Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

we should have a short protest march with the main thrust of BAN BUY TO LET.

simple enough message.

and then see what happens.

instead of ranting at each. we should be making our voices heard on the news.

banning buy to let would end the bubble without hurting the average taxpayer. without the parasites there would be little speculation if 2nd home ownership was abolished. this is a small country. we have limited space they say, so why allow people to own more than one home while others go without.

if you want a holiday home in devon - buy a static caravan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart of Darkness

It would have to be an EU ruling as UK MPs will never vote to ban something that lines their own pockets so readily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should have a short protest march with the main thrust of BAN BUY TO LET.

simple enough message.

and then see what happens.

instead of ranting at each. we should be making our voices heard on the news.

banning buy to let would end the bubble without hurting the average taxpayer. without the parasites there would be little speculation if 2nd home ownership was abolished. this is a small country. we have limited space they say, so why allow people to own more than one home while others go without.

if you want a holiday home in devon - buy a static caravan.

What would the people who want to rent houses have to say about it?

I'm not sure buy to let is much of a problem. Take my brother as a case study: bought a BTL flat 18 months ago, can't find anyone to pay enough rent to cover his mortgage, sells it and says it doesn't pay. Market forces in action!

If FTBs can't afford the interest payments on the purchase cost, how can they afford enough rent to pay the landlord's interst, and his profit?

There will always be a capping effect on BTL purchase prices, based on ytheir rentable values.

I can't make a living renting out cars to people on a long-term basis - they would find it cheaper to buy one themselves.

Edited by Casual Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should have a short protest march with the main thrust of BAN BUY TO LET.

simple enough message.

and then see what happens.

instead of ranting at each. we should be making our voices heard on the news.

banning buy to let would end the bubble without hurting the average taxpayer. without the parasites there would be little speculation if 2nd home ownership was abolished. this is a small country. we have limited space they say, so why allow people to own more than one home while others go without.

if you want a holiday home in devon - buy a static caravan.

Labour already did that years ago (in spirit by giving security of tenure to tenants). Brown's miracle economy has been the result of the recovery of the housing market from that mistake. Why would he turn around & bring forward the same failed policy?

Previous UK HPC's IMO have been exacerbated by this old policy, as the only buyers & sellers were OO's & they either bought together or sold together. These days we have great people like me, who'll buy even in a downturn if the tenants are demanding more accomodation (with their willingness to pay the rent).

And a serious question. How long do you think it would take for the govt to get voted out after introducing a policy that wiped put 50% of OO's in negative equity & forced tenants either onto the street, or into perpetual accomodation at the location they were at when the policy was introduced?

Edited by Time to raise the rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should have a short protest march with the main thrust of BAN BUY TO LET.

I could'nt agree more. I've just spent 2 weeks renovating a bathroom in my BTL and my back's just about bl*ody broken. I've got the kitchen next and it does'nt look pretty. If I'd bought Crude Oil Futures in 1998 when they were trading at $12 I'd have been much better off.

I'd be up for a march after my back's better.

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its easy - all the goverment does is increase tax on all households. The person living in the house doesnt have to pay council tax but the registered owner has to pay the tax.

This works 2 fold, by every house being accountable to a person (easy to check) and then just keep increasing hte tax until house prices are brought in to line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should have a short protest march with the main thrust of BAN BUY TO LET.

simple enough message.

and then see what happens.

instead of ranting at each. we should be making our voices heard on the news.

banning buy to let would end the bubble without hurting the average taxpayer. without the parasites there would be little speculation if 2nd home ownership was abolished. this is a small country. we have limited space they say, so why allow people to own more than one home while others go without.

if you want a holiday home in devon - buy a static caravan.

I totally disagree.

Just sit back and watch the market decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it concerning that some people think the only solution to a market problem is more government regulation or a direct jump into socalism.

The market will correct itself - that's the joy of markets, in the long run they are always right. When could you say any such thing about governments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A total ban is probably not the answer - and would never be workable, but measures introduced to make having property as an investment far less attractive would be a great idea.

It seems FTB's are increasingly seeing BTL as whats stopping them from being able to buy a house, and thus start a family in a stable environment etc - and there seems to be increasing frustration aimed at BTL'ers - and not just on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the 'How to kill the economy' thread?

