Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
AvoidDebt

Government Prepares Multi-Billion Pound Housing Stimulus

Recommended Posts

No stats = your earlier statement is b-llocks

"in the last three years there has been a 50% drop in the number of landlords taking people who are on benefits. It is now down to only one fifth; 22% of our landlord members whom we surveyed say they have LHA tenants, and 52% of those surveyed said they would not look at taking on benefits tenants."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/720/720.pdf

page 18 onwards

now fck off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised so many of you guys seem to like this idea. For me, more money pumped into the market means higher prices, regardless of whether the money is on the alleged supply side or the demand side. Housing supply side is actually the demand side for builders, window & decor manufacturers, land owners, a whole array of industries. All this would lead to increased building costs and higher prices, I'm afraid. Money needs to be removed from the housing market, not added to it.

Edited by kibuc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"in the last three years there has been a 50% drop in the number of landlords taking people who are on benefits. It is now down to only one fifth; 22% of our landlord members whom we surveyed say they have LHA tenants, and 52% of those surveyed said they would not look at taking on benefits tenants."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/720/720.pdf

page 18 onwards

now fck off

a. that is CML lenders only

b. it describes a trend but not an absolute - eg how do you know that the 22% dont represent a large volume of total let dwellings

c. always a pleasure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a. that is CML lenders only

b. it describes a trend but not an absolute - eg how do you know that the 22% dont represent a large volume of total let dwellings

c. always a pleasure

WTF haven't you bothered to read a few of the BTLers forums. Nowadays none of them want to take HB. A few years ago there were some that actually did, but now that's all changed and they'd prefer not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Land with building permission is not fixed.

As I said, if there are planning reforms then that is a different story.

Planning reforms will only work once. However, it doesn't cost the government anything, and could actually raise money.

The real downside is that, if it leads to a lot of development, the private sector will have wasted a lot of money simply to get around landlords.

Easier to just put an end to the BTL scam, and save everyone the time and effort.

Edited by BuyToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a. that is CML lenders only

b. it describes a trend but not an absolute - eg how do you know that the 22% dont represent a large volume of total let dwellings

c. always a pleasure

a. where does it say it is CML lenders only - i did a search on the pdf report for "CML" "Council for Mortgage Lenders" and Council of Mortgage Lenders". The term was found zero times

b. 78% is a vast majority of landlords - you wanted stats, I gave you stats. I know that 78% represents an even larger volume by nearly 4 to 1

c. you came in all guns blazing saying I was talking boll0cks and wanted stats. You got them and are now writhing like a fish out of water

cognitive dissonance much?

don't shoot the messenger

Edited by knock out johnny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A vast majority of landlords in London want absolutely nothing to do with HB

Stats pls

Go into most high street estate agents in London and ask if they take housing benefit etc

"in the last three years there has been a 50% drop in the number of landlords taking people who are on benefits. It is now down to only one fifth; 22% of our landlord members whom we surveyed say they have LHA tenants, and 52% of those surveyed said they would not look at taking on benefits tenants."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/720/720.pdf

page 18 onwards

now fck off

knock out johnny, there are lots of thoughtful people who read these boards. You can't fool all of us with a bit of loudmouth swagger and some aggression. However, you can (and have in this example IMO) make a useful contribution by looking for evidence and analysing it.

You originally claimed that in London "a vast majority of landlords want absolutely nothing to do with HB". You then 'support' that claim with a statistic which implies that 48% of landlords from an NLA survey (which is probably a sample drawn somewhat erratically from all of England and Wales) are willing to accept tenants who are paying some or all of the rent with HB.

Hence, on the face of things on this thread at this stage, it looks likes that the view you'd formed on the basis of haphazardly sampling estate agents' advertising is not being supported by an alternative method of assessing the matter.

The source you've turned up has an interesting couple of paragraphs on what fraction of the PRS is in receipt of housing benefit.

24. The Government argued that private sector landlords were still willing to rent to people in receipt of Housing Benefit and pointed out that 30% of people renting in the private sector were in receipt of Housing Benefit. We queried this figure with Lord Freud as in our 2010 inquiry he had told us that the figure was 40%. In subsequent written evidence, the Government acknowledged that “there are different sources of information on the proportion of the PRS that is in receipt of housing benefit. None of these gives a definitively accurate figure”. At the time of the 2011 census, it is estimated that “there were potentially 34% of households in the PRS in receipt of housing benefit” but this was likely to be “a small overestimate because a household may include more than one benefit unit in receipt of housing benefit”.

