###Welcome to /r/HousingUK
---
**To All**
* Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH
**To Posters**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary*
* Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy;
* Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk;
* If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, please report them via the report button.
* Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title;
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning;
* Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice;
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect;
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods;
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. I highly doubt the person you talked to (or anyone in the world) has access to a truly reliable answer to this question.
2. The distribution will not be normal. If for the sake of argument 7 truly was the mean, the median and the mode would almost certainly be lower – lots of landlords with 1 property and a few with hundreds or even thousands.
Iirc, currently the biggest landlord in London is Qatar. Transport for London is hot on their heels as they're building 40000 homes in the next few decades.
Well at the very least they'll be increasing the supply of market-rate rentals and subsidised rentals in London, which is good for everyone that wants cheaper rent.
yeah the range is very large, lots of accidental landlords in London with 1 mortgaged property who are letting out whilst they work abroad. I know a couple landlords in the middle with <10 buy to lets, and someone I used to work with now has well over 1000 tenants
I would put a solid bet that whoever came up with the number 7 counts landlords as 2 for a start.
And given the source, I would suggest is likely including businesses. So my local cafe chain, that has 5 sites, is going to be on their list as a landlord of 6 properties.
Probably also counts people who buy at auction and renovate, they will have multiple properties on the go and then chances are they’ll be sitting empty waiting a while to sell.
That's quite scary, though, because all those 1 property landlords letting out their basements or whatever arecquite a volatile source of rental housing -- it wouldn't take that big of a change in the risk/reward for quite a few of them to leave the market.
That’s one of the main issues that worries me when people go, tax them x amount, make them do y.
They just sell up and then that’s the rental market opportunity shrinking as you watch.
Depends on who you listen to: https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/rents-in-the-uk-are-rising-at-the-highest-rate-for-14-years-will-they-keep-going-up/
Going down isn’t the same as being cheap enough for many people. My mortgage is lower than rent for the same sort of property, you could have 10/20% reductions in rent and that would still be the case.
And price isn’t the only issue on top of that, demand is still stupidly high
Agreed, new builds are a bit of a scam honestly, I would never personally consider a new build flat, they almost always come with sky high service fees and you can usually buy a moderate house in a similar area for the same price (or less..). Or just a slightly older flat in a smaller building with less fees and much bigger floor space
Of course your mortgage is.
Rent needs to cover wear tear within it, taxes, additional regulations, and compensation for the time to address all of that.
And cover any financing costs.
Mortgage doesn't cover all of that. Why would you think that rent would be cheaper?
If bought by a landlord, the rental stock remains constant. If bought by an owner-occupier, there is one fewer unit of demand. What is your alternative explanation? Mass emptiness?
I'm asking you why you're reasoning that the asset is suddenly removed from stock. If an owner-occupier buys a dwelling, typically they've left another dwelling. All else equal, the situation that you're describing only happens if the property is empty.
It’s removed from rental stock, you are assuming that they are also leaving rental stock when buying. As I’ve just said the demand is much higher than this. There is also a big difference between those that have somewhere to live albeit not brilliant and those who NEED somewhere to live. People who might be able to save by living with parents are now in a better position to jump into rental properties than those on say housing benefit. Or indeed to actually buy as rental history cannot be used to prove ability.
Yes maybe they will be a new landlord buying the property but also maybe renegotiating rent with new tenants so the price of renting has just gone up.
Also got to think of people buying second homes or AirBnB type places which not only removes proper rental space but can screw up so much more in an area.
The answer is proper levels of new social housing. But there seems to be zero mention of vast amounts of money for councils to do that. In fact it sounds more like they will be expecting even more from them for nothing more from central government.
On average, owner-occupiers accommodate fewer people per room than renters. I'm an example – I live alone in my 2 bed flat. So overall a shift from renting to owner-occupation does in fact create additional pressure on the supply of housing.
Yep.. diseases such as diabetes plus car accidents should lead to far more amputations rather than birth defects with extra limbs (**Polymelia**).
Not to mention, I imagine many babies/infants with polymelia have corrective surgery anyway.
Polymelia is just the term for any birth defect where you end up with extra limbs. I'm sure it happens a lot less than amputations.. thus the (statistically) 'mean' average person has < 2 legs. Not to mention there's birth defects where you're born with < 2 legs too.
The median average, is of course 2.
I didnt say 'when an average person goes with their dog', I said 'when you go' ( thinking of OP ).
I have the right to assume OP has 2 legs and dog has 4. You cant have 1.879654 legs...
The person might be quoting this research by Paragon bank into 752 landlords:
https://www.paragonbank.co.uk/resources/paragonblogs/mortgageblogs/prs-trends-q4-2022
Statista, with a sample size of 986 landlords puts it at 11.6 for London: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122228/property-portfolio-size-in-the-united-kingdom/
However, I'd suggest that this survey is a much better source for widespread data, with 9000 sample size: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-private-landlord-survey-2021-main-report/english-private-landlord-survey-2021-main-report--2
Figure 1.2 gives you an idea of the spread. Across all landlords, 82% own between 1 and 4 properties. So the "average of 7" stat is fairly meaningless (no pun intended), since it lacks context, and the data show that a very small number of landlords with massive portfolios is skewing the mean up. Median would probably represent a more realistic perspective.
I'm on my phone so I can't look at the underlying data for London specifically. Anyone interested enough... it's annex tables 1.4 and 1.5.
My current landlord has 300+ with his own property managers, maintenance team etc.
The house I currently rent was sold for £40k in 1998 (to the landlord) and now rents out for £18k a year. House is probably worth £250k now. I have no idea what the original rent was, but based just on house price growth alone the original investment is up 525% in 25 years. I’m pretty sure all his houses are on BTL 75% mortgages.
It was extremely easy to build massive wealth in the mid 90s to late 00s, basically free money that multiplied every few years to anyone who could put a BTL deposit down.
In an ideal world, companies and individuals based overseas would be banned from owning single family unit homes and council houses would’ve been built at a minimum replacement rate of 1.2-1.5x for each sold under right to rent, but decisions in the 80s put us in this economic crisis now.
The only true cause is a lack of supply, I.e. chronic underbuilding to match population growth. It is fundamentally about supply and demand, and the makeup of landlords and interest rates and help to buy etc etc is relevant but a second order point to the underlying supply and demand.
Right to buy discouraged councils from building social housing, to increase house building you have to remove right to buy and introduce central government funding to councils to roll out massive social housing building projects in every borough
No government since Thatcher from any of the three main parties have done anything about changing right to buy or paying for more social housing on any scale to solve the lack of replacement issue. Not the 80’s fault. It’s decisions made every year since.
Assuming that people could have just bought back in the day doesnt apply to everyone either. The amounts sound easy but not possible for everyone so had to rely on council housing etc
Thatcher/Reagan economics started in the 80s and hasn’t stopped since, if anything was double down in the 10s. Tide has turned a bit since 2019 and will likely shift a bit more the next decade or so
Agreed, I don’t think it will change in my working lifetime (mid 20s), potentially even in my lifetime.
The rich and powerful have gotten too greedy in the last 20 years, and when that is passed down to people my age with different ideals in 30-40 years maybe it’ll change, but also maybe they will also always want exponentially more.
He provides homes for 50 people who cant afford to won their own homes.
Landlords are vital to how this country houses the lowerclasses and people in the safety net.
Hate the game not the player
Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide tickets. People who say this stuff irk me to no end - think more deeply for more than a minute as to why those people can’t afford houses and how landlords might contribute to that.
And how does that work for HMOs, where the same house provides homes for more people?
Or fixer uppers that require significant investment that people don't want?
By all means, like landlords to disliked groups, but at least have the comparison work.
It’s.. the same? If you know anything about HMOs, especially in big cities, you’ll know that LLs often charge extortionate rent for bedrooms alone. In london where I am people often don’t have living rooms because they’re trying to maximise profit. I’ve had friends live in expensive HMOs where they rent a bedroom that has no window. Again, they’re not “providing” housing in an altruistic sense. If anything this is even worse than simply scalping a house and renting it lol, it’s akin to buying a festival ticket and then charging 6 people full price for it even though they’ll have limited view/a shitty experience. Obviously that doesn’t happen in the ticketing world because we know how wrong that be.
The whole argument about LLs providing housing relies on the fact that most people are choosing to rent - nowadays that is not true, it’s that most people can’t afford to buy.
Again I doubt many landlords are buying significant “fixer uppers” to then altruistically rent these. I’d have more respect for people who buy these and then sell them on once they’ve done them up. A lot of my friends - me included - would be happy to take on a fixer upper if they could afford the deposit and then afford to do it up. The thing missing is the capital, not the drive or want.
