Best rental type properties

[kanrent]

Hi I'm looking for a buy to let in Hertfordshire can anyone tell me the best type of property to buy up to about  £350.000

One that will get the best returns. 

[Melboy]

2/3 bed modern semi/terraced but the most important thing is the location of your purchase and the price you have to pay for it to get a reasonable return rate. I'm sure there are many other factors to consider though in your position.

[Richlist]

That depends on what you mean by 'best'.

Normally letting property benefits from rental income and capital appreciation. It's entirely possible to buy property that provides fantastic rental income (yield) but very, very poor increases in capital value. Likewise some property will provide smaller rental returns but will rise in value much quicker. 

The whole process of buying a suitable property for you, in your area depends on many factors. One could argue that the very best returns might be gained from buying property that can have value added to it e.g. add a bedroom, add a bathroom, add an extension, build on spare land, convert to HMO etc. You might also consider the types of tenants you want to attract and wether it needs to be near a railway station or industrial area of have good road links etc.

[Carryon Regardless]

In an area that will attract low issue tenants that can actually afford the market rents, or the additional time and effort destroy any theoretical calculations.

Tbh Kanrent I struggle to see the reward over risk advantage of btl these days.

[Melboy]

Here is a warning story for any landlord especially as the Government are looking for hundreds of rental properties to house Afghans and rubber boat people from the East coast right now through a Government sponsored agency.

Last March I was advertising my 3 bed house for rent and I was contacted by a company who set out the details of how they would take my property and guarantee the rent etc. etc. etc. on behalf of social services.

                  The deal was that a full time carer and just one person in their care would live in the house. Your property was fully protected for damage wear etc.  I listened to what the person said to me and I was quite sold on the idea of doing this for the minimum of the 3 year let.  Guaranteed income and hopefully no hassle of Covid related non payment of rent.

I tried to find out more details about this company but didn't get very far with that. Anyway i thought about it for a few days and decided against it and not only that I had a really good tenant lined up anyway and I was waiting for their decision on whether they wanted to take my property.

 By chance I happen to be talking to a fellow landlord some 4 months later and he was telling me the story of how a carer and the person they were caring for on a full time basis was running riot and making local neighbours furious with his very anti social behaviour and no matter how many times they complained to the authorities nothing was being done about it.   I am totally convinced this was the person designated for my property by this company mainly because they are not too far away from mine. 

I think I dodged a bullet there.  😁

[Richlist]

Dodged a bullet.....in what way?

The tenant and carer might be upsetting a few neighbours but so what, it's Gov' sponsored. What problem is that for the property owner ?

[Melboy]

I always have tried to have good relationships with my rental property neighbours RL and even more so when I was in the business of renovating property for my living. There is nothing to gain by upsetting the neighbours.

If you have a situation as I have mentioned above with a person carrying on anti social behaviour then the landlord has a responsibility to take action to make sure it does not carry on any more. Perhaps I should have mentioned that the particular property was still owned by the original occupier as their home and that they were not BTL landlords.

[Richlist]

You won't be particularly surprised to know that I disagree with you.

I also like to develop a good relationship with neighbours and most of the time things tick along famously. I certainly would not advocate going out of one's way to upset anyone.

However, if you sign your property over to a third party, in the case you describe it was a Gov' sponsored organisation, you also give up all opportunity to pick & choose who or what moves into the property. Responsibility therefore transfers to the organisation dealing with selection & management of those tenants. The neighbours can deal directly with that organisation or with the local authority who usually have an environmental department who deal with this sort of bad behaviour. The property owner has no direct responsibility, they have already signed it away. 

[Melboy]

2 hours ago, Richlist said:

You won't be particularly surprised to know that I disagree with you.

 

I'm not.   😅

[Carryon Regardless]

RL can you be sure?

What with Selective Licencing and Rent Smart Wales, and with our legal responsibility still standing even though we are encouraged to use Agents, can we legally transfer responsibility?

Local authorities certainly like to pursue the owner, with associated threats.

[Richlist]

I have no experience of selective licencing and I have no wish to gain any experience from letting property in Wales since the devolved Welsh Assembly have made it very clear they don't want me buying property in their area.

Surely it's up to individual landlords to read & understand the details of the contract they enter into with third parties ?  In order to do that properly wouldn't independent legal advice be advisable ? Don't you think that doing neither and assuming responsibilities might make things worse and achieve the opposite of what was intended ?

