to claim that the landlord is doing anything at all wrong.

Acorn1

Original Poster:

729 posts

23 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
boyse7en said:
Interesting to note that among all the stories about the feckless benefit scroungers living like Lords on the taxpayers dollar, there is little comment about the OP renting out a flat for more than a working couple could afford.
If the "market rate" for a flat is more than a dual income, no kids family can afford then something in the whole housing system is broken. Councils are forced by legislation to house people and landlords know that they can, to a certain extent, put a price on a property that normal working people cannot afford yet the councils cannot afford not to pay. Obviously this further drives up rental prices and the vicious circle continues.
A working couple on say 15k a year each could afford it and that would have been my preferred choice.

If I were to buy the flat today the mortgage would be 1100pcm.




Edited by Acorn1 on Wednesday 19th June 16:23

Ken_Code

1,566 posts

5 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
boyse7en said:
If the "market rate" for a flat is more than a dual income, no kids family can afford then something in the whole housing system is broken.
How so? There are flats that will cost your£10,000 per month to rent, but how does that show that anything is broken?

This is like saying that if a car can cost £1m then the car market is broken.

98elise

27,155 posts

164 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
Gary C said:
£1100pcm rent

for a two bed flat

Now, i dont want to attack the OP as I would probably do the same

but its mental that a two bed flat is the equivalent cost of a ~£200,000 mortgage.
It depends on how much the flat is worth. Also it's the equivalent cost of the interest only, not what it would cost to buy a 200k flat.

LowTread

4,448 posts

227 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
Ken_Code said:
Gary C said:
Do you not see the problem ?
I do see a problem with handing some people with money for rent while others have to work for it, yes.

I also see a problem with the mindset that looks at the situation and manages to find a way to claim that the landlord is doing anything at all wrong.
Landlords like to see themselves as providing a service.

Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.

BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations

Sticks.

8,890 posts

254 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
LowTread said:
Landlords like to see themselves as providing a service.

Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.

BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
For this to be true you'd have to assume everyone is able to afford and wants to have a mortgage, which is clearly not so.

Ken_Code

1,566 posts

5 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
LowTread said:
Landlords like to see themselves as providing a service.

Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.

BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
I rented my flat out while working abroad for a couple of years. That’s not taking housing stock away from anyone.

That chippy little socialists don’t understand this is neither here nor there.

Hugo Stiglitz

37,492 posts

214 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
LowTread said:
Landlords like to see themselves as providing a service.

Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.

BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
Try those buying to airbnb/short term holiday let.

I'm interested in buying in a nice part of Calderdale. Currently there are over 500 airbnbs in that area.

Everything somewhere nice goes up for sale guess who you are competing against to buy those properties?

NickZ24

214 posts

70 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
Those posts have several effects.
What do you think a 3rd world person makes of the perks the 1st world offers?
Those guys live in shags, have maybe 25 pound a month to spend.
Those news go through telegram channels, those don't speak of the issues every country has.

Only the free money, free health care among other perks.

boyse7en

6,850 posts

168 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
Tigerj said:
boyse7en said:
Interesting to note that among all the stories about the feckless benefit scroungers living like Lords on the taxpayers dollar, there is little comment about the OP renting out a flat for more than a working couple could afford.
If the "market rate" for a flat is more than a dual income, no kids family can afford then something in the whole housing system is broken. Councils are forced by legislation to house people and landlords know that they can, to a certain extent, put a price on a property that normal working people cannot afford yet the councils cannot afford not to pay. Obviously this further drives up rental prices and the vicious circle continues.
Op says rent is £1100 per month. Monthly take home for a working couple on even minimum wage would be best part of £3.5k.
No it wouldn't. Two minimum wage jobs working 35 hrs a week, 52 weeks a year would be £41620, which is £3468 per month gross. Out of that you have to take national insurance, income tax and pension contributions. I can't be bothered working it out exactly but take home will be a lot less than £3500.

98elise

27,155 posts

164 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
LowTread said:
Ken_Code said:
Gary C said:
Do you not see the problem ?
I do see a problem with handing some people with money for rent while others have to work for it, yes.

I also see a problem with the mindset that looks at the situation and manages to find a way to claim that the landlord is doing anything at all wrong.
Landlords like to see themselves as providing a service.

Whereas they are actually taking housing stock away from those that need it, forcing the tax payer to bribe them to allow someone to live in their precious little investment/nestegg.

BTL should be abolished. It should all be professionally managed and regulated housing associations
How are housing associations not Landlords? By your logic they are also taking housing stock away from those that need it.