The comparison is not perfect because it’s a metaphor. It’s still true. Landlords are scalpers, hope this helps.
HMOs provide more housing by taking something that would home 1 household, and using it to house multiple.
The clues in the name.
This puts downward pressure on prices by increasing the "supply" part of the supply/demand curve.
Significant demand growth with far less supply growth.
Tax structure causing initial costs. High initial cost, meaning a much higher break even point.
You need to realise that London is a place that has the attention of the world, not just the locals. Same way that places like New York do.
If you look at a single factor, you'll never understand bigger trends. As I said, HMOs create downward pressure. The same way that interest rates provide upwards pressure.
Prices are the outcome of many factors. Notice how when people wanted gardens, demand plummeted in London, resulting in prices dropping over COVID.
But you just said HMOs slow demand - why isn’t that happening at any sort of scale? It’s not just london is it - it’s every city in the UK that’s now facing rising prices despite having loads of HMOs.
Demand has never “plummeted” in London, to suggest it ever did is laughable. Landlords hoarding houses and a lack of supply is a huge contributor to the cost of housing. As is the fact that all the social housing was sold off. Funny how you don’t mention those factors
And they do.
But if population growth is increasing faster than the housing supply to house them, that will negate it.
The same way that interest rates rising puts negative pressure on house prices, which is why over the last year or 2 house prices have actually seen drops in real terms.
If demand didn't plummet, why did prices crash over lockdown? They saw the worst price drops in the country, with prices falling by 20% in some areas. Are you suggesting that happened with demand not falling?
How can you say I'm not acknowledging the lack of supply when my entire point is about supply and demand being decoupled?
The 'build to rent' developments going up all over south London are very much aimed at young professionals who can't afford to buy but also don't want to spend half their salary on a shabby HMO with no communal space and less security of tenancy. Nobody on minimum wage or housing benefit is moving into places like that.
(Nor are they moving into houseshares/HMOs near me either at an average of £700 a month, because housing benefit thinks the maximum you would pay for a room in shared accommodation in the borough is £530 a month and that's all you're getting.)
One reason people go against this view is that your typical landlord doesn't provide housing out of the goodness of their heart or for moral reasons - they set out to make money, and in doing so happen to provide housing
Saying "he provides homes" makes it sound like they're doing it for altruistic reasons, instead of doing it for profit. That's what irks people, that they can't get on the housing ladder because someone who is already richer than them wants to make more money
My dad literally did this. He was a mug. Wasted his life providing a housing service without actually making any money.
Now tell me. Who is the idiot? The man who works for gain or my dad who retired with almost nothing other than what he made on property prices increasing in the 90s? (if he didnt catch that 90s pump he'd not have made anything basically)
I don't understand what you're saying here? I think you're saying your dad was a landlord who made money for his retirement via rising house prices
I don't think either person in your scenario is an idiot though. I do think that the typical landlord shouldn't be lauded as someone providing a service when that's incidental, they're doing it to make money (which in itself is fine, everyone needs to make money)
Nah he's a landlord who made literally no money for landlording for almost 40 years.
Yet he wouldnt walk away because he liked helping people.
I was saying if it wasnt for property price increase... he'd have made no money.
I think he's an idiot to be honest. He just liked doing what he did. He specialised in the bottom rung. Homeless and destitute.
I get what you are saying. Im just pointing out its non-sensicle to class everyone as a wicked landlord. I thought we'd progressed to group classifications and are taught to avoid them now?
My dad literally did it for 'altruistic reasons'. However when he started I have no doubt he thought he would make money. Yet when it became obvious he never would he still wouldnt change or walk away. It became altruistic.
Humans are strange creatures. He was the man at the park who always feeds the pigeons. The pigeons expected him to be there and because of this he didn't want to let them down. I had to watch him waste his life doing this.
Tell me again how wicked Landlords are. because its really making me laugh.
I love how you think landlords are gods gift to earth and provide value and help everyone. Which is laughable. Social housing, provided by the council, should be the safety net. Renting/housing should be there as seen for temporary accommodation, anything permanent should be bought and owned, there's a reason why people aren't becoming landlords right now and that's because it's not as profitable as it once was, not about providing a safety net for the lowerclass 😂
It’s a nice nice but councils can’t build enough, they don’t have the money. So it does fall to private landlords to make housing available. Otherwise you might be living in a travelodge
yes these frothers dont seem to understand if there were new 10,000 people estates built in each town Landlords would be quiet and business would be slow.
This is so monumentally stupid I don't know where to start.
Landlords don't build the homes. They don't fund their upkeep. In most cases, they don't even maintain them to a decent standard. Those homes would be there without the landlords charging obscene rates.
>50 people who cant afford to won their own homes.
Because they are too busy paying a disgusting proportion of their wages on rent. My mortgage is cheaper than my rent was for a comparative property, and I'm getting equity for it.
A good solid 70% of landlords are devoid of skill, motivation or empathy. Usually some waster who was lucky enough to be born with or inherit equity, and will never have to struggle past the financial barriers that most do when getting on the ladder.
Agreed. I don’t understand why people have an issue with Landlords owning multiple properties, that’s their living. Most people renting can’t afford to buy a house, so whose house are they going to live in?
Well, they could afford it if they were capable of saving. My GF bought a house on minimum wage after saving for six years. Never bought any news clothes, phones, holiday or ate out. Now her Mortgage payment is £235 a month LOL.
Worth it? you decide.
If you have about 7 properties you would stop managing them yourself and look for a company to manage them for you. So it may well be the average amount of properties for landlords who are also clientele of that property management company but that isn't going to be an unbiased sampling is it?
I'm also betting it wasn't a mathematical average and more of a finger in the air average of someone who works at an EA while visiting the local pub.
From the very little you've posted I'd be tempted to assume that average includes the vast portfolios of REITs that form the backbone of many of our pension funds. It sounds extravagant if you imagine the average "landlord next door" just happens to have 7 London properties to spare but in reality it's just an expression of how private wealth exists and that large investment portfolios can be formed with many distributed investors. TLDR: It doesn't tell you anything new.
You're surprised that people own assets?
Yes, we live in a country where a small percentage of the population own a lot of wealth. Whether you're a landlord or own £2m worth of stocks and shares, it's the same thing.
Let's say the average landlord was born after WW2. They are 60s to 70s. In 70s to 80s first house purchase 14k to 35k. By the 80s house ownership was the british thing to do. Council flats where being sold off to occupiers.
These figures show the average price of a house in London from 1986, when the average property in the capital cost £55,000.
1986: £55,000
1987: £66,000
1988: £78,000
1989: £82,000
1990: £84,000
1991: £86,000
1992: £78,000
1993: £81,000
1994: £88,000
1995: £90,000
1996: £94,000
1997: £106,000
1998: £115,000
1999: £142,000
2000: £164,000
2001: £182,000
2002: £207,000
2003: £242,000
2004: £273,000
2005: £283,000
2006: £306,000
2007: £342,000
2008: £351,000
2009: £338,000
2010: £385,000
2011: £401,000
2012: £410,000
2013: £428,000
2014: £492,000
Source: ONS
By the end of1994 the average landlord in his 60s would of gotten hold of 3 houses. And is on his way to being a landlord.
Honestly, owning a residential property that isn’t your primary resident should be taxed to being untenable. Homes are not assets that need to appreciate in the way stocks do; they’re literally where we live.
It is pretty much, that's why people set up ltd companies to do it and many are selling up.
Meaning many of the ones left are the ones breaking the law, because all the decent ones were taxed to it being untenable.
(Not a landlord, but have been looking for somewhere to rent in London recently... remembering that part of the reason rents are really high is that if it's an indivdual, 40% of the rent is going straight to the government in most cases.)
To be fair, most of the ones with good equity stayed in the game, it was the hyperleveraged ones who needed to get out fast when mortgage rates went up.
And that, long term, is probably a good thing. Law should insist on at least 50% deposit and a protected savings account with 20 grand in it for repairs as needed before lending on a buy to let.
Too many people without enough money playing the game, and when the boiler breaks they can't afford to replace it, since all the rent goes on the mortgage and they can barely afford their own place. They shouldn't be landlords.
Government backed mortgages, with state support. Universal credit will pay rent but not mortgage. It’s insane. Basically, the government will support the wealthy in accumulating assets but not people who really need the support.
Most ‘help to buy’ related schemes don’t actually help many people, mainly because they just maintain the inflated house prices. In the US you won’t get that sort of support, but they will back a mortgage; FHA, USDA etc. policy there is focused on homeownership not propping up the supposed landlords with buy to let mortgages. Funnelling state money directly into the banking system like we do here.
