Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
moedo12

Home Ownership And Renting In England And Wales – Detailed Characteristics

Recommended Posts

Just wondered if anyone here has looked at these from the 2011 census. Very interesting, I can't imagine these figures have changed that much in the last few years.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-on-housing-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-detailed-characteristics.html

Edited by moedo12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what the figures you've posted have to do with supply. Or are you referring to something else in the report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what the figures you've posted have to do with supply. Or are you referring to something else in the report?

Let me bridge the gap.....

74% of owner occupiers live in 3 or more bedroom houses.

However only 37% of owner occupier households have more than 3 people in them (1 bedroom each for these above).

So at least 37% of owner occupies are "over-housed".

If they all downsized then there would be more bedrooms to share out more equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Let me bridge the gap.....

74% of owner occupiers live in 3 or more bedroom houses.

However only 37% of owner occupier households have more than 3 people in them (1 bedroom each for these above).

So at least 37% of owner occupies are "over-housed".

If they all downsized then there would be more bedrooms to share out more equally.

Probably couples in their 60s with kids that have left home .... very much like my and my wife's parents .... 12 bedrooms between 4 of them:

My mum in law has a 1:1 person to bedroom ratio

My mum 1:3

My father in law 1:3

His partner 1:5!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is saying is that young single people will first rent a place, nothing changed in that......what it is now saying is couples with one child are now having to continue to rent.....two reasons 1. buying a first freehold is now beyond their reach as a growing family 2. much first time buyer property has been bought by investors to rent out and bigger places have been bought by investors to divide into smaller units to rent out......also people are buying later in life and living in the same property for longer....partly because they still have a higher percentage of debt still to pay back and also the cost of selling and buying something bigger in the same area is beyond their reach.....older people keep a spare room for their boomerang kids, an insurance policy. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you all know, the easy solution to this (and the solution to many problems in this country) is a LVT

Kind of......firstly they need to make council tax fairer, how can it be fair that someone living in a very expensive home in Westminster pays less in tax than someone in a three bed semi in another part of the country.......also BTL motgages need to be treated as a business and purchased on a repayment basis as OO mortgages are, multi purchase of many homes as investments to rent out should be taxed accordingly a sliding upward percentage of capital gains tax. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of......firstly they need to make council tax fairer, how can it be fair that someone living in a very expensive home in Westminster pays less in tax than someone in a three bed semi in another part of the country.......also BTL motgages need to be treated as a business and purchased on a repayment basis as OO mortgages are, multi purchase of many homes as investments to rent out should be taxed accordingly a sliding upward percentage of capital gains tax. ;)

Agree; these issues are more important/effective than LVT but require fact, evidence and some thought to grasp. Whereas LVT is emotive and plays off class warfare so this will be the route it goes down.

Council tax issue needs a deep and aggressive reform of the entire council system but sadly the lobby is too strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me bridge the gap.....

74% of owner occupiers live in 3 or more bedroom houses.

However only 37% of owner occupier households have more than 3 people in them (1 bedroom each for these above).

So at least 37% of owner occupies are "over-housed".

If they all downsized then there would be more bedrooms to share out more equally.

Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to.

The gaps are, unsurprisingly, smaller on the renter side but still notably present for smaller household sizes. It does seem like there is a squeeze on 4+ renters as these account for 19% of all rented households but only 7% of rented household stock has 4+ bedrooms (this might look somewhat better if we were able to see the number of cohabiting couples in this cohort, although that is clearly still a less than ideal situation).

More to the point any under-housing on the renter side is more than accommodated by over-housing elsewhere so it makes any semblance of undersupply look more like a distribution or misallocation* problem.

*I don't have any problem with people being over-housed per se (as long as they can afford it without subsidy from the under-housed) but my general impression is that a significant proportion of OO's with additional bedrooms don't actually use that space for anything other than HPI speculation, therefore I tend to think of most of them as akin to retail investors and generally expect them to behave in a similar fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree; these issues are more important/effective than LVT but require fact, evidence and some thought to grasp. Whereas LVT is emotive and plays off class warfare so this will be the route it goes down.

Council tax issue needs a deep and aggressive reform of the entire council system but sadly the lobby is too strong.