Rented property doesn't decrease housing stock. Its still there with one household in one home. The name on the deeds doesn't change that. If you belive your logic then the same applies to house buyers.

asfault

12,516 posts

182 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
Gary C said:
£1100pcm rent

for a two bed flat

Now, i dont want to attack the OP as I would probably do the same

but its mental that a two bed flat is the equivalent cost of a ~£200,000 mortgage.
short term fix as usual by councils. surely they could build a load of 2beds and 1 beds en mass with a huge economies of scale deal for themselves at a much lower cost to the normal market. they have to be council houses for 10 years and after 10 years of rent and being a good tenant you may get to buy your council house at 70% of the current market value.
Councl have 10 years of rent income plus a lump sum to buy/build more and people elevate themselves a bit up the social ladder.

Gary C

12,734 posts

182 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
Ken_Code said:
Gary C said:
Do you not see the problem ?
I do see a problem with handing some people with money for rent while others have to work for it, yes.

I also see a problem with the mindset that looks at the situation and manages to find a way to claim that the landlord is doing anything at all wrong.
I didn't read it quite like that

Its more that we are in the state that the going rate for rental is so high.

Nice if your on that side of things, not so good if your renting and trying to save for a deposit

98elise

27,155 posts

164 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
boyse7en said:
Tigerj said:
boyse7en said:
Interesting to note that among all the stories about the feckless benefit scroungers living like Lords on the taxpayers dollar, there is little comment about the OP renting out a flat for more than a working couple could afford.
If the "market rate" for a flat is more than a dual income, no kids family can afford then something in the whole housing system is broken. Councils are forced by legislation to house people and landlords know that they can, to a certain extent, put a price on a property that normal working people cannot afford yet the councils cannot afford not to pay. Obviously this further drives up rental prices and the vicious circle continues.
Op says rent is £1100 per month. Monthly take home for a working couple on even minimum wage would be best part of £3.5k.
No it wouldn't. Two minimum wage jobs working 35 hrs a week, 52 weeks a year would be £41620, which is £3468 per month gross. Out of that you have to take national insurance, income tax and pension contributions. I can't be bothered working it out exactly but take home will be a lot less than £3500.
Average working week is 37 hours, but ignoring that they would bring in just over 3k a month net.

Full time minimum wage jobs tend to work longer hours. My son is a shelf stacker and 40 hours is normal, but he's often doing 50-60 hours a week.

Gary C

12,734 posts

182 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
98elise said:
Gary C said:
£1100pcm rent

for a two bed flat

Now, i dont want to attack the OP as I would probably do the same

but its mental that a two bed flat is the equivalent cost of a ~£200,000 mortgage.
It depends on how much the flat is worth. Also it's the equivalent cost of the interest only, not what it would cost to buy a 200k flat.
Certainly

No accusation from me

Just that we are in a bind.

nuyorican

952 posts

105 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
I believe, correct me if I’m wrong. That HA’s tend to build the housing stock from scratch.

Plus there’s a bit more security from a HA. As long as you pay your rent and don’t break the rules. You have a secure home where the rent will not increase wildly.

As opposed to mr private Landlord who wants the house back next week cos he’s split up with the missus, his kids want it, or some property porn tv show has told him the area is now up and coming so wants double rent. Or the tenant has made the mistake of taking some pride in their home by painting and mowing the lawn. Inadvertently increasing the rental ‘value’ in the process… etc etc.

I just personally believe that people’s homes are too fundamental and important to be left in the hands of private individuals. Not without massive regulations anyway.

Not saying all landlords are bad. Had a great one as a younger man. One amongst many I should add. Charged me a third of the going rate and never put it up in the ten years I was there. Always ensured me that unless I suddenly became an antisocial vandal, then I had a home for life.

I handed it back to him freshly decorated as a thank you for being such a decent human being. Lovely bloke. Wish I’d never left tbh. I get the feeling he probably bought the place in the 60’s for six bob, or inherited it, and just wanted someone half decent in to keep it warm until it was time to pass it on to his kids. Rather than a vehicle with which to extract maximum rent from a person.

robscot

2,341 posts

193 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
markiii said:
Put the kid in care
Any idea how much a kid in care costs the state?!

Check the costs for your local councils childrens services. Make sure you are sat down.

markiii

3,692 posts

197 months

Wednesday 19th June
quotequote all
I do and the cost is ridiculous. However the difference is that the parent receives no financial benefit as a result. So no incentive to breed more future benefit scroungers