Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tories admit that the housing market is broken


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
6 minutes ago, Venger said:

Recent changes with Section21 are very very good.   Can't serve S21 in early days of tenancy.  Can't serve S21 if tenant makes complaint about repairs not done (with limited ways out for the BTLer).  Tenant able to escalate matters to local council, and S21 can't be served until council rules.  Excellent.  

There have been these moves, and anything to strengthen the renter-tenant side position ahead is very welcome by me, during a wider transition in the market (imo)

Reading the reactions of the BTLers to this alone was brilliant.  

Would welcome more moves to rebalance rights toward tenants, and away from the BTLers. :)

On 4/9/2016 at 3:10 AM, Venger said:

Of course things have changed a bit, going forwards for new tenancies after 1 October 2015. Lifting this from an email I sent out to all my renting family, at the time.

Quote

 

New legislation comes into effect TODAY (1st October 2015)

Section 21


The new form of s21 notice only applies to tenancies which are new or are renewed after 1 October 2015. It will not apply to statutory periodic tenancies which follow on from tenancies started before this date.

Download the new Section 21 notice

For a section 21 notice to be validly served the tenant must have at some prior stage received:

A valid EPC
A current landlord’s Gas Safety Certificate
The Government How to Rent Guide

Timing: A Section 21 Notice cannot validly be served in the first four months of a tenancy

Expiry: If proceedings are not issued within 6 months of the service of a Section 21 Notice, then the notice will be invalid.

VIDEO: 5 instances where landlords cannot serve a Section 21 notice:

 

Quote

 

...As part of the Deregulation Act 2015, tenants will now have the first four months of a tenancy to file a complaint to a landlord with regards to issues of disrepair. Shamplina adds “Good landlords will deal with complaints within the given 14 days, but my concern is the level of resource the local authorities have in place to action environmental health officers to carry out inspections when staffing levels have been cut to the bone. Landlords’ circumstances can change and if they need to end their tenancy, but can’t because they are waiting for an inspection or to gain access from the tenant, landlords are going to lose valuable time.”

If a property is considered in disrepair, landlords are unable to serve a section 21 notice for 6 months from the date an improvement notice is served by the council.

“I think this could lead to a huge spike in complaints from tenants. I am a bit fed up of all the frequent landlord bashing. It is about time there were more positive statements for landlords in the Private Rented Sector which now stands at approximately 19% of the housing market” concludes Paul.

Thread (and comments from BTLers that always make me happy)

 

:lol:

 

Basically, as I understand it, if landlord doesn't hop to a repair, then tenant can take it to local authority/environmental health to look into, and landlord can't serve s21 until that's all cleared.

INFOGRAPHIC [PDF]

http://fixflostore.blob.core.windows.net/live-assets/www/S21/Section%252021%2520flyer.pdf

http://www.propertytribes.com/new-legislation-comes-into-effect-today-smoke-alarms-t-127622059.html

 

Quote

1st October 2015

Ministers delivered a new bombshell to the private rented sector yesterday with guidance explaining that tenants will be able to stave off eviction by complaining about repair issues without having to tell the landlord or agent of the problem.

The could instead go straight to the local authority, leaving the landlord or agent in the dark as to any complaint and giving them no opportunity to address the problem.

---
1 Oct 2015 at 11:06 
so basically if you cannot serve a section 21 within the first 4 months. A tenant could legally rent my house for 4 months for free. AND ONLY THEN could I issue the section 21 which (with court proceedings) takes another 6 months to get them out.

Meaning all tenants are entitled to 9 months free rent basically. How generous.

In fact...
I might do this myself!

I could just live rent free for most of the year then go somewhere else after every 9 months, look out landlords, im sure im not the only one whos thought of this.

---

1 Oct 2015 at 11:10 
In fact, I think it should be law for landlords to take the shirt from their back and give it to the tenant. They should also be entitled to my phone and shoes because im a landlord Smile

Infact, i think if we dont give all tenants a back massage once a week we should be locked up, they have a right to back massages.

---
2 Oct 2015 at 10:52 
The problem with this piece of legislation is that Citizen's Advice will be telling people to use this as a tactic to avoid eviction.
To me that's morally reprehensible, we have already heard the expression "greedy landlords" coming out of the Labour Party Conference, not once but several times.
---
2 Oct 2015 at 10:57 
Yes, Bernie, the cards are being stacked against landlords.

Yet still they do not wake up to what is really happening.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
39 minutes ago, Venger said:

Their own personal individual choice to do it.  

They went into buying and outbidding others for houses (would-be homeowners) for personal profit.

I wouldn't become an arms-dealer tomorrow even if Gov gave me some special tax-relief, and outlook that suggested mad-gainz ahead. 