I don't understand why an LVT would necessarily play off class warfare? I'm sure some variant could be made of it that would serve that purpose if so desired but I don't see why the basic idea of moving the bulk of taxation on to land itself (not the worth of the buildings or the use given to it) would do so? It seems to me that a move away from income and wealth taxes and towards only taxing natural resource use would be a war on the feckless and inefficient more than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most impressive is that tenants are increasing and reaching 40% ot population.

If i was a BTL landlord, i would worry about BTL taxes in 5-10 yrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me bridge the gap.....

74% of owner occupiers live in 3 or more bedroom houses.

However only 37% of owner occupier households have more than 3 people in them (1 bedroom each for these above).

So at least 37% of owner occupies are "over-housed".

If they all downsized then there would be more bedrooms to share out more equally.

Isn't that like saying "if they all emigrated there would be more bedrooms to share out"? They're neither emigrating nor downsizing...so there aren't more bedrooms to share out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that like saying "if they all emigrated there would be more bedrooms to share out"? They're neither emigrating nor downsizing...so there aren't more bedrooms to share out.

It does seem to imply that the issue is more one of misallocation than undersupply. That could be quite significant because increasing the supply of a misallocated resource doesn't necessarily help correct that misallocation e.g. the already over-housed (or buy-to-let landlords) might hoover up new housing stock before any of the under-housed had a chance to benefit.

If a lack of downsizing is part of the issue then I think the important thing to work out is why the over-housed aren't downsizing (or, if BBC output is anything to go by - possibly not - why some are in fact upsizing)? Personally I think that, while many may be gaining a real quality of life benefit from the additional space in their homes, a significant proportion are simply holding onto rooms they don't use as a means of speculating on future HPI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem to imply that the issue is more one of misallocation than undersupply. That could be quite significant because increasing the supply of a misallocated resource doesn't necessarily help correct that misallocation e.g. the already over-housed (or buy-to-let landlords) might hoover up new housing stock before any of the under-housed had a chance to benefit.

If a lack of downsizing is part of the issue then I think the important thing to work out is why the over-housed aren't downsizing (or, if BBC output is anything to go by - possibly not - why some are in fact upsizing)? Personally I think that, while many may be gaining a real quality of life benefit from the additional space in their homes, a significant proportion are simply holding onto rooms they don't use as a means of speculating on future HPI.

Perhaps they don't want to move from the home where they raised their children and have many memories tied-up in the place, or from an area where they have a lot of friends? Then there is the stress of buying, selling and moving which will probably get too much eventually. Perhaps empathy is also required in looking at the problem rather than just working out.

Quite a lot of more elderly couples sleep in separate bedrooms, so if they are in a mode average house that leaves just one spare bedroom. I know of a few people who do shift work and use their parents as a baby sitting service so a spare bedroom becomes a nursery.

One really important question is where are most 1 or 2-bedroom houses that they can downsize to? In my experience it is often in more remote 80/90/00's suburbs that are poorly serviced by public transport. We're beginning to hear more and more stories about dangerous older drivers, living in an area with poor public transport means they'll be less willing to give-up their driving license even though they should.

Then there is the failure to provide appropriate housing stock for more elderly and hence less mobile people - i.e. bungalows. The irony here is that many 2-bed bungalows are being bought by younger buyers and are having loft extensions added, so you pretty much have a vicious cycle developing.

I suspect a more aren't moving because they don't want to rather than HPI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a lack of downsizing is part of the issue then I think the important thing to work out is why the over-housed aren't downsizing (or, if BBC output is anything to go by - possibly not - why some are in fact upsizing)? Personally I think that, while many may be gaining a real quality of life benefit from the additional space in their homes, a significant proportion are simply holding onto rooms they don't use as a means of speculating on future HPI.

The village I grew up in is full of 4 bedroom detached houses with large gardens, it has a thriving shop and several pubs.

When I was growing up these houses were occupied by families. Now these houses are occupied by empty-nesters (or whatever we call them), in fact when I last went home almost every family I knew 20+ years ago were still living in their family homes just without the adult kids.

None of these people need to move for financial reasons (final salary pensions almost universal amongst my parents friends plus those who are around 60 are inheritors of their own parents houses) and they have active social lives in quality housing.