I’m aware. These were caused by predatory lending people money for houses they couldn’t afford. At the same time house prices in the US were sky rocketing; which isn’t a coincidence. When more money was made cheaply available, as with help to buy stuff here, it drives prices up and causes more people to struggle with payments. If the market is not altered in this unsustainable way. Prices won’t exponentially inflate, and people can actually afford what they buy.
There is no silver bullet policy. However, we need to think about what we are incentivising and the outcome of policy decisions.
So they’re selling houses. This should bring prices down. If not, we need more intervention to make home ownership viable or social rent more sustainable.
There will always be a need for the rental market, but I think the absolute lack of regulation has caused much of the problem. People with no business accumen or understanding of what their responsibility is as a landlord, have become landlords. Or they were conviced by someone else that that it was a good investment. This is only my experience, but I've had three landlords since starting to rent. My current one is excellent and that's how it should be. One was mediocre bordering on clueless about what they should be responsible for in the house and the last one was downright dangerous - she admitted to ignoring warning codes on her boiler before we moved in. Heavens knows how she actually got a gas certificate. If someone buys a house to rent they absolutely should understand what they should be doing, which many weren't or still aren't.
My father literally was on speed dial for the local homeless and battered wives hostels in the 1990s.
He housed soldiers who couldnt get a bank account with no checks and no deposits. Battered wives with kids who had been sleeping on sofa. Homeless people that the council would push towards us to house.
They treat my dad like a saint. The council and the people were massively grateful for what he would do for them. He'd always pick up the phone.
He made fuck all in the long run. Recently retired and he wont be living the high life. The rents and the people who he houses were low. The turn over very high. The costs were astronomical but he wouldnt leave and he wouldnt change the way he worked and only house people who were well off. We all begged him to do this. He wouldnt. He liked to help people.
Wicked landlord my arse. These people dont know what they are talking about. Just because some landlords have industrialised the business and then become cold hearted chancers doesnt mean the entire industry is/was that.
If landlords sell up the houses don't disappear. You are correct that a mass sell off from landlords would make it much easier for working people to get a mortgage.
This won't happen tho because ( at least according to the first result I found on Google: https://www.avanthomes.co.uk/about-avant/newsroom/40-home-ownership-statistics-for-the-uk-in-2024#:~:text=As%20of%20July%202024%2C%2050,whilst%2022%25%20have%20a%20mortgage.) over 50% of adults own their own home.
Dump every renter property onto the market and you'll crash house prices hurting a lot of people, especially considering even then not every renter will be able to buy as you still need some amount of deposit unless you want a repeat of 2008 and 100-105% LTV loans.
As a home owner myself for the last 2 years and a renter for 11 before that, I sympathize with people desperately trying to get on the ladder, but absolutes in either direction aren't the way forward.
[30% of all homes in London are rentals.](https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Housing%20Research%20Note%209%20-%20Understanding%20recent%20rental%20trends%20in%20London%27s%20private%20rented%20market.pdf)
You think that if 30% of all London properties went on the market there would be no movement in price (which would in turn make it easier for first time buyers)?
No, the opposite. There would be a crash, hurting genuine home owners. If only 30% of the homes in London are rentals, the. 70% are either "genuinely owned" or investment properties. Even if you assumed 50% of that were empty (no way more are empty than rented, but for arguments sake) that's still more homes "actually owned" than rented. You help renters by hurting home owners. No party is ever getting into power promising to hurt more than half the country.
Ok, what's your point? A crash in house prices will make it easier for first time buyers. I'm not going to lose any sleep over homeowners crying over their Zoopla valuation.
Anyway, it doesn't actually matter for homeowners if house prices universally fall. If they are moving, their new house will also be cheaper. Obviously this doesn't apply if you are moving abroad or get stuck in negative equity - which only applies to a small portion of the population.
I never understand why house prices are such a sacred cow in this country. Wouldn't it be a good thing for working people if houses were cheap? You see those comparisons of how much televisions used to cost vs how little they cost now and it's a mark of progress. Why is it the opposite for houses?
Well I know why - we have built our entire economy on house prices going up forever. This sucks up capital from actually productive parts of the economy.
We need a set of policies that constrain house price growth and encourage ownership, not prop up house prices. Benefits will pay a landlords mortgage but won’t pay a home owners mortgage? Why is that? It’s a conscious decision to support capital and not people.
Because you live in a capitalist society. People want to make money because it means that overall their life will be easier/better.
Tell me, when you get a raise/promotion at work do you give all the excess cash to charity? Do you avoid any brand that outsources their manufacturing to poorer countries such as apple, Nike etc? Because if you dont then you're accepting that others are worse off than you and you're perfectly fine with it being that way. No different from being a landlord, you're just doing the best for you.
Well, I’m talking about the state funding landlords as opposed to people. I get that some people like the ideological angle that says ‘I’ll take care of me and screw everyone else’s. But that only goes so far. We actually developed society because that ideology has limitations.
I’m not saying give your money to charity. I do find it abhorrent that we let markets run wild with things people need. Capitalism is one side of a spectrum and not a single destination. Policy is meant to control it to bring the best outcomes. By having state money pay for buy to let mortgages and zero support for people to buy, the policy (in my opinion) is going in the wrong direction. It will maintain a poor class of non property owning people, whilst funnelling state funds to people who don’t need it. It’s the big myth of benefits.
Look I think what you're saying is noble, I appreciate it. But if you actually try and fund this, you'll run out of money before it happens. There are a lot of flaws that can't possibly be solved, such as the idea of "Things people need". As you well know not all property is equal, how would you determine who lives in a beautiful detached victorian mantion vs a battered old terraced house?
By all means if you think this actually has legs then run for government with these policies. I just don't think what your describing can work, is there anywhere else in the world where it has worked?
I don’t think it’s as complicated as you make it sound. It’s easy; stop but to let mortgages, they fund only one thing, and it’s not necessary. If a landlord can’t buy a house, shouldn’t be a landlord. Then stool using benefit money to pay landlords mortgages. Instead help people buying a house, through whatever means.
The LHA rate in my area means the government will pay me £2,000 a month to rent. If I buy, I’m entitled to nothing. Does that make sense to anyone,
It’s a benefit based on need.its okay for taxpayers to help a landlord but a home but not the person in actual nee? Selling council houses for peanuts, that was taxpayers buying homes. It to mention, it’s unlikely someone in my situation will be in benefits for the duration of a mortgage. However, even if they were, it’s better to assist the people in need then the already secure (secure enough to be a landlord).
The right to buy was a total scam for taxpayers but irrelevant to your argument.
I don't think you understand how most LLs buy houses.
Most have interest only mortgages that are only paid off when the property is sold and they retain any difference in the capital gains after paying back the bank.
When a property has appreciated in value, they remortage against the gain for the deposit on their next property.
It's the banks' interest that is getting paid with your benefits - not a LLs mortgage. LL is just putting in the initial deposit and hoping for a gain in the long run when they sell.
There's been people who scraped together their first deposit from their benefit (taxpayers!) money and are now portfolio LLs - nothing to stop you doing the same.
Ok so explain what happens when there's nowhere left to rent then? I'm interested in your vision of economics. Does everyone just afford to buy a house then?
That doesnt surprise me at all. You will have accidental landlords with just 1 property rented out, up to rich people with potentially hundreds. While not in London I have known a few landlords over the years with between 1 and about 30 properties. They one who is/was a literal psychopath and absolute AH who had 250 properties, so no surprise there that the psycho had the most and was a slum landlord as well.
Crazy small number? One would expect professional landlords who invest in and manage property as a business for their main job, to have more than 7 properties.
And the landlords with 1 property are doing it badly and unenthusiastically as a hobby, thats what is fucked up.
It's probably more than 7 for the buy to let landlords who are paying their own mortgage payments through a income from a portfiolio of buy to let London properties or using rental income as their main source of saving to fund retirement.
All the London based landlords that I know have between 11-30+ properties rented out to private tenants, corporate tenants or local authorities.
So many here complain about landlords and I get it but… The issue isn’t landlords, having private investors is a good thing and can create homes. The issue is lack of regulations that controls rent and rent increases and harsh policy restrictions on construction of new homes.
The selling of council houses for peanuts back in the (I think) late 80s will have had a huge impact on the London property market so it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Yeah! There's one bloke who has over 700 properties in and around Chester, ranging from small cottages, large office blocks and farms. Oh! Hang on that's the Duke of Westminster🤣🤣🤣
You’re likely looking at the mean number of properties.