So it is with housing and more renters with extreme valuations, for those sat pretty, who chose to double-down into housing financialisation with BTL.

And if it's HPC ahead, the BTLers take their losses.

Many of us believe the conditions (with tax-relief) continued from 2008-2017 to draw in the greed.  

Now we have Section24 BTLers, leaving so many BTLers reeling and astonished.  Writing about their own 'financial oblivion' with 50 BTLs etc.

Good.

We are not talking about the consequences of what has a high chance of happening, we are talking about why people do the things that they do, and why they were encouraged to do what they did.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
Just now, winkie said:

We are not talking about the consequences of what has a high chance of happening, we are talking about why people do the things that they do, and why they were encouraged to do what they did.;)

Reads like a whole load of excuses to me for the people farmers.

**** them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

Better conditions for tenants equals worse conditions for Landlords. This makes real yields lower and suppresses house prices.

 

Hammond sells the spades, no, he doesn't actually prospect for gold? He'll be fine.

Edited by Si1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

 

1 hour ago, winkie said:

People have been encouraged to take on large amounts of debt to buy places to rent out, private landlords to replace business landlords and state landlords that came with more tenant protections.....Tax relief and low interest rates for high value to loan and  the perception of continuing ongoing growing income and growth......encouragement of Investment in multiple property via leaverage so removing available resources from potential one owner occupiers.;)

Interest only....No income required.

 

22 minutes ago, winkie said:

We are not talking about the consequences of what has a high chance of happening, we are talking about why people do the things that they do, and why they were encouraged to do what they did.;)

How they chose/choose to see the world.

Big-I-Am, housing financialisation, all-the-more-houses-for-me-cause-so-special.

And they've doubled down into BTL since 2010, with 2million more properties taken into BTL, mostly with BTL debt (£200BILLION + since 2010)

You tell us we have options including sofa-surfing with our families, or staying with parents that some of us don't have, or who live 100s miles from where we work, squeezing our families in, so as to avoid the BTLers financial capture.....  I have read it.    The BTLers made their own choices and it has had hard impact on lives of others.  See house prices.  Insecure tenancies.  I don't care why they thought it was great to do (tax-relief) - they did it.  Choice.  They've not lost out on it yet (on the whole) so no need to create some form of shining innocence for the BTLers.

Quote

 

Bland Unsight post

All I see here is the ridiculous, broken banking sector. You should never have been allowed to place those bets. I couldn't care less how you made out. Through your actions you were complicit in financial capture. You've picked sides already, and you favoured  a horrid notion of yourself in splendid isolation over your ability to live equitably with your neighbour, (sorry, tenant), and damn the consequences. That speaks plainly to what you are.

 

Bad habits from their ego all-about-me world views.   All so very easy against their view of ForeverHPI and me-me-me, more and more houses - other people to be farmed.... doing them a favour because 'they can't afford to buy' - errr no we can't with BTLers that have outbid my family and friends on house after house for years, to see those houses return to market as rentals.

These new measures sound good and don't lock in mad-gainz, or make for mad-future gainz, for those of BTL mind.  

Quite the opposite, and I agree with Si1.  Risks more testing conditions for BTLers.

Quote

 

'I want to know something, ship. Is there any way out of this?' Stupid question. He could see the answer. His position was an inchoate mess; the only certain thing about it was that it was hopeless. 

~ 'Out of your present situation in the game?'

He sighed. What a waste of time. 'Yes. Can you see a way?'

You are more points behind than anybody who has ever come back to win in any Main Series game. You have already been defeated, they believe.'

Gurgeh waited for more. Silence.

What was the ship playing at? Mess, mess, a total mess. His position was a swirling, amorphous, nebulous, almost barbaric welter of pieces and areas, battered and crumbling and falling away. Why was he even bothering to ask? Didn't he trust his own judgement? Did he need a Mind to tell him? Would only that make it real?

~ 'Yes, of course there is a way,' the ship said. 'Many ways, in fact, though they are all unlikely, near impossible. But it can be done.

[.....................]In the confusion, Gurgeh watched the others, devoid of their leader, squabble over the scraps of power. One got into serious trouble; Gurgeh attacked, annihilated most of his forces and captured the rest, and then kept on attacking without even waiting to regroup.  He realised later he'd still been behind in points at that time, but the sheer momentum of his own resurrection from oblivion carried him on, spreading an unreasoning, hysterical, almost superstitiously intense panic amongst the others.