However my parents and their friends are in a privileged position. My aunt and uncle have downsized after the kids all finally left home to free up some money. They have worked all their lives but never in well paid work and pensions are minimal so they need the cash. HPI has been their saving grace though as the family home they bought on small incomes freed up enough money for a 3 bed detached house and £150k to see them through the early years of retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they don't want to move from the home where they raised their children and have many memories tied-up in the place, or from an area where they have a lot of friends? Then there is the stress of buying, selling and moving which will probably get too much eventually. Perhaps empathy is also required in looking at the problem rather than just working out.

Quite a lot of more elderly couples sleep in separate bedrooms, so if they are in a mode average house that leaves just one spare bedroom. I know of a few people who do shift work and use their parents as a baby sitting service so a spare bedroom becomes a nursery.

One really important question is where are most 1 or 2-bedroom houses that they can downsize to? In my experience it is often in more remote 80/90/00's suburbs that are poorly serviced by public transport. We're beginning to hear more and more stories about dangerous older drivers, living in an area with poor public transport means they'll be less willing to give-up their driving license even though they should.

Then there is the failure to provide appropriate housing stock for more elderly and hence less mobile people - i.e. bungalows. The irony here is that many 2-bed bungalows are being bought by younger buyers and are having loft extensions added, so you pretty much have a vicious cycle developing.

I suspect a more aren't moving because they don't want to rather than HPI.

Yes, I did make pains to point out in both posts that I mentioned it that some of the over-housed (from all generations) would be getting genuine utility from their current housing and that I only think a subset are using empty, unused rooms as a store of HPI wealth.

In terms of defining whether or not this subset are significant I don't think it matters whether they are a minority or not, property prices move at the margins and even a relatively small cohort of HPI speculators could cause price movements in the right circumstances e.g. they might all try to cash out in a static or falling market and thus accelerate falls. If none of the people with multiple spare bedrooms care about their own HPI then that would of course be a different matter.

There doesn't seem to me to be any need to find ways to encourage downsizing amongst people who are not speculating and are genuinely happy in their current homes without being reliant on subsidy from the under-housed. This seem like a reasonable answer to the question of why they are not downsizing and therefore not actually in need of redress. I would certainly look to reduce buy-to-let first.

Edited by Neverwhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However my parents and their friends are in a privileged position. My aunt and uncle have downsized after the kids all finally left home to free up some money. They have worked all their lives but never in well paid work and pensions are minimal so they need the cash. HPI has been their saving grace though as the family home they bought on small incomes freed up enough money for a 3 bed detached house and £150k to see them through the early years of retirement.

My first reaction to this was "blimey, what did they downsize from?" which probably puts me squarely in this daily mash article:

LEADING a dull suburban life with a mortgage and two children is now a phenomenal achievement, everyone has agreed.

Modern life has become so challenging that ‘averageness’ is now considered an ambition on a par with becoming an acclaimed novelist, professional sportsperson or successful entrepreneur.

Part-time barista Tom Logan said: “I know a guy who’s got a two bedroom semi, a Vauxhall Corsa and a fairly generous pension. To me he may as well be Alan Sugar.

“I’d love all the trappings of success, like a garden and 2.4 children at the local comprehensive, but the only way an ordinary person like me could afford all that is by winning the lottery or becoming a drug dealer.”

Economist Donna Sheridan said: “The dire state of the job market means that people who were once mocked for their unexciting careers are now, relatively speaking, incredibly successful.

“It’s increasingly common for attractive young women to go to nightclubs with the intention of bagging themselves an accountant or geography teacher.”

Factory supervisor Roy Hobbs said: “With my small detached house, ‘luxury’ caravan and three ISAs, I’m living the dream, although not a very interesting one.

“My advice is to have the purely coincidental good fortune to buy a house just before a massive property boom that ******s everyone else.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The village I grew up in is full of 4 bedroom detached houses with large gardens, it has a thriving shop and several pubs.

When I was growing up these houses were occupied by families. Now these houses are occupied by empty-nesters (or whatever we call them), in fact when I last went home almost every family I knew 20+ years ago were still living in their family homes just without the adult kids.

What's the provision of 2 bed homes like? Pretty poor I imagine. Any that are available would be disproportionately expensive because downsizers would push up the prices I expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   62 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.