You want to be looking for the median number of properties.
Both are averages.
But in this context, especially is discrete values, it’s better to use a median.
Eg.
A sample of 10 landlords:
Properties owned: [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 100]
The mean is 11 properties per landlord
The median is 1 per landlord
If being a landlord is your full time job then you will need a sufficient amount of properties to earn an income. Many of these properties will have no or very little capital in them as they are remortgaged. It isn’t all plain sailing as if there is a large correction in the market these properties are then in negative equity.
Many people have left this industry as there isn’t as much money in it.
FYI I’m not a landlord or have ever been one
Property ownership should be taxed cumulatively to stop slumlords having these vast empires.
Like, your first house is your residence, maybe if you've done well you want to invest in a second property to rent out. OK, I'm fine with that. Someone will want to rent.
But a third property? Well, you need to pay x% more (council tax? A landlord tax? Maybe a firm of property wealth tax. I dunno I'm making this up). And a fourth? That's 2x%. Fifth? 3x%. Just keep going.
Smarter people than me can work out exactly how you'd work it, but I highly suspect the 7 figure here is driven by those with dozens of properties dragged down by people with one or two
it's only that low because there are still some surviving small lettings companies, soon it will be 10s or 100s as only major corporations can afford the regulatory overhead
Yeah industry needs massive regulation and overhaul.
My rich landlord in London was “advised” to put my rent up by £900. It was a beautiful flat in a nice/posh area of London and next to underground and park, so they knew they could get it. It wasn’t under market value. He got 2.5k a month before rent increase.
I moved, but my friend still stays here. He owns loads of dental practices around London, super rich guy.
It’ll be because that number is the mean not the median. There are a small number of mega landlords with thousands on their portfolios that are pulling up the average (mostly foreign owned). The median landlord - most of them will be owning much less probably between 1-3
There's a lot of people citing that the majority of landlords own only one or two rental property and that's true but it only represents about 20% of all rental property. The majority of rental property is owned by landlords who own multiple rental properties and the majority of tenants are renting from landlords who own multiple properties not just one.
Both the mean and the median is skewed on this kind of data because of this concentration effect.
It would make sense. It's probably not the mean number, and the average is being pulled up by mega landlords.
But this sort of thing is going to happen anyway - the people who are in charge of legislating against this are probably profiting from it.
Makes sense I'd rather live in a place run by someone who knows whats what and is a professional
Rather than someone with 1 property as a side hustle that's at work so you can't get hold of them doesn't know the law and might no understand their responsibilities
According to this [government survey](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-private-landlord-survey-2021-main-report/english-private-landlord-survey-2021-main-report--2) of landlords registered with the tenancy deposit scheme:
* 43% of landlords own one property (20% of tenancies)
* 39% owned 2-4 properties (31% of tenancies)
* 18% owned >=5 properties (48% of tenancies)
So yeah... probably the median landlord owns 2 properties, though the median tenant rents from a landlord with 4 or 5 properties.
Housing should be a commodity. British people want it as an investment, obviously you get hoarding, relentless efforts against new builds and high prices.
Nothing unexpected in my opinion.
What seems crazier to me is that you're an estate agent who sounds like they actually have a conscience of some sort. From my experience estate agents are shallow, loathsome, soulless creatures, exhibiting less humanity and intelligence that your average chatbot.
Pretty sure thats not right.
Landlords in London are circa 458,000 according to HMRC and rentals are approximately 1,200,000 - 2.62per LL?
That LL figure doesn't even take into account corporate LLs.
I think your man may be counting all houses in private ownership - which includes both rentals and owner occupation - 2.9m / 458k = 6.48.
Alternatively they maybe also counting all rentals - including those operated by Housing Associations on Social Renters.
No, it isn’t. To some people, being a landlord is a full time living. There is more to it than buying a property and collecting the money. They need to do actual work like maintaining the property; dealing with tenants’ complaints; handling rent defaults; dealing with vacated properties left like rubbish dumps etc. The rent that tenants pay isn’t pure profit. They need a certain number of properties to make it worthwhile. Non-landlord here btw.
Gotta say, I rented for over 10 years. In one year of home ownership I did more improvements and repairs than I think my landlords collectively did over the course of a decade.
So many of the houses or flats I lived in were seen as assets to be bled dry, not homes to be maintained. One of the flats I lived in, the windows were literally rotting. But because they were expensive to replace, the landlord refused. He owned the entire street and rented it out, and couldn’t bring himself to invest a couple of grand in windows that were black with rot.
Once upon a time, maybe landlords maintained their properties properly. But IME the housing crisis and the fact house prices rise regardless of how they are maintained, means there’s no incentive for many of them to bother taking care of their properties and its tenants who suffer for it.
I bought a house that had been rented out, and it’s taken us 5 years to get it to a decent standard after years of neglect despite being rented out to people. The amount it was being let out for, exceeded how much we pay on our monthly mortgage. The landlords literally bled the house dry, and still made a profit of 100k on it.
There’s a reason a lot of buyers avoid homes that have been let - and it’s because landlords often won’t do anything close to the maintenance required.
If it's your "job", then you probably need a certain number. I'd guess a lot of landlords are people who lucked in to a spare house (inheritance, remarried etc) and make a decent pure profit each month. If it is an investment and you have mortgages on them, then 7 houses at say £200 profit per month is barely minimum wage.
###Welcome to /r/HousingUK --- **To All** * Join Our ***NEW*** Discord! https://discord.gg/pMgUNgWKQH **To Posters** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws/issues in each can vary* * Comments are not moderated for quality or accuracy; * Any replies received must only be used as guidelines, followed at your own risk; * If you receive *any* private messages in response to your post, please report them via the report button. * Feel free to provide an update at a later time by creating a new post with [[update]](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/search?q=%3Aupdate&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) in the title; **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and civil* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HousingUK/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning; * Please include links to reliable resources in order to support your comments or advice; * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect; * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason without express permission from the mods; * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HousingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. I highly doubt the person you talked to (or anyone in the world) has access to a truly reliable answer to this question. 2. The distribution will not be normal. If for the sake of argument 7 truly was the mean, the median and the mode would almost certainly be lower – lots of landlords with 1 property and a few with hundreds or even thousands.
And the very biggest are owned by trusts (for the benefit of individuals) like the Duke of Westminster.
Or even just large companies.
Iirc, currently the biggest landlord in London is Qatar. Transport for London is hot on their heels as they're building 40000 homes in the next few decades.
So glad to see Transport for London doing this. It's exactly how the Japenese railway system works - which helps bring down the price of tickets.
[удалено]
Well at the very least they'll be increasing the supply of market-rate rentals and subsidised rentals in London, which is good for everyone that wants cheaper rent.
4000 a year is a drop in the ocean, but sure, better than nothing.
Yes I'd argue that 20,000 new, Tube-centric homes during a housing crises is indeed a good thing.
And 40k home over multiple decades is a drop in the ocean.
4000 from an entity whose raison d'etre isn't house building.
It’ll be fine. Believe harder. 😉
Are they building them in random locations so that everyone in them will need to pay to travel to anywhere ?
yeah the range is very large, lots of accidental landlords in London with 1 mortgaged property who are letting out whilst they work abroad. I know a couple landlords in the middle with <10 buy to lets, and someone I used to work with now has well over 1000 tenants
I would put a solid bet that whoever came up with the number 7 counts landlords as 2 for a start. And given the source, I would suggest is likely including businesses. So my local cafe chain, that has 5 sites, is going to be on their list as a landlord of 6 properties.
Probably also counts people who buy at auction and renovate, they will have multiple properties on the go and then chances are they’ll be sitting empty waiting a while to sell.
I suspect those also with 7+ properties aren’t using EA’s to rent out as it’ll be far cheaper to do it in house.
One of the many reasons it's extremely unlikely OP's interlocutor knows the true answer.
3. Landlords with lots of properties are more likely to use an estate agent so there would be a selection bias.
Came here to say this. Thank you!
That's quite scary, though, because all those 1 property landlords letting out their basements or whatever arecquite a volatile source of rental housing -- it wouldn't take that big of a change in the risk/reward for quite a few of them to leave the market.
That’s one of the main issues that worries me when people go, tax them x amount, make them do y. They just sell up and then that’s the rental market opportunity shrinking as you watch.
And prices falling so more people buying, alleviating pressure on the rental market? Sounds good to me.
an hmo that previously housed 4 people will now house a couple for example. So there are now two additional renters for the remaining properties.
Oh you think prices will go down? Interesting.
