Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Neverwhere

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nice to see some of the landlords making the same point!
  2. I can imagine, but it sounds like you did all of the right things and have every reason to be proud. It's astounding that it got as far as it did. The bureaucracy of it, with the not-quite-right name and the withholding of the original judgment, is especially bizarre.
  3. Congratulations, and sorry that you had to go through the stress of all that to get to this point.
  4. That's pretty dire but I guess it also explains a lot.
  5. This may well be true. It would be nice if we got a long-term real world experiment in the matter to check
  6. I would be surprised if it was, given the consolidation clause in MX BTL loans, although perhaps they are disposing of everything that isn't being held by UKAR.
  7. Is that something they've started putting about, or something that other people have noticed from watching local auctions?
  8. What I wonder is what happens when large portfolio landlords like Fergus pass on with their portfolios still intact? Presumably tax bills will necessitate the sale of at least a few of the properties, but then refinancing difficulties (especially now that there are regulatory rules around lending to portfolio landlords, and tax and interest rate requirements that were not in place when the properties were originally financed, but also considering that the inheritor may not meet relevant lending requirements as an individual) could also see for the rest. I think the tenanted sales platform flop over at PovertyLater demonstrates that there is not a significant amount of demand for already tenanted properties, so these kinds of cases could wind up with large numbers of properties being made vacant for sale at the same time. Where the portfolio is geographically concentrated they could end up flooding the local market.
  9. I'm in the SE so that's probably biasing my perceptions a bit. I'd hope that real terms falls would at least be perceived as failing to make a worthwhile amount of money (where the full size of the property isn't actually being put to any practical use)?
  10. I'm sorry for your loss. You make a reasonable point, although I think that once we broaden out the simplified scenario above to include probate we'd also have to take into consideration how long stock is taken out of use when private rental portfolios are inherited and disposed of (e.g. because of multiple inheritors or inability of inheritors to refinance on the same terms). The other thing which I'd add to the general discussion about occupation rates is that under-occupation in owner occupied housing seems likely to be linked to the perception of housing as an attractive asset or investment. With lower house prices, and especially without the expectation of continual house price growth, there would be fewer incentives to hold onto houses with unused and otherwise unwanted rooms (that may actually be proving an increasing burden to maintain and clean) so if a decrease in demand from landlords translated into lower prices, and lower expectations for the future path of prices, then that might also lead to a decrease in demand for under-occupation of housing by owner occupiers?
  11. I'm not sure on the relative occupancy rates but Bentley does address this to a degree under his tweet above (or rather refutes the opposite argument): Anyone who can afford to buy a house to themselves can afford to rent a house to themselves. In that case it makes absolutely no difference to occupation rates (though it may make a great deal of difference to their quality of life) whether the house is owned by them or by a landlord. It makes sense that increased household formation added on top of this could mean that housing consumption actually decreases. Given the relative difference in purchasing power, due to the looser lending available to BTL landlords, I'd also think it was more likely for renters to reduce their level of housing consumption (say from a house to a flat) when making the move into owner occupation, even when they are not also combining households with a partner. Voids are also interesting in another way, in that the rolling stock of currently void rental properties means that there are effectively less properties in use over all, so moving those properties into owner occupation actually increases the stock of housing in use. (Say - as an entirely made up example - if 1 in every 20 rental properties is void at any given point in time, that means that only 19 of those properties are ever in use as housing at any given point in time. Move them all over into owner occupation and you suddenly have 20 properties in use for housing where previously you only had 19.)
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.