Maybe. But I don't necessarily agree that a HPC would kill the economy. If there was a HPC then people owning houses would feel less rich and be less likely to spend. But people wanting to buy houses would then be able to start spending more money because instead of trying to save a few billion for a deposit, they could buy a cheaper house, have low mortgage repayments, and then spend more. If there was a 70% crash, then I'd buy a house out of cash on hand and in a few months would be able to consider all sorts of fancy stuff, huge plasma TVs, foreign holidays, that I'm not buying now. Note that I don't expect a 70% crash, this is just an extreme example.

If the HPC, MEW, etc. were designed to get as many people spending as much as possible on consumer goods and services (including entertainment) then massive HPI is initially effective because people feel richer and they can MEW money from their houses. But as house prices go up, you eventually get to the point where house prices simply can't go up by 10% a year any more because the market cannot stand it. Some would say that we have reached this point now. People stop feeling richer because their houses aren't going up in price any more, and people "getting on the ladder" can't engage in rampant consumerism over and above basics because mortgage payments take up too much of their disposable income.

So how to kick-start the economy again? Easy, have a house price crash, meaning that the oft-quoted "army" of FTBs can get on the housing ladder with cheap mortgage payments, making their futures more secure, and allowing them to spend on all the expensive tat that keeps the wheels of the economy going. Otherwise if prices remain high, consumerism will die a permanent death as a whole generation eventually gives up, buys overpriced houses, and only has enough money for the mortgage + subsistence living.

Banning BTL is clearly out of the question as there need to be houses to let out to people. But what could be done is to start bringing in all sorts of needling little legal restrictions on rental property such as tenant deposit schemes, additional rules for HMOs such as requiring a basin for each household, etc. Then when the tipping point is reached and the number of people getting out of BTL skyrockets, the aim is reached for all practical reasons.

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/history.htm] http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/history.htm[/url]

Before WW1 most people in Britain rented their homes, farms and business property. This situation changed dramatically for housing over the course of the 20th century until only about 7% rented their homes in 1991.

Whilst business lettings remained largely unaffected, housing was influenced among other things by social legislation and public sector housing provision.

The poor image of landlords, total security of tenure for tenants, and the consequently low returns, made letting residential property unpopular until just a few years ago.The change was mainly brought about by a rebalancing of the rights between landlord and tenant in the 1988 and 1996 Housing Acts. Investment returns have become economically viable again, which has encouraged home owners, small landlords and investors to enter the lettings market.

The legislative changes have coincided with shifts in the modern lifestyle which have begun to favour renting for its flexibility.

Low interest rates and a volatile stock market have resulted in a buoyant housing market and more and more people looking to buy-to-let.

However, Parliament interferes with and distorts common law and equitable principles through the passing of statutory codes and regulations, The Law of Property Act and the Rent and Housing Acts being examples. Increasingly, European Law, Acts of Parliament, codes of conduct, and statutory or non-statutory rules and regulations of many kinds are all affecting the letting of property.The whole process is slowly changing and evolving as new legislation comes along and courts set new precedents as they interpret both common law principles and statutes vis-à-vis individual cases.

Up until about 1914 approximately 90 per cent of all housing in Britain was privately rented. This compares to only about 10 to 11 per cent at the end of the century, though from a low point of about 7 per cent in 1991 there has been a steady increase over the last few years. It is now predicted that the privately rented sector will reach 15 per cent of the total housing market by 2002.

The trend of decline in private renting throughout most of the 20th century was due largely to social trends and legislation designed to switch the balance of power away from the landlord in favour of the tenant.

Examples of notoriously harsh Victorian landlords entered the public psyche through writers such as Dickens and Trollope, and the process was exacerbated in the 1950s by the notoriety and scandals of Peter Rachman et al. "Rachmanism" has entered the language as a term used to describe the activities of ruthless slum landlords and their exploitation of hapless tenants.

The first Rent Act was passed during the First World War (1915) as a "temporary" means of preventing landlords from exploiting the increased wages of munitions workers. This was the start of a whole series of legislative acts designed to protect tenants, the result of social legislation inspired by an extremely poor public image caused by rouge landlords.

Rent controls and total security of tenure (Landlords unable charge market rents or terminate tenancies, which even passed on to successive generations) swung the balance so much the other way that over the century the decline in privately rented residential property was quite dramatic. In effect, letting residential property throughout much of the 20th century became uneconomic for the private landlord. Too many landlords had their "figures burned" through immoveable and uneconomic tenants, so the national stock of private residential housing virtually dried up.