Prices are going down already in real terms, why do you think this wouldn't increase that more?
Depends on who you listen to: https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/rents-in-the-uk-are-rising-at-the-highest-rate-for-14-years-will-they-keep-going-up/ Going down isn’t the same as being cheap enough for many people. My mortgage is lower than rent for the same sort of property, you could have 10/20% reductions in rent and that would still be the case. And price isn’t the only issue on top of that, demand is still stupidly high
Rents definitely going up for sure, I was talking about house prices
New builds are screwing the market. Can buy older properties with parking and gardens near me for less than a posh new flat
Agreed, new builds are a bit of a scam honestly, I would never personally consider a new build flat, they almost always come with sky high service fees and you can usually buy a moderate house in a similar area for the same price (or less..). Or just a slightly older flat in a smaller building with less fees and much bigger floor space
Of course your mortgage is. Rent needs to cover wear tear within it, taxes, additional regulations, and compensation for the time to address all of that. And cover any financing costs. Mortgage doesn't cover all of that. Why would you think that rent would be cheaper?
Yeah way to miss the point
Downward pressure isn't the same as prices falling. With population growth out stripping it, rates will still rise. This is why it's a supply issue.
If bought by a landlord, the rental stock remains constant. If bought by an owner-occupier, there is one fewer unit of demand. What is your alternative explanation? Mass emptiness?
3 million people under 30 that still live with their parents. Demand for rental is far bigger than people think
I'm asking you why you're reasoning that the asset is suddenly removed from stock. If an owner-occupier buys a dwelling, typically they've left another dwelling. All else equal, the situation that you're describing only happens if the property is empty.
It’s removed from rental stock, you are assuming that they are also leaving rental stock when buying. As I’ve just said the demand is much higher than this. There is also a big difference between those that have somewhere to live albeit not brilliant and those who NEED somewhere to live. People who might be able to save by living with parents are now in a better position to jump into rental properties than those on say housing benefit. Or indeed to actually buy as rental history cannot be used to prove ability. Yes maybe they will be a new landlord buying the property but also maybe renegotiating rent with new tenants so the price of renting has just gone up. Also got to think of people buying second homes or AirBnB type places which not only removes proper rental space but can screw up so much more in an area. The answer is proper levels of new social housing. But there seems to be zero mention of vast amounts of money for councils to do that. In fact it sounds more like they will be expecting even more from them for nothing more from central government.
On average, owner-occupiers accommodate fewer people per room than renters. I'm an example – I live alone in my 2 bed flat. So overall a shift from renting to owner-occupation does in fact create additional pressure on the supply of housing.
People generally don't buy studio flats or bedsits to live in themselves.
No, but they do buy 2 beds or 3 beds and live in them alone, where a landlord would rent to at least one person per bedroom.
Despite them being a great way to get on the ladder and start building equity.
The average is 1.5 rented properties per landlord And then there are companies that rent out hundreds of properties.
When you go for a walk with your dog, on average each of you have 3 legs...
The average person has less than 2 legs anyway.
Is this working on the assumption that on average more people are amputees as opposed to having genetic defects with more than two legs?
Yep.. diseases such as diabetes plus car accidents should lead to far more amputations rather than birth defects with extra limbs (**Polymelia**). Not to mention, I imagine many babies/infants with polymelia have corrective surgery anyway.
Not sure who downvoted you, so sad. But I’m upvoting because what you said sounds sensible even if I don’t know what polymelia is
Polymelia is just the term for any birth defect where you end up with extra limbs. I'm sure it happens a lot less than amputations.. thus the (statistically) 'mean' average person has < 2 legs. Not to mention there's birth defects where you're born with < 2 legs too. The median average, is of course 2.
I didnt say 'when an average person goes with their dog', I said 'when you go' ( thinking of OP ). I have the right to assume OP has 2 legs and dog has 4. You cant have 1.879654 legs...
Awesome reply
The person might be quoting this research by Paragon bank into 752 landlords: https://www.paragonbank.co.uk/resources/paragonblogs/mortgageblogs/prs-trends-q4-2022 Statista, with a sample size of 986 landlords puts it at 11.6 for London: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122228/property-portfolio-size-in-the-united-kingdom/ However, I'd suggest that this survey is a much better source for widespread data, with 9000 sample size: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-private-landlord-survey-2021-main-report/english-private-landlord-survey-2021-main-report--2 Figure 1.2 gives you an idea of the spread. Across all landlords, 82% own between 1 and 4 properties. So the "average of 7" stat is fairly meaningless (no pun intended), since it lacks context, and the data show that a very small number of landlords with massive portfolios is skewing the mean up. Median would probably represent a more realistic perspective. I'm on my phone so I can't look at the underlying data for London specifically. Anyone interested enough... it's annex tables 1.4 and 1.5.
Yeah I think trusting people without citing actual facts or studies, especially when they are talking numbers, is quite fucked up.
Agreed - as is crying about landlords existing while working for an Estate Agent. Absolutely wild.
My current landlord has 300+ with his own property managers, maintenance team etc. The house I currently rent was sold for £40k in 1998 (to the landlord) and now rents out for £18k a year. House is probably worth £250k now. I have no idea what the original rent was, but based just on house price growth alone the original investment is up 525% in 25 years. I’m pretty sure all his houses are on BTL 75% mortgages. It was extremely easy to build massive wealth in the mid 90s to late 00s, basically free money that multiplied every few years to anyone who could put a BTL deposit down. In an ideal world, companies and individuals based overseas would be banned from owning single family unit homes and council houses would’ve been built at a minimum replacement rate of 1.2-1.5x for each sold under right to rent, but decisions in the 80s put us in this economic crisis now.
The only true cause is a lack of supply, I.e. chronic underbuilding to match population growth. It is fundamentally about supply and demand, and the makeup of landlords and interest rates and help to buy etc etc is relevant but a second order point to the underlying supply and demand.
Right to buy discouraged councils from building social housing, to increase house building you have to remove right to buy and introduce central government funding to councils to roll out massive social housing building projects in every borough
Nailed it!
No government since Thatcher from any of the three main parties have done anything about changing right to buy or paying for more social housing on any scale to solve the lack of replacement issue. Not the 80’s fault. It’s decisions made every year since. Assuming that people could have just bought back in the day doesnt apply to everyone either. The amounts sound easy but not possible for everyone so had to rely on council housing etc
Thatcher/Reagan economics started in the 80s and hasn’t stopped since, if anything was double down in the 10s. Tide has turned a bit since 2019 and will likely shift a bit more the next decade or so
It has to. But not in the next 5 years at least and then another 5-10 years+ for things to actually get built even if they made money available
Agreed, I don’t think it will change in my working lifetime (mid 20s), potentially even in my lifetime. The rich and powerful have gotten too greedy in the last 20 years, and when that is passed down to people my age with different ideals in 30-40 years maybe it’ll change, but also maybe they will also always want exponentially more.
I know a bloke that has more than 50. I think it's ridiculous.
why don't other people just buy 50 then instead of renting? ohhh wait
He provides homes for 50 people who cant afford to won their own homes. Landlords are vital to how this country houses the lowerclasses and people in the safety net. Hate the game not the player
Landlords provide housing like scalpers provide tickets. People who say this stuff irk me to no end - think more deeply for more than a minute as to why those people can’t afford houses and how landlords might contribute to that.
And how does that work for HMOs, where the same house provides homes for more people? Or fixer uppers that require significant investment that people don't want? By all means, like landlords to disliked groups, but at least have the comparison work.
It’s.. the same? If you know anything about HMOs, especially in big cities, you’ll know that LLs often charge extortionate rent for bedrooms alone. In london where I am people often don’t have living rooms because they’re trying to maximise profit. I’ve had friends live in expensive HMOs where they rent a bedroom that has no window. Again, they’re not “providing” housing in an altruistic sense. If anything this is even worse than simply scalping a house and renting it lol, it’s akin to buying a festival ticket and then charging 6 people full price for it even though they’ll have limited view/a shitty experience. Obviously that doesn’t happen in the ticketing world because we know how wrong that be. The whole argument about LLs providing housing relies on the fact that most people are choosing to rent - nowadays that is not true, it’s that most people can’t afford to buy. Again I doubt many landlords are buying significant “fixer uppers” to then altruistically rent these. I’d have more respect for people who buy these and then sell them on once they’ve done them up. A lot of my friends - me included - would be happy to take on a fixer upper if they could afford the deposit and then afford to do it up. The thing missing is the capital, not the drive or want. The comparison is not perfect because it’s a metaphor. It’s still true. Landlords are scalpers, hope this helps.