-Player of Games

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
6
HOLA447
7
HOLA448
8
HOLA449
29 minutes ago, winkie said:

....the feedback is that it is not working, it is broken.;)

And BTLers having been a big part of breaking it, for millions of renter-savers/younger people who would have preferred to become homeowners, but supply bought and hogged by the rentiers.

The BTLers and HPIers own market choices.  

I struggle to understand what you mean as well (except in some posts where you make excellent sense, away from BTLer responsibility for their own choices and how renters can overcome BTLers), with a view that BTLers were 'encouraged' into it, as though they played no active part in their own market decisions.

I have discouraged it as much as possible, but been rentiers income vs ever more HPI, and the BTLers been happy with it.  Delighted.  Lording it. 

At a big cost to others/other families.  Senior professional, highly educated productive workers.

On 8/5/2014 at 0:49 PM, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

For the past 2 years, I have seen people continue to be bailed out for their balls out risk-taking, mocked for my risk aversion to the extent that I was openly mocked by BTLers as a poor man from a poor family who do not understand what it takes to become rich (and by 'what it takes to become rich' they meant buy as much property as highly leveraged as you can), seen myself priced out of a market where houses are bought for cash and then rented out the day after completion at sub 3.5% yields (these are 3% stamp duty properties too), seen people pay more in stamp duty than I paid in rent for 3 years who are now sitting on £150k+ of 'profit' and lastly have a landlord who despite buying the house I live in for under £60,000 in the late 90s contacts me to say that he needs to show a rental income of £800+pm (way above what I'm paying) so that he can re-mortgage onto a better deal. You do the math, I'd guess current value is around £240-250k but anything is possible in this market but not all early market entrants are sitting pretty and this sort of BTL activity has pushed up rental prices in the area to upwards of £1000pcm for a small family home and garden.

And what's the problem anyway winkie when so many others see any such moves (topic of this thread) as protecting the BTLers positions!

We each take our bearings from the world as we see it.

We all have to make our market choices, and they chose their positions, in a housing supply and affordability extreme squeeze.  Not innocence.  Active choices that carry responsibility and also, risk.   "Not bailout bailout bailouts - BTLers didn't know what they were doing - some other big bad to blame.... ....err yes the banks... must have been the banks."

 

On 8/25/2012 at 4:26 PM, gf3 said:

If you hit your thumb with a claw hammer that will make you smart.

If then I hit my thumb with a lump hammer that will make me smarter than you :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
10
HOLA4411
8 hours ago, spyguy said:

No democracy has ever been a landlordism.

If you have any references / links I'd be interested to see, if not OK and not that I am questioning the logic as that is quite logical and one of my own thoughts too.

 

41 minutes ago, Venger said:

At a big cost to others/other families.  Senior professional, highly educated productive workers.

I'm going a bit off topic here but I realized recently why I think Chairman Mao retained power. I might call it logical apathy.

Given the choice between A- meritocracy or B- Hell on Earth with an Iron fist. No doubt that Families, Senior professional, highly educated productive workers would want A- meritocracy.

Yet if in situation B-, families, Senior professionals, highly educated productive workers have no reason whatsoever to stand up for economic rent seekers. Not out of disproportionate spite, just out of it being completely illogical.

Like a Gazelle campaigning against the Devil for a Lion to get ripped apart painlessly.

Edited by Arpeggio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
12
HOLA4413
6 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

If you have any references / links I'd be interested to see, if not OK and not that I am questioning the logic as that is quite logical and one of my own thoughts too.

 

I'm going a bit off topic here but I realized recently why I think Chairman Mao retained power. I might call it logical apathy.

Given the choice between A- meritocracy or B- Hell on Earth with an Iron fist. No doubt that Families, Senior professional, highly educated productive workers would want A- meritocracy.

Yet if in situation B-, families, Senior professionals, highly educated productive workers have no reason whatsoever to stand up for economic rent seekers. Not out of disproportionate spite, just out of it being completely illogical.

Like a Gazelle campaigning against the Devil for a Lion to get ripped apart painlessly.

Its a pure numbers game in a democracy.

Renters outnumber LLs, so vote it down.

In totalitarian, LL make useful scapegoats.

In Democracies too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
Just now, spyguy said:

Its a pure numbers game in a democracy.

Renters outnumber LLs, so vote it down.

In totalitarian, LL make useful scapegoats.

In Democracies too.

Of course, logical on all points. At least in Democracies they might just get f***ed in the wallet and make way for those who actually produce the wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
15
HOLA4416
34 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Its a pure numbers game in a democracy.

Renters outnumber LLs, so vote it down.

In totalitarian, LL make useful scapegoats.

In Democracies too.

The BTLers posting about it....

Doesn't look like they are happy-happy about it.  No "Mad-gainz, BTL forever, etc."