Over the years several legislative attempts at relaxing controls were made to stimulate supply, but none was effective until the 1988 Housing Act brought in the Assured Shorthold Tenancy. This was a turning point enabling landlords to let at or near market rents with a guarantee of getting their properties back.

This Shorthold Tenancy started to stimulate supply again but it was, and still is, a slow process particularly as the legislation did not apply retrospectively, i.e., not to Rent Act tenancies created before 15 January 1989.

Currently about 70% of UK housing stock is in owner occupation. About 19% is in social (local council and housing association) ownership, the the remaining 10/11% in the hands of private landlords.

Owner occupation has risen steadily with increasing affluence and the influence of the Thatcher years policies of selling off council properties. This process has continued to the point where housing associations are becoming the main owners of social housing.

The increasing wealth of UK professional and many working families, with inherited family property and increasing investment funds, has encouraged the move into rental property as an investment alternative.

This, coupled with the Assured Shorthold Tenancy and the buy-to-let mortgage has resulted in a steady rise in the supply of privately owned rented accommodation. We have a long way to go to reach the levels of the European market, but there is now a definite move in this direction.

If you want to kill-off buy to let, legislation has to swing in favour of tenants again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should have a short protest march with the main thrust of BAN BUY TO LET.

simple enough message.

and then see what happens.

instead of ranting at each. we should be making our voices heard on the news.

banning buy to let would end the bubble without hurting the average taxpayer. without the parasites there would be little speculation if 2nd home ownership was abolished. this is a small country. we have limited space they say, so why allow people to own more than one home while others go without.

if you want a holiday home in devon - buy a static caravan.

[sarcasm] Excellent idea. I assume you want the glorious socialist peoples Government to buy up all of the BTL stock on the day the ban is imposed so these properties can be given to the honourable deserving "workers" (Voters i.e. Chavs and benefit scroungers).

Do you also want the sales of food-stuffs to be banned so the honourable deserving workers don’t get “ripped off” by the nasty Supermarket Corporations?

Lets also ban wealth and have everyone work for Uncle Tony after all surely the government knows what is best for the country and for it’s citizens - who are we to question their glorious wisdom.

Ban all business [/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's actually wrong with BTL?

As I understand it, many professional landlords, who've been BTLing for decades, couldn't care less about house prices - what they care about is the rent, and they don't want the CGT aggravation of selling. They might even welcome a HPC - they're not highly geared, and they can eat up the weaker fish in the pond.

Also, BTLers are providing a useful function - they're providing a service. Some people choose to rent, others prefer to buy. One isn't neccessarily better than the other.

As for the new BTLers, that have been pushing property prices higher, in my opinion many of them will be wiped out when the HPC comes. They are, in my opinion, only temporary players in the market, and their sold properties will be snapped up at cheap prices by, amongst others, patient FTBers and by professional BTLers, the kind who can profit from a crash.

Edited by Scipio_Africanus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, BTLers are providing a useful function - they're providing a service. Some people choose to rent, others prefer to buy. One isn't neccessarily better than the other.

Yup. Just imagine if we had a housing boom but very few people renting. What a nightmare that would be, then you would have to buy a house at inflated prices instead of enjoying cheap rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm totally with you on this Fred. The Housing Act needs reversing. Damn the Tories for putting that through. The blue b**ch and Johny Major have a great deal to answer for. Let's have a new housing act that reverses the old one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you notice the HOT opposition from the bulls.

this means this is the perfect thing to do.,!!

about 300+ chanting people would get the issue on mainline news and into discussion as regards even the lab partys private portfolios.

all these portfolio profits come from the pockets of young voters. a small march would open up the debate.

or a ban btl picket outside downing st.

Edited by right_freds_dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm totally with you on this Fred. The Housing Act needs reversing. Damn the Tories for putting that through. The blue b**ch and Johny Major have a great deal to answer for. Let's have a new housing act that reverses the old one.

What bit exactly would you change? Which part do you think is unfair on tenants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What bit exactly would you change? Which part do you think is unfair on tenants?

mmmm...one person buying a house for themselves, then buying up their neighbours for a quickie profit.

perhaps remaining 'professional' landlords could group themselves into associations following rules and regulations with property declared for taxation and then inspected by local government as acceptable for social housing. you rent direct frm local government the private housing association stock.

the casual flippers, speculators and part time btl pension invester would be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm totally with you on this Fred. The Housing Act needs reversing. Damn the Tories for putting that through. The blue b**ch and Johny Major have a great deal to answer for. Let's have a new housing act that reverses the old one.