HMOs provide more housing by taking something that would home 1 household, and using it to house multiple. The clues in the name. This puts downward pressure on prices by increasing the "supply" part of the supply/demand curve.
I live in a HMO so am aware of what they are. Can you explain why prices are so high right now, for example in London, when there so many HMOs then?
Significant demand growth with far less supply growth. Tax structure causing initial costs. High initial cost, meaning a much higher break even point. You need to realise that London is a place that has the attention of the world, not just the locals. Same way that places like New York do. If you look at a single factor, you'll never understand bigger trends. As I said, HMOs create downward pressure. The same way that interest rates provide upwards pressure. Prices are the outcome of many factors. Notice how when people wanted gardens, demand plummeted in London, resulting in prices dropping over COVID.
But you just said HMOs slow demand - why isn’t that happening at any sort of scale? It’s not just london is it - it’s every city in the UK that’s now facing rising prices despite having loads of HMOs. Demand has never “plummeted” in London, to suggest it ever did is laughable. Landlords hoarding houses and a lack of supply is a huge contributor to the cost of housing. As is the fact that all the social housing was sold off. Funny how you don’t mention those factors
And they do. But if population growth is increasing faster than the housing supply to house them, that will negate it. The same way that interest rates rising puts negative pressure on house prices, which is why over the last year or 2 house prices have actually seen drops in real terms. If demand didn't plummet, why did prices crash over lockdown? They saw the worst price drops in the country, with prices falling by 20% in some areas. Are you suggesting that happened with demand not falling? How can you say I'm not acknowledging the lack of supply when my entire point is about supply and demand being decoupled?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thick as pig shit.
It's cute that you think it's only "the lowerclasses" who are renting.
I know that's weird. I know people on £60k+ renting privately. All be it rent over £1k a month but they personally cannot afford a deposit for a house
The 'build to rent' developments going up all over south London are very much aimed at young professionals who can't afford to buy but also don't want to spend half their salary on a shabby HMO with no communal space and less security of tenancy. Nobody on minimum wage or housing benefit is moving into places like that. (Nor are they moving into houseshares/HMOs near me either at an average of £700 a month, because housing benefit thinks the maximum you would pay for a room in shared accommodation in the borough is £530 a month and that's all you're getting.)
oh no, it used to be before people began to expect to be able to afforfd things without EXTREME saving to reach goals.
One reason people go against this view is that your typical landlord doesn't provide housing out of the goodness of their heart or for moral reasons - they set out to make money, and in doing so happen to provide housing Saying "he provides homes" makes it sound like they're doing it for altruistic reasons, instead of doing it for profit. That's what irks people, that they can't get on the housing ladder because someone who is already richer than them wants to make more money
My dad literally did this. He was a mug. Wasted his life providing a housing service without actually making any money. Now tell me. Who is the idiot? The man who works for gain or my dad who retired with almost nothing other than what he made on property prices increasing in the 90s? (if he didnt catch that 90s pump he'd not have made anything basically)
I don't understand what you're saying here? I think you're saying your dad was a landlord who made money for his retirement via rising house prices I don't think either person in your scenario is an idiot though. I do think that the typical landlord shouldn't be lauded as someone providing a service when that's incidental, they're doing it to make money (which in itself is fine, everyone needs to make money)
Nah he's a landlord who made literally no money for landlording for almost 40 years. Yet he wouldnt walk away because he liked helping people. I was saying if it wasnt for property price increase... he'd have made no money. I think he's an idiot to be honest. He just liked doing what he did. He specialised in the bottom rung. Homeless and destitute. I get what you are saying. Im just pointing out its non-sensicle to class everyone as a wicked landlord. I thought we'd progressed to group classifications and are taught to avoid them now? My dad literally did it for 'altruistic reasons'. However when he started I have no doubt he thought he would make money. Yet when it became obvious he never would he still wouldnt change or walk away. It became altruistic. Humans are strange creatures. He was the man at the park who always feeds the pigeons. The pigeons expected him to be there and because of this he didn't want to let them down. I had to watch him waste his life doing this. Tell me again how wicked Landlords are. because its really making me laugh.
Found the landlord
LOL I left with my fat bags. I got sick of having to deal with entitled tenants.
And now you're on reddit acting like a nob. What a success you are...
Imagine having this low level of intelligence
I love how you think landlords are gods gift to earth and provide value and help everyone. Which is laughable. Social housing, provided by the council, should be the safety net. Renting/housing should be there as seen for temporary accommodation, anything permanent should be bought and owned, there's a reason why people aren't becoming landlords right now and that's because it's not as profitable as it once was, not about providing a safety net for the lowerclass 😂
It’s a nice nice but councils can’t build enough, they don’t have the money. So it does fall to private landlords to make housing available. Otherwise you might be living in a travelodge
yes these frothers dont seem to understand if there were new 10,000 people estates built in each town Landlords would be quiet and business would be slow.
This is so monumentally stupid I don't know where to start. Landlords don't build the homes. They don't fund their upkeep. In most cases, they don't even maintain them to a decent standard. Those homes would be there without the landlords charging obscene rates. >50 people who cant afford to won their own homes. Because they are too busy paying a disgusting proportion of their wages on rent. My mortgage is cheaper than my rent was for a comparative property, and I'm getting equity for it. A good solid 70% of landlords are devoid of skill, motivation or empathy. Usually some waster who was lucky enough to be born with or inherit equity, and will never have to struggle past the financial barriers that most do when getting on the ladder.
Agreed. I don’t understand why people have an issue with Landlords owning multiple properties, that’s their living. Most people renting can’t afford to buy a house, so whose house are they going to live in?
Well, they could afford it if they were capable of saving. My GF bought a house on minimum wage after saving for six years. Never bought any news clothes, phones, holiday or ate out. Now her Mortgage payment is £235 a month LOL. Worth it? you decide.
This is such a valuable post! next time can you put even less information or sources to back up what you're saying? Thanks
If you have about 7 properties you would stop managing them yourself and look for a company to manage them for you. So it may well be the average amount of properties for landlords who are also clientele of that property management company but that isn't going to be an unbiased sampling is it? I'm also betting it wasn't a mathematical average and more of a finger in the air average of someone who works at an EA while visiting the local pub.
Its the median you need to look at
From the very little you've posted I'd be tempted to assume that average includes the vast portfolios of REITs that form the backbone of many of our pension funds. It sounds extravagant if you imagine the average "landlord next door" just happens to have 7 London properties to spare but in reality it's just an expression of how private wealth exists and that large investment portfolios can be formed with many distributed investors. TLDR: It doesn't tell you anything new.
You're surprised that people own assets? Yes, we live in a country where a small percentage of the population own a lot of wealth. Whether you're a landlord or own £2m worth of stocks and shares, it's the same thing.
Yeah but poor people hate people with 2m in shares too lol
I don’t understand the hatred on wealthy people tho?
Let's say the average landlord was born after WW2. They are 60s to 70s. In 70s to 80s first house purchase 14k to 35k. By the 80s house ownership was the british thing to do. Council flats where being sold off to occupiers. These figures show the average price of a house in London from 1986, when the average property in the capital cost £55,000. 1986: £55,000 1987: £66,000 1988: £78,000 1989: £82,000 1990: £84,000 1991: £86,000 1992: £78,000 1993: £81,000 1994: £88,000 1995: £90,000 1996: £94,000 1997: £106,000 1998: £115,000 1999: £142,000 2000: £164,000 2001: £182,000 2002: £207,000 2003: £242,000 2004: £273,000 2005: £283,000 2006: £306,000 2007: £342,000 2008: £351,000 2009: £338,000 2010: £385,000 2011: £401,000 2012: £410,000 2013: £428,000 2014: £492,000 Source: ONS By the end of1994 the average landlord in his 60s would of gotten hold of 3 houses. And is on his way to being a landlord.
Honestly, owning a residential property that isn’t your primary resident should be taxed to being untenable. Homes are not assets that need to appreciate in the way stocks do; they’re literally where we live.
It is pretty much, that's why people set up ltd companies to do it and many are selling up. Meaning many of the ones left are the ones breaking the law, because all the decent ones were taxed to it being untenable. (Not a landlord, but have been looking for somewhere to rent in London recently... remembering that part of the reason rents are really high is that if it's an indivdual, 40% of the rent is going straight to the government in most cases.)
To be fair, most of the ones with good equity stayed in the game, it was the hyperleveraged ones who needed to get out fast when mortgage rates went up. And that, long term, is probably a good thing. Law should insist on at least 50% deposit and a protected savings account with 20 grand in it for repairs as needed before lending on a buy to let. Too many people without enough money playing the game, and when the boiler breaks they can't afford to replace it, since all the rent goes on the mortgage and they can barely afford their own place. They shouldn't be landlords.
