Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
ftb_fml

Telegraph: "Landlords fear another crackdown on buy-to-let property investment"

Recommended Posts

Good message to start the year but I doubt the BOE intends to do anything immediately but is more likely to wait and see what impact other regulations have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ftb_fml said:

Following the front page "Fears of a massive global property price fall" it looks like the Telegraph are further ramping up the HPC rhetoric...

Got to be a good thing that will hopefully add more fuel to the fire of BTL fear, although I'm somewhat skeptical of the agenda driving the media's changing sentiment.

It's been discussed here for years.

Those younger lot pissed off with this nonsense are gradually getting into positions in media, government etc where they may have some say and influence.

That's part of it anyway imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ccc said:
3 hours ago, Maynardgravy said:

Wow. The spike in that graph at the end of Q1 2016. I wonder why.....?

Buying frenzy to avoid the stamp duty hike ;)

 

2 hours ago, ccc said:

It's been discussed here for years.

Those younger lot pissed off with this nonsense are gradually getting into positions in media, government etc where they may have some say and influence.

That's part of it anyway imo. 

Thanks - I'd like to think it's for reasons as pure and legitimate as this.. however I'm still suspicious that after years of mercilessly ratcheting up house prices the establishment have been doing their best recently to cool the market / hammer BTL, and now the media appear to increasingly be following this lead too.

I suppose one answer would be that the political weight has shifted from appeasing the sense of financial entitlement of boomers' who have nowhere to invest their money (boo hoo) to a growing number of ftb's shut out of the housing market. Another might be that crashing the housing market allows cash-rich speculators to buy at the "bottom" before it's all ramped up again - a convenient method for debt-enslavement and further widening the gap between rich and poor.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever increasing generation rent tho...

Tories need the next generation on their side if they're to survive. I reckon George Osborne worked that out finally last year. They will let BTLers go to the wall if it means they can attract young voters. True Blue have-a-go landlords are about to bitterly find out that they're no longer loved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EnglishinWales said:

True Blue have-a-go landlords are about to bitterly find out that they're no longer loved. 

I doubt they'll be voting Corbyn, whatever happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

2 million BTLers tho...

As long as Corbyn runs Labour, the Tories can ignore this lot as they would never vote for anyone else. As others have said, May needs to focus on those who the establishment have ignored and get then on side.

I also wonder if there is a sense among the powers that be that now would be a good time to purge the system so they can blame it on Trump, Brexit and other 'populist' movements. New would be the best time from their perspective to allow a financial crash and for the property market to go South...in a couple of years time they can tell us all how silly we were to not trust the elite.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HovelinHove said:

As long as Corbyn runs Labour, the Tories can ignore this lot as they would never vote for anyone else. As others have said, May needs to focus on those who the establishment have ignored and get then on side.

I also wonder if there is a sense among the powers that be that now would be a good time to purge the system so they can blame it on Trump, Brexit and other 'populist' movements. New would be the best time from their perspective to allow a financial crash and for the property market to go South...in a couple of years time they can tell us all how silly we were to not trust the elite.

 

 

May has a chance to take a large chunk of Labor tribal voters now tgat Thatcher is dead and Corbyn is aloon and as slarge number of photos stood next to Gerry Adams.

Theres nit Northern family with a squaddies wholl vote for Corbyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ccc said:

It's been discussed here for years.

Those younger lot pissed off with this nonsense are gradually getting into positions in media, government etc where they may have some say and influence.

That's part of it anyway imo. 

 

A few years ago, before I left London, I lived on the same street as a guy who worked in the Tory Party.  He worked principly for one individual, a former minister, and influential thinker.  At one point this guy was sufficiently well placed to be a Parliamentary Candidate in a no-hope constituency somewhere.  Very nice family actually, wife and baby, etc.  

I don't know what happened to them, because like me they were renters.  They were given notice, had to move, and before anyone knew, they were gone.  From conversations with him it seems his situation was typical of Young Bright Things working in the Tory Party machine.

This is an anecdote, I know, but I'm confident there are more renters than landlords stalking around Whitehall and Tory HQ.  As someone else has said, the demographics always win in the end!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EnglishinWales said:

2 million tory voting BTLers vs. 9 million non tory voting renters. Govt. aren't stupid.

Most well off champagne socialists I know either have BTL properties or aspire to have one.Tony Blair legitimized it philosophically for them so they're not landlords but rather people topping up their pensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sancho Panza said:

Most well off champagne socialists I know either have BTL properties or aspire to have one.Tony Blair legitimized it philosophically for them so they're not landlords but rather people topping up their pensions.

 

Aren't they calling themselves "home providers" or something equally cringeworthy? as if those homes would be laying empty without their generosity....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oatbake said:

Aren't they calling themselves "home providers" or something equally cringeworthy? as if those homes would be laying empty without their generosity....

Yes that's the spirit,providing homes for the needy......no kids ,no benefit claimants natch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Sancho Panza said:

Yes that's the spirit,providing homes for the needy......no kids ,no benefit claimants natch.

No Smokers, No DSS, No Pets, Children considered, No Pictures, No renters. White goods available for an additional upfront fee. Innit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never understood the no pets stance. We are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers, we all understand how important pets are to wellbeing. Why deny tenants that? Are they not like other people. Rented homes aren't hotels, we should be able to live as we please.

It's not even based on sense, I've heard landlords say small children cause far more damage.

I think it's just a control thing. Landlords get off on having power to dictate how people live.

Edited by EnglishinWales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EnglishinWales said:

Never understood the no pets stance. We are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers, we all understand how important pets are to wellbeing. Why deny tenants that? Are they not like other people. Rented homes aren't hotels, we should be able to live as we please.

It's not even based on sense, I've heard landlords say small children cause far more damage.

I think it's just a control thing. Landlords get off on having power to dictate how people live.

With pets, it's not so much about the destruction they cause. It's more about the smell.

I don't own a pet and haven't owned one for almost 30 years. When I enter a cat owner's home, I'm close to throwing up. The stench is horrible. It's better in SOME cases (depending on cat, owner, place), but in most cases...holy sh!t.

Landlords expect you to be there for one year. Perhaps two. When you leave, they'll have to rent the place again to someone else. Someone who might walk out in 2 seconds if the place smells "funny". Or they might be allergic to cat hair/dog hair or whatever. Or Or Or. 

It's the same thing with smokers (I'm a smoker) They're not worried that you'll burn their worthless carpets, they're worried about the smell getting into the bloody walls, curtains and everything else. 

With children it's mostly about how easily they ruin stuff. When I was ~4, on holiday with my parents, I thought it would be hilarious to "borrow" some of my mother's make-up and use it to draw on the walls of the hotel room. Needless to say, the management of the hotel found it less hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that some pet owners are irresponsible thinking they can keep them inside all day.

But the deposit AND the rent in advance is a cover against damage so to have a blanket ban on all pet owners is unfair. It perpetuates this idea that tenants are automatically irresponsible and messy and that the property is primarily an investment. People need to be able to live like it's their home at the end of the day.

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:   52 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.