25. Lord Freud told us that “the number of housing benefit claimants in the private-rented sector has increased by around 8% nationally and by around 5% in London”. Data provided in subsequent supplementary evidence showed an increase between 2008 and 2012 in numbers of tenants on Housing Benefit in the PRS, and then a slight decline between November 2012 and 2013. It is not yet apparent whether this is a trend which will continue.

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

knock out johnny, there are lots of thoughtful people who read these boards. You can't fool all of us with a bit of loudmouth swagger and some aggression. However, you can (and have in this example IMO) make a useful contribution by looking for evidence and analysing it.

You originally claimed that in London "a vast majority of landlords want absolutely nothing to do with HB". You then 'support' that claim with a statistic which implies that 48% of landlords from an NLA survey (which is probably a sample drawn somewhat erratically from all of England and Wales) are willing to accept tenants who are paying some or all of the rent with HB.

Hence, on the face of things on this thread at this stage, it looks likes that the view you'd formed on the basis of haphazardly sampling estate agents' advertising is not being supported by an alternative method of assessing the matter.

The source you've turned up has an interesting couple of paragraphs on what fraction of the PRS is in receipt of housing benefit.

Source

If someone wants to charge into me shouting 'boll0cks' then they'll get loudmouth swagger back. He could have googled the question and found the exact same document I did - instead he mumbled something about CML when presented with the stats that didn't agree with him.

If you don't think the data I've cited is valid/accurate please find other more validated data and present it as a counter

I stand by my claim that a vast majority of london landlords want nothing to do with housing benefit - but I'll caveat that by making the concession that the vast majority of london landlords who DO accept housing benefit are at the lower end/slumlord type properties

Those landlords who use a reputable agent and do things properly will insist on proper tenant referencing and if the salaries don't meet a certain multiple of the rent the reference fails.

Edited by knock out johnny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing is certain, interference in the market to boost supply is better than interference to boost demand , which is what we have had until now with terrible consequences for the young and/or poor.

Including those of us who are no longer either young or poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b. 78% is a vast majority of landlords - you wanted stats, I gave you stats. I know that 78% represents an even larger volume by nearly 4 to 1

I think that there is an error of reasoning here. If only 30% of the PRS is inhabited by households in receipt of HB then a majority of tenanted properties won't be inhabited by households receiving HB. The concentration of so-called portfolio landlords in the HMO and HB 'game' might explain the disparity between 30%-40% of PRS households being HB recipients and only 22% of landlords actually housing HB recipients.

Crucially, your 'claim' (I realise that this is just an internet forum and not a court of law!) was that the "vast majority" of London landlords wouldn't touch an HB recipient. What the data is speaking to is two separate matters. On the one hand, the number of landlord survey respondents who have HB recipients tenanting their properties (22%) and on the other, the number of landlords who state that they would not be willing to accept HB recipients (48%). Hence the data supports the proposal that the majority of PRS tenants pay rent with earnings without HB assistance, but it also suggests that landlords are split 50:50 on accepting HB tenants.

That doesn't mean you are wrong - it just means that the survey data presented in the Parliamentary report to which you have linked doesn't support your assertion.

If you don't think the data I've cited is valid/accurate please find other more validated data and present it as a counter

Negotiation by the prescription of possible options is problematic.

I think that you've simply misinterpreted your own source. In light of this I've decided that the way to continue a constructive and enlightening dialogue on the forum is to set out an alternative interpretation.

This isn't and shouldn't be gladiatorial. If it ever feels that it is, then that might be considered a sign that the underlying approach might have flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article mentions that Berkeley Homes has switched to modular methods for its Kidbrooke Village development in SE3.

Part of this development uses a design that Berkeley has named 'Urban House' and has been trying to patent (with little success so far I believe). The company wants 'urban' to become a generic name along with detached, semi-detached, terraced and apartment. The design allows greater housing density than terraced.

BerkeleyUrbanHouse.jpg

http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/o/k/berkeley-kidbrooke-village-urban-houses-brochure.pdf

Urban looks very noise-pollutey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article mentions that Berkeley Homes has switched to modular methods for its Kidbrooke Village development in SE3.

3 Beds starting at £800,000.

SOLD OUT.

Guys, this is fckd....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there is an error of reasoning here. If only 30% of the PRS is inhabited by households in receipt of HB then a majority of tenanted properties won't be inhabited by households receiving HB. The concentration of so-called portfolio landlords in the HMO and HB 'game' might explain the disparity between 30%-40% of PRS households being HB recipients and only 22% of landlords actually housing HB recipients.