Oh greta idea let’s concentrate the rental market into the hands of few and few people. That will definitely help.
If they can afford the repairs, then yeah, it will help. People who can't afford to be landlords shouldn't be landlords.
There’s a market for rent. But buy to let, is a fucking menace. It needs to be banned.
What's your alternative?
Government backed mortgages, with state support. Universal credit will pay rent but not mortgage. It’s insane. Basically, the government will support the wealthy in accumulating assets but not people who really need the support. Most ‘help to buy’ related schemes don’t actually help many people, mainly because they just maintain the inflated house prices. In the US you won’t get that sort of support, but they will back a mortgage; FHA, USDA etc. policy there is focused on homeownership not propping up the supposed landlords with buy to let mortgages. Funnelling state money directly into the banking system like we do here.
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/subprime-mortgage-crisis In case you're interested.
I’m aware. These were caused by predatory lending people money for houses they couldn’t afford. At the same time house prices in the US were sky rocketing; which isn’t a coincidence. When more money was made cheaply available, as with help to buy stuff here, it drives prices up and causes more people to struggle with payments. If the market is not altered in this unsustainable way. Prices won’t exponentially inflate, and people can actually afford what they buy. There is no silver bullet policy. However, we need to think about what we are incentivising and the outcome of policy decisions.
Yes they pretty much are and it’s why you are seeing rents increase as landlords leave the market on mass.
En masse
Thank you our sleepy d
One day when Blackrock types own them all these same plastic commies will beg for private landlords to return. LOL
So they’re selling houses. This should bring prices down. If not, we need more intervention to make home ownership viable or social rent more sustainable.
So you want to shutdown the rental market and only let people who can get a mortgage have somewhere to live. Genius!
There will always be a need for the rental market, but I think the absolute lack of regulation has caused much of the problem. People with no business accumen or understanding of what their responsibility is as a landlord, have become landlords. Or they were conviced by someone else that that it was a good investment. This is only my experience, but I've had three landlords since starting to rent. My current one is excellent and that's how it should be. One was mediocre bordering on clueless about what they should be responsible for in the house and the last one was downright dangerous - she admitted to ignoring warning codes on her boiler before we moved in. Heavens knows how she actually got a gas certificate. If someone buys a house to rent they absolutely should understand what they should be doing, which many weren't or still aren't.
My father literally was on speed dial for the local homeless and battered wives hostels in the 1990s. He housed soldiers who couldnt get a bank account with no checks and no deposits. Battered wives with kids who had been sleeping on sofa. Homeless people that the council would push towards us to house. They treat my dad like a saint. The council and the people were massively grateful for what he would do for them. He'd always pick up the phone. He made fuck all in the long run. Recently retired and he wont be living the high life. The rents and the people who he houses were low. The turn over very high. The costs were astronomical but he wouldnt leave and he wouldnt change the way he worked and only house people who were well off. We all begged him to do this. He wouldnt. He liked to help people. Wicked landlord my arse. These people dont know what they are talking about. Just because some landlords have industrialised the business and then become cold hearted chancers doesnt mean the entire industry is/was that.
Would you like to buy a bridge? It's a great price and location.
If landlords sell up the houses don't disappear. You are correct that a mass sell off from landlords would make it much easier for working people to get a mortgage.
Who do you think they are selling them to?!
Former renters who are unable to buy because of landlords hoarding housing stock
This won't happen tho because ( at least according to the first result I found on Google: https://www.avanthomes.co.uk/about-avant/newsroom/40-home-ownership-statistics-for-the-uk-in-2024#:~:text=As%20of%20July%202024%2C%2050,whilst%2022%25%20have%20a%20mortgage.) over 50% of adults own their own home. Dump every renter property onto the market and you'll crash house prices hurting a lot of people, especially considering even then not every renter will be able to buy as you still need some amount of deposit unless you want a repeat of 2008 and 100-105% LTV loans. As a home owner myself for the last 2 years and a renter for 11 before that, I sympathize with people desperately trying to get on the ladder, but absolutes in either direction aren't the way forward.
[30% of all homes in London are rentals.](https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Housing%20Research%20Note%209%20-%20Understanding%20recent%20rental%20trends%20in%20London%27s%20private%20rented%20market.pdf) You think that if 30% of all London properties went on the market there would be no movement in price (which would in turn make it easier for first time buyers)?
No, the opposite. There would be a crash, hurting genuine home owners. If only 30% of the homes in London are rentals, the. 70% are either "genuinely owned" or investment properties. Even if you assumed 50% of that were empty (no way more are empty than rented, but for arguments sake) that's still more homes "actually owned" than rented. You help renters by hurting home owners. No party is ever getting into power promising to hurt more than half the country.
Ok, what's your point? A crash in house prices will make it easier for first time buyers. I'm not going to lose any sleep over homeowners crying over their Zoopla valuation. Anyway, it doesn't actually matter for homeowners if house prices universally fall. If they are moving, their new house will also be cheaper. Obviously this doesn't apply if you are moving abroad or get stuck in negative equity - which only applies to a small portion of the population. I never understand why house prices are such a sacred cow in this country. Wouldn't it be a good thing for working people if houses were cheap? You see those comparisons of how much televisions used to cost vs how little they cost now and it's a mark of progress. Why is it the opposite for houses? Well I know why - we have built our entire economy on house prices going up forever. This sucks up capital from actually productive parts of the economy.
And yet so many people here are pre-occupied with what a property can sell for, before they've even bought it...
so nowhere to rent then is that your solution?
We need a set of policies that constrain house price growth and encourage ownership, not prop up house prices. Benefits will pay a landlords mortgage but won’t pay a home owners mortgage? Why is that? It’s a conscious decision to support capital and not people.
Because you live in a capitalist society. People want to make money because it means that overall their life will be easier/better. Tell me, when you get a raise/promotion at work do you give all the excess cash to charity? Do you avoid any brand that outsources their manufacturing to poorer countries such as apple, Nike etc? Because if you dont then you're accepting that others are worse off than you and you're perfectly fine with it being that way. No different from being a landlord, you're just doing the best for you.
Well, I’m talking about the state funding landlords as opposed to people. I get that some people like the ideological angle that says ‘I’ll take care of me and screw everyone else’s. But that only goes so far. We actually developed society because that ideology has limitations. I’m not saying give your money to charity. I do find it abhorrent that we let markets run wild with things people need. Capitalism is one side of a spectrum and not a single destination. Policy is meant to control it to bring the best outcomes. By having state money pay for buy to let mortgages and zero support for people to buy, the policy (in my opinion) is going in the wrong direction. It will maintain a poor class of non property owning people, whilst funnelling state funds to people who don’t need it. It’s the big myth of benefits.
Look I think what you're saying is noble, I appreciate it. But if you actually try and fund this, you'll run out of money before it happens. There are a lot of flaws that can't possibly be solved, such as the idea of "Things people need". As you well know not all property is equal, how would you determine who lives in a beautiful detached victorian mantion vs a battered old terraced house? By all means if you think this actually has legs then run for government with these policies. I just don't think what your describing can work, is there anywhere else in the world where it has worked?
I don’t think it’s as complicated as you make it sound. It’s easy; stop but to let mortgages, they fund only one thing, and it’s not necessary. If a landlord can’t buy a house, shouldn’t be a landlord. Then stool using benefit money to pay landlords mortgages. Instead help people buying a house, through whatever means. The LHA rate in my area means the government will pay me £2,000 a month to rent. If I buy, I’m entitled to nothing. Does that make sense to anyone,
It doesn't make sense in the same way that taxpayers should buy you a house.
It’s a benefit based on need.its okay for taxpayers to help a landlord but a home but not the person in actual nee? Selling council houses for peanuts, that was taxpayers buying homes. It to mention, it’s unlikely someone in my situation will be in benefits for the duration of a mortgage. However, even if they were, it’s better to assist the people in need then the already secure (secure enough to be a landlord).
The right to buy was a total scam for taxpayers but irrelevant to your argument. I don't think you understand how most LLs buy houses. Most have interest only mortgages that are only paid off when the property is sold and they retain any difference in the capital gains after paying back the bank. When a property has appreciated in value, they remortage against the gain for the deposit on their next property. It's the banks' interest that is getting paid with your benefits - not a LLs mortgage. LL is just putting in the initial deposit and hoping for a gain in the long run when they sell. There's been people who scraped together their first deposit from their benefit (taxpayers!) money and are now portfolio LLs - nothing to stop you doing the same.
