Timster

Since you're picking on the trivial details and missing my point, if it wasn't for communism, most people wouldn't be in a position to have the "right to buy" in the first place. I'm not advocating communism, it's just the way it was. Bank lending is in its infancy. Two of the main reasons for the UK's housing bubble is the ability to borrow proportionally more money in relation to one's salary than one used to, and the change in living situations (i.e. more single people living on their own). Most people do not have credit cards or borrow and the population in the former USSR is decreasing.

Trust me, Eastern Europeans will be having the last laugh. I can't speak for all Eastern European countries, but most people in the former Soviet Union own their own homes and have little remaining (if any) debt on it - one of the very few good things to result from communism. It's still a cash society out there, no-one will be borrowing more than they can afford to exaggerate their buying potential because people keep their money under the mattress - preferably in U.S. Dollars - and do not trust banks. So, without the utility to borrow 5 million times their annual salary, house prices for the majority will be kept under control. The BTL activities abroad tend to involve new developments let out as corporate accommodation or to rich (corrupt) officials. The average salary is only one or two thousand pounds a year...you aren't going to make big bucks from the average Ruskie. You go to Moscow or Kiev and you're going to see expensive boutiques, nice cars, posh restaurants etc. This is only a reflection on the diversity, not the standard of living. The only market I can see the BTL'ers tapping into is the one catering for self-serving "hand in the till" type officials or rich bankers who no-one should feel sorry for anyway.

Unless the baby boomers were/are infertile, this will have little effect on the demography. We probably reached peak oil production about 2 years ago. New technology already exists that uses water (hydrogen conversion) as an energy source using very little petrol to power it. The only reason you won't be reading what you're saying on other websites, is because you're talking out of your a$$.

And what about homeowners who rent (i.e. renting and living in one property, letting out other owned property)?

I never said that. I was referring to your suggestion that councils should be financially penalised if they failed to meet a quota of new housing. It's far easier, quicker and cheaper to build tat housing than it is to build quality, long lasting, modern accomodation, and it's a given the council will take the easy option if it's bigger budgets for them.

Rerating council tax bandings annually would be very expensive and besides, the deviation in proportional price rises amongst all properties wouldn't vary that much over a year. Or are you suggesting houseowners should be penalised more in their council tax in the event of a price rise? Council tax already has increased way above inflation for the past few years anyway. Yup, let's encourage the council to build cheap housing similar to that of the 1960s I take it you're a renter looking to buy for the first time, but are bitter for being priced out?

I've actually been a tenant and currently a landlord through the same agency. I recall them charging me a ridiculous admin fee as a tenant and likewise as a landlord. With hindsight, I should have told them to take a running jump when I was tenant. This agent is a member of the ARLA, so I imagine it's perfectly legit if not highway robbery.

I know for one thing, a fax is as good as a letter in the post as it's considered a legal document + it leaves more of a paper trail.

That's an interesting anecdote Topher Bear. I recall paying the agency a finder's fee, so should I venture down that road, they surely can't charge me again? The property I am letting is quite modern and hence doesn't really require much management. It was my choice to use the agency's services (mainly because I have never let out a property before), but now with the benefit of hindsight, it was an unnecessary expense due to the impecable tenants.

Before anyone starts, I'm not BTL scum. I have a house that I'm currently renting out long term (I rent myself). An agent found what has turned out to be perfect long-term tenants. They signed up for a year initially and the agency is taking about 15% of the rental payments to cover the "comprehensive" service they provide. Because I feel I'm subsidising the mortgage for the house because the rent minus commission isn't enough to cover it and the fact the tenants are self-sufficient, does anyone know if it's possible to stop the agency "services" and handle maintenance etc. issues myself mid-way through the lease? I think I'm in my right when the lease comes up for renewal, but unsure midway.

Why are agents feeling the pressure? People are already experiencing a squeeze on their disposable income and there will come a point when these sellers will have to sell their houses to the highest bidder (should they want to avoid the nice mortgage lenders selling their gaff for knock down prices after they have missed too many repayments). Agents will be raking it in as they already have record numbers of properties on their books. Not that I have any sympathy for them, but they are all too short termist, i.e. greedy bastards!