 

[Carryon Regardless]

My point is around the legality.

We would still be owners of the property, so a search by whichever dept of which ever local council will cause them to approach us, I've been there.

Departments are well known for not communicating with each other. Then there is risk from changing policies that may result in the shoulder shrug when we attempt to cause 'them' to uphold their end oft he bargain.

In the event that we might then sue for the broken contract we would have a legal department to go up against. Using our money against us is then our disadvantage.

It was Wales but the police made strong requests for me to move on nuisance tenants. Later when I reported criminal damage, the event witnessed by 2, they had no interest. My problem.

Denbighshire CC wrote to me to state that if I didn't remove fly tipped rubbish on the site they would at my cost, and a £1,000 fine. The 1st I was aware but only days to act. I am now no longer permitted to remove rubbish from any of my sites / properties in Wales I must use a registered waste disposal contractor, and keep records. Expect similar such measures in England here and there.

I feel that what ever we believe is our agreement regarding such greater need tenants / tenancies the clip board warriors would still chase us for the issues.

Happy to learn different as I want dosh like the rest of us.  I've 2 mt properties right now. One is close to being ready for market, t'other will need some updating pre next rental. CGT means sell just 1 this year. Anyway with Afghans being in need / greater need I have interest as to if this could be converted into significant revenue, but trusting the authorities I must deal with is a major issue.

I've had case workers that promise to be there for issues, but invariably they've 'moved on' within a month. Their training and abilities were naff all anyway, just plucked from the unemployment queue as far as I could discern.

Fools rush in where angels sell up.

[Richlist]

Let's look at the facts in this example:

* You have never met the tenant or carer.

* You didn't check their references or suitability.

* You have no contract with the tenants......your contract is with the Gov' sponsored organisation.

* You don't manage the property.

*You don't received rents from the tenants......you are paid by the Gov' sponsored organisation.

You clearly have no responsibility. You have signed all of that away for the 3+ years of guaranteed income.

[Carryon Regardless]

Nearly all true.

* You are the registered owner of the property.

*You receive a commercial return for it being let.

*It may be an owner is negligent if he fails to ensure the property is a safe environment.

*It may be an owner is responsible for the activities within their property. Is there anti social behaviour, are there illegal activities?

*Did the owner ensure the 'Agency' dealing with the rental is competent?

Owners often leave pretty much all dealing to a property Agent, not all are a competent as Grampa. If the property should have a HMO licence the Agent has no responsibility to the authorities. If the deposit isn't protected the owner will fall foul of the claim. This goes on.

It would take some one with more legal knowledge, and even then lawyers get it wrong, to convince me that I am able to step to one side and others will be held responsible. Any final recompense would be a charge on the property in my view. Criminal responsibilities are a whole other ball game.

A while back I asked opinions of if a licence to let would allow the 'managers' to just hoof bad tenants as was claimed by an organisation. No definitive response.  I concluded my thinking to be correct that ultimately when these 'managers' hoof a tenant I could be held accountable.

I don't feel we are able to just pass responsibilities so easily, but as said more than happy to learn otherwise. If this were so and I could find an 'Agency' that would guarantee an income while I effectively naff off I would be so happy. I could live reasonably well on a reduced % of revenue anyway and could then concentrate on more pretty things in what's left of my time here.

 

[Grampa]

Lots of things to consider if you go down the "rent to rent" or the promise of guaranteed rent. It was quite a common practice a few years ago for some agents to guarantee a lower rental figure and promise of the property returned in good order for a high fee but a lot of landlords found out they didnt always get the rent and the properties were trashed with high turnover of tenants. Also if the secondary landlord goes bust or disappears it causes a big headache to gain possession partly because you maybe not be in possession of the documents such as tenancy agreements and all the other important relevant  docs that need to be in place to evict. 

There are also companies that want to do this and enquire via letting agents but what guarantee's do you have? I would consider it for a couple of my personal properties if it was paying a lot more in rent which some schemes do (high turn over of tenants) and had at least a couple of personal guarantee's from the directors of the company with all the normal checks done on them as well. 

You also have to consider which a lot of people forget ( not RL ) your mortgage and insurance likely wont allow it and the very valid points above Cor mentions.