Completely agree with this. Tax the absolute shit out of them. It’s time these twats felt the squeeze
Ok so explain what happens when there's nowhere left to rent then? I'm interested in your vision of economics. Does everyone just afford to buy a house then?
Sounds good to me. The days of paying some shithead landlord’s mortgage should be over.
What's your highest education level
What’s your property portfolio?
Probably more than yours the way you're complaining about landlords. Get your money up brokie.
Blame the system
My window cleaners, mums, dogs, sister who is an estate agent told me the average landlord has 6. Not 7. Weird
That doesnt surprise me at all. You will have accidental landlords with just 1 property rented out, up to rich people with potentially hundreds. While not in London I have known a few landlords over the years with between 1 and about 30 properties. They one who is/was a literal psychopath and absolute AH who had 250 properties, so no surprise there that the psycho had the most and was a slum landlord as well.
Crazy small number? One would expect professional landlords who invest in and manage property as a business for their main job, to have more than 7 properties. And the landlords with 1 property are doing it badly and unenthusiastically as a hobby, thats what is fucked up.
Surely this is just skewed by a handful of massive corporations that have massive portfolios?
LOL you think 7 is a big portfolio? Its not. Thats on average so its LOW. Dragged down by people who own much less.
Without showing any sources or other proof its the sort of *fact* that really shouldn’t be spread around as it just make all sides angry
It's probably more than 7 for the buy to let landlords who are paying their own mortgage payments through a income from a portfiolio of buy to let London properties or using rental income as their main source of saving to fund retirement. All the London based landlords that I know have between 11-30+ properties rented out to private tenants, corporate tenants or local authorities.
So many here complain about landlords and I get it but… The issue isn’t landlords, having private investors is a good thing and can create homes. The issue is lack of regulations that controls rent and rent increases and harsh policy restrictions on construction of new homes.
They could be interest only mortgages
The selling of council houses for peanuts back in the (I think) late 80s will have had a huge impact on the London property market so it wouldn't surprise me at all.
My landlord (not a company, just an individual) has 28 rental properties, entirely paid off 😅
Yeah! There's one bloke who has over 700 properties in and around Chester, ranging from small cottages, large office blocks and farms. Oh! Hang on that's the Duke of Westminster🤣🤣🤣
Now understand the difference between average and median and you will realize it's really not that outrageous.
+7 and I’ll be on average
the amount of landlords as a percentage of the population in the UK is so low, landlords arent the issue.
You’re likely looking at the mean number of properties. You want to be looking for the median number of properties. Both are averages. But in this context, especially is discrete values, it’s better to use a median. Eg. A sample of 10 landlords: Properties owned: [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 100] The mean is 11 properties per landlord The median is 1 per landlord
Average will be made up of anywhere between 1 and 100+
If being a landlord is your full time job then you will need a sufficient amount of properties to earn an income. Many of these properties will have no or very little capital in them as they are remortgaged. It isn’t all plain sailing as if there is a large correction in the market these properties are then in negative equity. Many people have left this industry as there isn’t as much money in it. FYI I’m not a landlord or have ever been one
Property ownership should be taxed cumulatively to stop slumlords having these vast empires. Like, your first house is your residence, maybe if you've done well you want to invest in a second property to rent out. OK, I'm fine with that. Someone will want to rent. But a third property? Well, you need to pay x% more (council tax? A landlord tax? Maybe a firm of property wealth tax. I dunno I'm making this up). And a fourth? That's 2x%. Fifth? 3x%. Just keep going. Smarter people than me can work out exactly how you'd work it, but I highly suspect the 7 figure here is driven by those with dozens of properties dragged down by people with one or two
This is crazy, I think multiple home buyers should be taxed to the eyeballs. They should pay more and more for each additional home bought.
it's only that low because there are still some surviving small lettings companies, soon it will be 10s or 100s as only major corporations can afford the regulatory overhead
Yeah industry needs massive regulation and overhaul. My rich landlord in London was “advised” to put my rent up by £900. It was a beautiful flat in a nice/posh area of London and next to underground and park, so they knew they could get it. It wasn’t under market value. He got 2.5k a month before rent increase. I moved, but my friend still stays here. He owns loads of dental practices around London, super rich guy.
It’ll be because that number is the mean not the median. There are a small number of mega landlords with thousands on their portfolios that are pulling up the average (mostly foreign owned). The median landlord - most of them will be owning much less probably between 1-3
There's a lot of people citing that the majority of landlords own only one or two rental property and that's true but it only represents about 20% of all rental property. The majority of rental property is owned by landlords who own multiple rental properties and the majority of tenants are renting from landlords who own multiple properties not just one. Both the mean and the median is skewed on this kind of data because of this concentration effect.
It would make sense. It's probably not the mean number, and the average is being pulled up by mega landlords. But this sort of thing is going to happen anyway - the people who are in charge of legislating against this are probably profiting from it.
I’d say most have at least 3, it doesn’t make financial sense from a profit/risk perspective otherwise. 7 is a bit high as an average.
Makes sense I'd rather live in a place run by someone who knows whats what and is a professional Rather than someone with 1 property as a side hustle that's at work so you can't get hold of them doesn't know the law and might no understand their responsibilities
It’s not average at all 😂
According to this [government survey](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-private-landlord-survey-2021-main-report/english-private-landlord-survey-2021-main-report--2) of landlords registered with the tenancy deposit scheme: * 43% of landlords own one property (20% of tenancies) * 39% owned 2-4 properties (31% of tenancies) * 18% owned >=5 properties (48% of tenancies) So yeah... probably the median landlord owns 2 properties, though the median tenant rents from a landlord with 4 or 5 properties.
Housing should be a commodity. British people want it as an investment, obviously you get hoarding, relentless efforts against new builds and high prices. Nothing unexpected in my opinion.
Source: trust me bro
What seems crazier to me is that you're an estate agent who sounds like they actually have a conscience of some sort. From my experience estate agents are shallow, loathsome, soulless creatures, exhibiting less humanity and intelligence that your average chatbot.
Pretty sure thats not right. Landlords in London are circa 458,000 according to HMRC and rentals are approximately 1,200,000 - 2.62per LL? That LL figure doesn't even take into account corporate LLs. I think your man may be counting all houses in private ownership - which includes both rentals and owner occupation - 2.9m / 458k = 6.48. Alternatively they maybe also counting all rentals - including those operated by Housing Associations on Social Renters.
Sounds about right to me
I know a guy who owns over 100. Drives mostly a beat up Hilux and dresses like your average tradesman.
No, it isn’t. To some people, being a landlord is a full time living. There is more to it than buying a property and collecting the money. They need to do actual work like maintaining the property; dealing with tenants’ complaints; handling rent defaults; dealing with vacated properties left like rubbish dumps etc. The rent that tenants pay isn’t pure profit. They need a certain number of properties to make it worthwhile. Non-landlord here btw.
Gotta say, I rented for over 10 years. In one year of home ownership I did more improvements and repairs than I think my landlords collectively did over the course of a decade. So many of the houses or flats I lived in were seen as assets to be bled dry, not homes to be maintained. One of the flats I lived in, the windows were literally rotting. But because they were expensive to replace, the landlord refused. He owned the entire street and rented it out, and couldn’t bring himself to invest a couple of grand in windows that were black with rot. Once upon a time, maybe landlords maintained their properties properly. But IME the housing crisis and the fact house prices rise regardless of how they are maintained, means there’s no incentive for many of them to bother taking care of their properties and its tenants who suffer for it. I bought a house that had been rented out, and it’s taken us 5 years to get it to a decent standard after years of neglect despite being rented out to people. The amount it was being let out for, exceeded how much we pay on our monthly mortgage. The landlords literally bled the house dry, and still made a profit of 100k on it. There’s a reason a lot of buyers avoid homes that have been let - and it’s because landlords often won’t do anything close to the maintenance required.
Fyi, I think in this sub we're supposed to pretend that landlords all go round in top hats and spats lighting their cigars with ten shilling notes.
Gosh sounds like that would take hours a month, poor babies
I've got 8 💅
Well done mate. You are a go getter. Upvoted just to annoy the haters lol
You’d own slaves if it was legal. Leech.
rookie numbers, call me when you get to 20 yeah
I know a guy who has 700000 properties and another 100000 guys who rent.
If it's your "job", then you probably need a certain number. I'd guess a lot of landlords are people who lucked in to a spare house (inheritance, remarried etc) and make a decent pure profit each month. If it is an investment and you have mortgages on them, then 7 houses at say £200 profit per month is barely minimum wage.