A possible progressive loophole in landlording - what am I getting wrong?

[Zetetic]

We can imagine a place and a time where things might be different, but that isn't England 2021 (see "massive moral and political damage").

[touchingcloth]

There are ways you can imagine an equitable rental environment (I hesitate to use "market" and "equitable" in the same sentence), but modern Britain isn't the place, or probably modern Europe in general, much though people like to talk about how much greener the German grass is.

Or simply for there to be a serious conflict between their profit and your shelter - the actual human doesn't need to die for the change in their circumstances to screw you over.

My landlord is a nice enough person as far as I can tell in their day-to-day dealings, who has invested their small amount of capital in the only prudent sector in the UK. That still puts him in a dangerous position of power over me, and puts out interests in conflict the moment we either of us stop being lucky.

It's worth noting that the situation in Bristol as a whole markedly improved over the last decade via the actions of community unions, including the creation and promotion of a charter and arbitration clauses in tenancy contracts that are all bound up with the power of ACORN there, and there ability to bring that power to bear against landlords when necessary.

The place where I had an especially decent landlord was Bristol. But you're absolutely right, his death was only the most extreme example of our potential worries; the tenant in the flat above us (our landlord had owned the entire building for decades) was woman in her 90s whose rent was still subject to grandfathered-in controls due to her tenancy dating back to the days when that was still a thing, and when she died he renovated the place, turning it into a 3-bed versus our 2-bed, and charging £1,300+ pcm versus our £850. Decent though he was, it's hard not to worry about what an absolutely trivial piece of piss it would have been for him to issue a Section 21 and to start making an extra few thousand pounds a year from the place.

I find the idea of profiting from property fundamentally immoral. I don't even really agree with the idea - which seems to be widespread across Europe, not confined to the UK - that a primary residences and gifts shouldn't have their gains taxed through capital gains and inheritance tax.

[Mobbd]

Landlords are scum.

[TrenterPercenter]

I find the idea of profiting from property fundamentally immoral. I don't even really agree with the idea - which seems to be widespread across Europe, not confined to the UK - that a primary residences and gifts shouldn't have their gains taxed through capital gains and inheritance tax.

That Monbiot article btw only looks at second homes (as that is what a poster was talking about) but landlords in the main number around 2.56 in the UK and whilst it has reduced slightly last year from 2.66 million it has increased (due to some factors I have outlined) with an estimated 7.5 million homes being in the private rental sector by 2025.

This isn't going anywhere.  My dah lives in a council house out of principle and thinks all property is theft (currently calling me a cunt for having a milkman as it happens - my other half's choice if it matters) I love the silly old grunt and get where he is coming from but this view is very dated now.  It has lost the arms race in appealing to the masses of people that own homes and will see the outlay of their assets decrease significantly as time goes on - this is more a feature of the assets rather than anything else.  Hence why I was like wtf! if I overpay by a certain amount I can be mortgage free a decade earlier than I thought; that is some serious wedge being made by the banks out of interest.

My first thought wasn't how can I become a landlord it was fuck! People like me will be easily able to do this how do we stop them or make sure they can't cunt everything else up even more!

[Ferris]

I've been thinking about ethical rent, also.

You charge below market rate but say 10% above your predicted costs. You put all the cash in a bank account and use it for upkeep of the property. At the end of the lease, you give the tenant the balance of the bank account back because it's leftover from cost and they can use that lump sum towards a place of their own (or maybe you sell them the gaff they're already in). Private council housing I suppose.

For most people, the monthly mortgage cost isn't the issue, it's saving up the initial deposit which landlords typically put in their own pockets because they're cunts, and this would solve that because people pay significantly under market rates (more savings) and get a lump sum at the end (assuming they haven't burned the place down or whatever).

Is that more ethical than just not having a second property in the first place? Probably, because if you don't own that and lease it ethically then the next cunt will come along and charge as much as they can for it.

Happily this will never be a problem for me because housing rates are skyrocketing so we're lucky to afford one property, let alone more.

Ok cheers.

[TrenterPercenter]

You charge below market rate but say 10% above your predicted costs. You put all the cash in a bank account and use it for upkeep of the property. At the end of the lease, you give the tenant the balance of the bank account back because it's leftover from cost and they can use that lump sum towards a place of their own (or maybe you sell them the gaff they're already in). Private council housing I suppose.

Pretty much what I was thinking - great addition with the bank account idea though.

[Ferris]

Pretty much want I was thinking - great addition with the bank account idea though.

I think the transparency is important, maybe the account should be kept in escrow or something.

[Zetetic]

To be clear, we can't even get actual existing landlords to reliably respect existing regulation of deposits and fees.

If you want a process that takes existing capital and enables people to obtain housing at a reasonable cost (whilst still ensuring that money is available for upkeep), it's "setting up a housing co-op". It's done, it happens now, and is self-perpetuating. Parts of the UK outside of England are attempting to make it easier in the future.

(There are even ways you could fund the setting up of a housing co-op whilst retaining your nominal capital, via a setup involving a loan and issuing initial shares!)

But of course that doesn't let you literally lord it over another human being, retaining the power of life and death over them, so I guess that makes it less attractive.

[flotemysost]

Even when you do have a good landlord it doesn't help you feel secure in a tenancy, and if anything you become keenly aware of how easy it would be for their circumstances to change (he had a heart attack in our first year there, for instance) and for the property to be sold to your common or garden cunt of a rentier capitalist.

Yep, ultimately even the most angelic of landlords won't necessarily guarantee your security (likewise had a wonderful landlord who died after I'd been living there for 3/4 years - luckily his wife took over, she knew us well and we were good tenants, but it would have been totally understandable if she'd needed to sell it. And got Section 21'ed by another, seemingly very decent landlord who decided to sell.)

For most people, the monthly mortgage cost isn't the issue, it's saving up the initial deposit which landlords typically put in their own pockets because they're cunts, and this would solve that because people pay significantly under market rates (more savings) and get a lump sum at the end (assuming they haven't burned the place down or whatever).

This too. Being smack-bang in the middle of the ages defined as Millennial I get bombarded with ads for "affordable solutions" to deposits for first-time buyers on social media, except obviously they're all based on someone you know lobbing you the cash, just different variations of weaseling around the same old shit.

This idea sounds good, but on the flipside you do get landlords who charge somewhat below the market rate and use that to justify shitty living conditions (I had one who, when confronted with videos of electrical sockets fizzing and sparking right next to my flatmate's bed, retorted "But it's only £500 a month! Zone 2!"). But maybe that's more an argument for more clearly defined regulation of acceptable standards for rental properties.

[Ferris]

Yeah my system requires a landlord who wants to be ethical for its own sake, rather than as a marketing angle.

If I was ever a landlord it's the kind of thing I'd do (he says, safe in the knowledge he'll never have the money or inclination to be a landlord).