advertisement


Housing market

No such thing as a fixer-upper any more, there's loads listed for auction with low guides that end up making 3-4x the guide. My top whack is about what these fetch at auction, never mind the work on top.
 
The thing about buying a house that's run down is that you can do it slowly, in your own time. Make one room habitable at a time. I did exactly that with my first house, which was in a red light area of Leicester.

stevec67 said:
So much for declining values. In the red hot property cauldron of Market Rasen, mid Lincolnshire, a mate was trying to pick up a cut price terrace at auction. Good ones in the street were fetching £110k tenanted, £120k with vacant possession. This one was a wreck, dry rot, needed rewiring, broken back due to settlkng, etc. OK, if it comes in cheap, we'll see. It went through for £70k plus 10 in fees. Ouch.
Click to expand...




I took a punt on a house in Manchester with settlement, because it was unbelievably cheap, very run down but habitable when it was cleaned up. The council came along with a grant and sorted it, a huge building job. I still own it.
 
mandryka said:
The thing about buying a house that's run down is that you can do it slowly, in your own time. Make one room habitable at a time. I did exactly that with my first house, which was in a red light area of Leicester.






I took a punt on a house in Manchester with settlement, because it was unbelievably cheap, very run down but habitable when it was cleaned up. The council came along with a grant and sorted it, a huge building job. I still own it.
Click to expand...
I suspect that it all hinges on price. I looked at a couple of doer uppers, made realistic offers. No go. Then I made a low offer on a house with it all done, deal made. I think that when prices and demand are high you are on a loser, unless you want to do the work anyway. Some do. The only regret I have is refusing a 3 bed terrace in a decent part of Grimsby for £13k in 2001. I had the money in the bank. No, I want to make progress in my career. That worked out, and took me to interesting places, but I'd still like to own that house, and I could have owned it for loose change.

I think there are very few like this around at the moment. Everyone wants to be a property developer, and thinks that if you get a skip in and a paintbrush you can do it yourself in a few weeks.
 
mandryka said:
The thing about buying a house that's run down is that you can do it slowly, in your own time. Make one room habitable at a time. I did exactly that with my first house, which was in a red light area of Leicester.
Click to expand...

Slowly being the word, by the time I'd fixed up some of these I've seen I'll be 75, just in time to retire.

A bare minimum if you're going to live in it whilst doing the work is a kitchen, bathroom and bedroom. 5 years+ living on a building site would probably tip me over the edge to be honest, it's bad enough working on them never mind coming home to one as well for years on end.
 
mandryka said:
This one went for £528K. Bargain.
Click to expand...
I once knew a guy who used to 'dress' auction properties like this. His reasoning was that the more run down it looked, and the more easily potential buyers could see the effort required to 'undo' the boarded up windows etc, they'd paid more for it. It seemed to work.
 
Really interesting post on a landlords’ forum which shows not only how the market for rentals is going, but also raises some complicated questions about discrimination. This guy says he’s got so many good applicants for his place that he’s

1. Only going to rent to people where both tenants can afford the rent easily individually, because he can and it’s extra insurance, as it were.

and

2. He’s only going to rent to people with references and who have clear credit checks - because he can and it’s extra insurance again.

1. effectively excludes single people, and in particular, single parents.

2. effectively excludes “foreigners” - people who haven’t already been here and worked here for a long time, on long term contracts.

He’s more precautionary than I have ever been, but it did make me think that when I next have something come up, I may follow suit. At least if what he’s doing is legal (I’m not totally sure it is.) There’s also the moral side to consider, for those who care about being moral.

More generally it shows a potentially serious undesirable consequence of excessive demand in the PRS. Only top quality prospects will get a look in - the people with precarious employment, the people with CCJs or dodgy references, the people on benefits - will find it harder and harder to find a roof over their head from private landlords.
 
mandryka said:
Really interesting post on a landlords’ forum which shows not only how the market for rentals is going, but also raises some complicated questions about discrimination. This guy says he’s got so many good applicants for his place that he’s

1. Only going to rent to people where both tenants can afford the rent easily individually, because he can and it’s extra insurance, as it were.

and

2. He’s only going to rent to people with references and who have clear credit checks - because he can and it’s extra insurance again.