I,m not a bull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perhaps remaining 'professional' landlords could group themselves into associations following rules and regulations with property declared for taxation and then inspected by local government as acceptable for social housing. you rent direct frm local government the private housing association stock.

the casual flippers, speculators and part time btl pension invester would be banned.

forgot to add. all declared private stock could be inspected to meet fire regulations. this would be an excellent way for declared rental property to meet 2006 standards. if it didnt pass the local government inspection it could not be rented.

good tax revenue. control of the market. tenants rights.

a perfect policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmmm...one person buying a house for themselves, then buying up their neighbours for a quickie profit.

Most people don't do this. Most real landlords, ie the ones that won't go bust if interest rates rise 1% or there are 2 months void by properties and rent them out over the long run. They provide a service. Over the last 3 years I have lived in Canada, Hawaii and the UK - I have rented each time. What would you have had me do - ask the government for somewhere to live in each place?

perhaps remaining 'professional' landlords could group themselves into associations following rules and regulations with property declared for taxation and then inspected by local government as acceptable for social housing. you rent direct frm local government the private housing association stock.

Firstly there are numerous rules and regulation regarding renting property - and most favour the tenant. The one sensible thing that sounds like it is about to be introduced is handling of desposits. This is something I do agree with as it is about the one thing landlords can rip tenants of on.

Beyond that, you want government of all people to handle housing stock. Crikes you are simply crazy. Government screws up almost everything it touches- why on earth do you think it would be better to have the government managing this.

the casual flippers, speculators and part time btl pension invester would be banned.

Why do you have a problem with speculation? Every single market on earth has speculation, it's how markets work. Do you understand even the most simplistic economics on how markets work? Otherwise there is always North Korea or Cuba if you want government to run everything.

Causual flippers are perhaps a problem, but markets will sort this out - they always do.

And BTL pension invester. This is a bad thing, why? Oh wait .. you want people to rely on the government to pay a pension right?

forgot to add. all declared private stock could be inspected to meet fire regulations. this would be an excellent way for declared rental property to meet 2006 standards. if it didnt pass the local government inspection it could not be rented.

good tax revenue. control of the market. tenants rights.

a perfect policy.

Would have only one affect, increase the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly there are numerous rules and regulation regarding renting property - and most favour the tenant. The one sensible thing that sounds like it is about to be introduced is handling of desposits. This is something I do agree with as it is about the one thing landlords can rip tenants of on.

Beyond that, you want government of all people to handle housing stock. Crikes you are simply crazy. Government screws up almost everything it touches- why on earth do you think it would be better to have the government managing this.

no. i disagree.

i feel housing stock is important to the welfare of both the state and the economy. its needs to be fully regulated, inspected, declared for taxation. only then should it be allowed to go for approval inspection and then added to the local governments housing stock. the local council can then tax the rental income before handing over the remaining profit (-maintenence) to the private association investor (the landlord).

this way private landlords are allowed to invest in property, but its controlled for the revenue and quality.

no squalid bedsits with 2 tenants, lax fire measures, tax avoidance and tenant disputes.

this would give local government that extra arrow they need to manage local housing issues and problems with supply and land use. we cant keep building, so we need to control the stock we have.

Edited by right_freds_dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no. i disagree.

i feel housing stock is important to the welfare of both the state and the economy. its needs to be fully regulated, inspected, declared for taxation. only then should it be allowed to go for approval inspection and then added to the local governments housing stock. the local council can then tax the rental income before handing over the remaining profit (-maintenence) to the private association investor (the landlord).

this was landlords are allowed to invest in prperty, but its controlled for the revenue and quality.

no squalid bedsits with 2 tenants, poor fire measure, tax avoidance and tenant disputes.

Why should government set some arbritary level of quality? Shouldn't it be up to tenants to decide what they think something is worth paying for? If someone wants to live in a dingy hole for £10, assuming it meets basic safety requirements (which all properties have to) what's the problem?

You really want government telling you what your house should be like?

Perhaps you think we should bring back the window tax as well?

the local council can then tax the rental income

Why do you want the local council taxing income??? You want to have a whole system set up for councils all across the UK just to tax rental income? Any idea how much this is going to cost to setup? Is there any particular reason you want councils doing this as opposed to central government that does it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 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.