And they are experts in everything about making people rent - they know it all.

Quote

I am very dishearten by the "moth in a lampshade" behaviour of successive governments and I dread to read this White Paper when it is finally released.

 

Quote

 

"It doesn't make any sense!

Where are all these tenants supposed to live if the small LL is forced out of business!!?"

 

The post 2015 big BTLer question, in all their previous 'providing homes' that people can't afford to buy etc.

http://www.propertytribes.com/theresa-may-to-offer-more-security-for-renter-t-127628331.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417

They are all attempting to mask the actual issue; the inhabitants can barely afford to keep the engine running, so the value of sterling dropped, to entice wealthy people from other countries to buy into the UK system. Now everyone senses uncertainty, hence the predicament. Do we really have a housing shortage or an issue of low interest rates has sent the inflow of money into stocks (shares) and physical assets such as houses? History will repeat itself, once interest rates rise; money will be moved back into retail banks, and house prices will fall again. The only road block is the Bank of England, who would stick to this position for the next 20 years, hoping salaries will catch up. Wishful thinking!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

Surely this focus on rights for renters is a good thing for non-landlords. After all, more rights for tenants means less power for landlords. This can help to reduce the appeal of BTL and add to the view that this business is not the source of easy money that it has been seen as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
38 minutes ago, MrMonkey said:

Surely this focus on rights for renters is a good thing for non-landlords. After all, more rights for tenants means less power for landlords. This can help to reduce the appeal of BTL and add to the view that this business is not the source of easy money that it has been seen as.

+10^10^10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
20
HOLA4421
Just now, The Knimbies who say No said:

Just heard shadow housing person on radio, saying they want:

 

3 year tenancies, with predictable rent rises within that period.

Hard not to be disheartened by hearing this sort of stuff. 

Capitulating on your behalf, HM Government's official opposition. 

Or competing with the government for the renter vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
6 minutes ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

Hard not to be disheartened by hearing this sort of stuff. 

 

It's more hassle for the BTLers.  I doubt they could hike rents substantially anyway, into Section24, as many a BTLer has been threatening, but this move also may put further limitations on them, as Section 24 begins to clamp down.

More from the BTLers.

Quote

 

1 hours ago 
Nice wish list Mary. Fat chance they'll listen to any of it.

Politicians have woken up to the fact that giving landlords a spanking is a vote winner. Simple as. Everyone (who isn't one) thinks landlords are &*^%'s so anything they can do to us is going to win popular consensus. We are doomed.

 

One thing I/we have noticed is so many BTLers don't see FTBs/would-be OOs in the mix, if/when they come to sell.   Houses there for 'corporate landlords' to buy, or just get boarded up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
Just now, Si1 said:

Or competing with the government for the renter vote.

I'm not sure why any renter would sign up to it though. Rent should decrease as tenancy risks subside.

LLs want it all.

New tenant? Ooh, risky. You might be a junkie ne'erdowell who doesn't pay.

Want a long tenancy? Ooh the benefit of extra security is worth paying for via rent rises tied to inflation.

Why not, for example, treat these people as they are- people who will spin any situation, and leverage a position of strength, for a bit of coin.

Giving incentives to people to conduct what was presumably* the entire fecking reason they rent out houses- to collect rent- is plain silly.

*I can't even remember whether BTLers say it's a business or an investment these days. So some might be in it to get capital gains in the main. So they can be treated accordingly ie under the policy bus via S24 you go. The rest don't, surely, have a leg to stand on.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
49 minutes ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

Just heard shadow housing person on radio, saying they want:

 

3 year tenancies, with predictable rent rises within that period.

Hard not to be disheartened by hearing this sort of stuff. 

Capitulating on your behalf, HM Government's official opposition. 

Sad thing is, the Blairites would be even worse. Don't want to upset those aspirational landlords.

I see no reason why the cost of rent should increase if electricity and tomatoes get more expensive. If anything it should be the opposite, rising prices for other goods and services leaves less money to pay towards rent. If they want rents to track anything during a tenancy it should be some kind of local rent price index.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

So what are the other consequences of less tenant churn/less tenant musical chairs.

Presumably it'll hit estate agent tenant finder fees and lots of the other fees associated with the old AST churn - cleaning etc.  Landlords will be less likely to employ estate agents to manage a long tenancy.

With rental properties effectively blocked for long periods it could create shortages of such properties for new tenants in areas where there's a lot of new arrivals seeking to rent a flat etc.  So builders will have to get their building boots on in those areas.

Presumably you'll still be able to have a short term tenancy if needed for your job mobility but with less tenant churn the available choice will be less. 

Edited by billybong
Link to comment
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.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information