1. effectively excludes single people, and in particular, single parents.

2. effectively excludes “foreigners” - people who haven’t already been here and worked here for a long time, on long term contracts.

He’s more precautionary than I have ever been, but it did make me think that when I next have something come up, I may follow suit. At least if what he’s doing is legal (I’m not totally sure it is.) There’s also the moral side to consider, for those who care about being moral.

More generally it shows a potentially serious undesirable consequence of excessive demand in the PRS. Only top quality prospects will get a look in - the people with precarious employment - the people with CCJs or dodgy references, the people on benefits - will find it harder and harder to find a roof over their head from private landlords.
Click to expand...

All part of the perpetual Tory party manifesto - remove council/social housing; expose the poor and vulnerable to the dog-eat-dog 'free' market of private landlords and Management Companies with a portfolio of thousands of properties for rent. This is where human beings are treated as nothing but a commodity to be exploited for profit. Can't afford the sky-high rent? Don't fit the profile? Go find a shop doorway to live in.

This is what a caring-sharing society looks like. I would suggest your guy should take a good look in the mirror, but that would be a waste of time as mirrors are such vanity projects these days.

John
 
'Single people', 'single parents', and 'foreigners' are not, by definition, high risk, not unless this can be proven on an individual basis. If 'the guy' did his due diligence I'm sure he could do a good job of weeding out potential miscreants. But there are no guarantees, even if rentee's meet all of his criteria. The point I was making was of the dehumanising aspect of a corporate mind-set, which sees those who find themselves wanting or having to rent being graded and pre-judged, as though being processing along a conveyor belt in a bloody meat factory.

John
 
When banks lend money, the price is dependant on risk. Now, a landlord can’t do that so has to take steps to mitigate their risk of the tenancy going wobbly. After all, the bank won’t give a toss who’s in there in the event of default, it’s the landlords problem.
 
Ponty said:
What does he do then, let his property to a tenant who represents a greater risk than necessary?
Click to expand...

If you go down that road though where do you stop? Only rent to someone that can buy your house outright for cash? Only rent to someone with 10 Rolexes and a holiday home in Barbados? Only rent to someone with a fleet of supercars?

Yes I'm sure these high-flyers want to rent your very average 2 bed semi for £700 a month. Jog on.
 
matt j said:
If you go down that road though where do you stop? Only rent to someone that can buy your house outright?
Click to expand...
Potentially you only let it to people who can pay in advance. I've had this, I was renting and had no permanent work. I only got the place on the back of paying 6 months in advance. After that we were fine, I was there 5 years. As others have said, are you going to lend money to someone with no intention or means of giving it back?
 
@Ponty

I am looking at this from a broader perspective, as I think is mandryka, assuming I have read the tenor of his post correctly.

When single people, single parents and foreigners have little or no access to social housing and are effectively forced to look at renting in the private sector, whether they end up with a roof over their heads is not dependant on need but of being pre-judged, not only of their character and honesty and facility to pay, which is to be expected, but of their perceived social profile; and extracting maximum profit. I'm not suggesting landlords should not conduct checks and balances, but based on the criteria mandryka has outlined it's all looking like the insidious creep of Orwellian doctrine to me.

John
 
yes one has to be even more cautious now increased mortgage rates have eaten into any profit so less margin for error
 
Part of the reason for the risk minimising mentality is that it takes so long (and hence is so expensive) to get rid of a tenant who isn't paying. Years to move from correct notice to quit to bailiffs. Not to mention eviction bans in Scotland and Wales.

As part of rent reforms, the government had promised rapid response courts dedicated to domestic tenancy disputes -- though I read somewhere (can't find it now) that they've started to make noises suggesting they're having second thoughts about this.
 
My Mrs has a flat she lets out.
She won’t rent it to anyone without exemplary references and no history of CCJs.
Makes perfect sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top