It's a matter of time. The attributes for a "price correction" are there, it's just because we are British. In this country, it takes on average 2 hours for someone to say something to a stranger on board a train that has halted. Using that analogy, it will probably take 2 years for a seller to take the initiative and lower their prices. The only thing that will speed this process up is economic circumstances that give the seller no choice but to realise their asset.

I would have thought public sector jobs would be safe in a recession. Don't these type of workers make up the majority of FTBs currently struggling to get on the property ladder?

Reminds me of one of my former neighbours wishing to sell. They bought their house for £330K, lived in it for 6 months and wanted £450K for it. It was a new development which I reckon inserts depreciation (who wants to buy 2nd hand when the developers are selling new). One and a half years later, they have knocked it down to £360K. Still no takers. If they had put it on for sale at that price in the first place, they would have easily got a sale. Now, they can kiss goodbye to a profit.

One would be naive to think individuals have a say in a company when they own 0.0000001% of the company. It's the pension funds, hedge funds and investment banks that have the say. I've always found it strange why the big boys are so relunctant to remove board members who are on inflated salaries, but don't perform.

Another estate agent having a giraffe. When will these greedy commission hungry vermin ever give up? They are the root of all evil.

Where I used to live, there is a woman who owns 4 BTL houses. She has been struggling to fill the empty ones for the past 4 months. Now she has them on sale and for let. I think this pattern is already emerging and given the average sale period, I reckon (in my usual unscientific way) that the BTL market has a half-life of 6 months - as tenants move out and aren't replaced, the BTL properties will be sold.

Who is this self-indulgent dullard?

I know a couple of people who had taken out fixed rate mortgages as of a year or so ago. They admitted that they're not looking forward to the increase. However, if we put this in perspective, it's *only* going to be an extra £75 a month per £100K mortgage slice (should they do the sensible thing and move to a better deal from the variable rate they would have to pay - something I think most will do if they were astute enough to get the fixed rate offer in the first place). Using very simple maths, if the average loan amount was £130K based on national statistics (which assumes the 600,000 are just as "average" for lack of a better word as the nation as a whole) and therefore the average increase in repayments would be an extra £100 a month which assumes interest rates remain static. I reckon consumer spending will drop by 12 x £100 x 600,000 = £720m during 2006. Now I have little idea what effect that would have on economic growth, but I don't think it looks good.

Are we talking about the ratio of salaries to mortgages rather than house prices? That statistic would be more beneficial I would have thought.

I think that's only for periodic tenancy agreements which is fair enough if a landloard wants you out since there isn't an agreed end date (a tenant can give the same length of notice if they want to move out too). If you have a fixed tenancy agreement, then you're protected from eviction except in the cases i've mentioned above.

A tenant cannot be legally evicted on the basis the landlord wants to sell up or replace them with a more favourable person(s), therefore I stand by my original assessment that tenants in the process of being evicted have either not paid their rent or have behaved abhorrently and don't deserve sympathy. I too see nothing wrong with this, but I'd be pretty passive about helping tenants who have only themselves to blame

Tenants are more than well protected by law as it is and I have no sympathy for those who are in the process of being evicted as they have either not paid the rent or have caused a major nuisance.

Back in the 80's, landlords were certainly king of the hill. Now, tenants are quite well protected by law, and courts tend to view such acts as not paying rent with sympathy. Agents make a killing and landlords take most of the risk (unless they are insured to the hilt in which case their profit margins will be squeezed tight). As far as i'm concerned, from an ethical point of view, if tenants are asked from the beginning not to smoke/have pets regardless of whether it's enforceable in law, they shouldn't do these things as there is nothing worse that a previously smoke/pet free property stained with unpleasantness.

Like the 1,000,000 people who demonstrated in London against going to war in Iraq. Yeah, that helped.