The landlord industry exists because 1: There’s a market demand for it, a lot of people can’t afford to buy, and some people actually prefer to rent than buy, especially students, but nevertheless, people need places to live, and it can be a very good business to run. Landlords are not inherently exploiting people, although there are a small minority of scumbags who run illegal slum housing, and refuse to do repairs. It’s only exploitation if you think all profit is exploitation, which it’s not, in my opinion.

2: The state doesn’t play much of a role in housing anymore. The private sector has taken over most of it, and the vast majority of private rentals are clean, safe and a fair deal for tenants. They sign contracts, and tenants have so many legal protections.

What would people do about risk management, if not for private landlords? A lot of people, especially students and people who travel a lot, prefer renting to have temporary housing, they don't want to be burdened with mortgages, legal fees, deposits, insurance and regular repairs. The landlord assumes the burden of all this risk. That’s the service which tenants are paying for, at a profit.

Many tenants cannot afford to shell out £10k to replace a roof. This goes along with risk management, but it also gives the tenants options for living in a home that doesn’t come with the risks and costs of homeownership. It’s like people who rent cars for a short while. Renting things involves a cost that people pay for using someone else's property. In the case of private rental housing, people get to live in it with very little risk management, but, by your logic, renting things to people who can’t afford to buy or people who don’t want to buy, must be exploitation?