Crucially, your 'claim' (I realise that this is just an internet forum and not a court of law!) was that the "vast majority" of London landlords wouldn't touch an HB recipient. What the data is speaking to is two separate matters. On the one hand, the number of landlord survey respondents who have HB recipients tenanting their properties (22%) and on the other, the number of landlords who state that they would not be willing to accept HB recipients (48%). Hence the data supports the proposal that the majority of PRS tenants pay rent with earnings without HB assistance, but it also suggests that landlords are split 50:50 on accepting HB tenants.

That doesn't mean you are wrong - it just means that the survey data presented in the Parliamentary report to which you have linked doesn't support your assertion.

Negotiation by the prescription of possible options is problematic.

I think that you've simply misinterpreted your own source. In light of this I've decided that the way to continue a constructive and enlightening dialogue on the forum is to set out an alternative interpretation.

This isn't and shouldn't be gladiatorial. If it ever feels that it is, then that might be considered a sign that the underlying approach might have flaws.

Thanks for your measured response

I was asked (aggressively) for stats which after a very cursory google I presented (confident that it was a credible source)

I stand by my assertion that a vast majority of London landlords want nothing to do with housing benefit etc

I conceded that the vast majority of landlords in London that did accept housing benefit etc were at the slumlord/lower end of the London rental market (on this I have no data and don't intend to back this statement up with data) it's just my 'feel' for the rental market in London. I should have clarified rental to me is a selfcontained exclusive dwelling as opposed to house shares/rooms/hmo's

I am still waiting on people criticising me to post their own data to prove me wrong rather than attempt to discredit what I have presented

as I say, pop into most high street letting agents and ask if they accept housing benefit and see what the answer is. Gumtree is a different matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would a wheelchair user live in a house like that.

How could anyone live in it?

It looks absolutely terrible, imo. God awful design and crammed together so you have to see/hear the peasants/other chavs the whole time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would a wheelchair user live in a house like that.

Good point .. but in London I'm not sure being disabled is legal as disabled people take up far too much space. God forbid .. if they were allowed in we might actually be forced to build on the green belt (the collection of disused warehouses and abandoned factory lots near the M25).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our 'leaders' may have changed hands but the bankers/developers behind the scenes still run the show.

I'd expect more stimulus and Brexit delayed until we chose the 'correct choice' for the EU.

It makes no sense to us as normal people but to their banker friends it's going enrich them further.

Edited by Assume The Opposite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knock Out Johnny - as it goes i do owe you an apology, my post yesterday with the word 'b-llocks' in it was not constructive. In general i think i am encouraging of other views on here, so you should not assume thst it was born from some kind of hostility to an alternative view - was just in a rush and didnt enter the debate constructively.

Fwiw i do think your original point was overly definitive and has not been backed up - but clearly there were better ways to have said that. This forum is at its best when there is good quality debate with a range of opinions and i think i usually try and contribute to that rather thsn hinder it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knock Out Johnny - as it goes i do owe you an apology, my post yesterday with the word 'b-llocks' in it was not constructive. In general i think i am encouraging of other views on here, so you should not assume thst it was born from some kind of hostility to an alternative view - was just in a rush and didnt enter the debate constructively.

Fwiw i do think your original point was overly definitive and has not been backed up - but clearly there were better ways to have said that. This forum is at its best when there is good quality debate with a range of opinions and i think i usually try and contribute to that rather thsn hinder it !

You're a gentleman and apologies if I "fell out my pram" at you

I may be wrong. I'm just putting my tuppence worth out there.

Edited by knock out johnny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be a boom time for many building suppliers if the government goes for a big housing and infrastructure boost.

You and I both thought such a policy was likely when we discussed it a few weeks ago, but the markets have been surprisingly slow to pick up on this. Building supplies companies had been in the doldrums for most of the year due to the slump in construction, but after the Brexit vote they were absolutely hammered.

As this sort of news seeps into investors' consciousness the share prices have been picking up (especially today), but a number of them still look pretty cheap with P/Es below 10 and dividend yields 5%+ (and very little net debt).

Interesting point, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the possibility that you are both right. I believe that a majority of LL's don't want HB tenants. But two or three scumlords with 100+ properties will house those that others don't want. So in theory you can have 90% of landlords refusing HB but actually 90% of tenants receiving HB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the plus side, funding has been difficult for small to medium builders. There is an effective monopoly by a handful of builders which has been incredibly unhealthy for competition, choice and quality.

On the cynical side, every time house-builders think they might have problems flogging homes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 399 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.