Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Bear Goggles

Slumlord Crackdown

Recommended Posts

I've just had a knock on the door from my friendly environmental health officer - He was a jolly chap!

Checking occupancy for the new HMO rules. He seemed slightly surprised that there were only 2 of us living in this quite large house (we're in the centre of Oxford so there are many student HMOs in this street).

Me: So have you caught out many dodgy landlords not complying with the new HMO rules?

Him: Oooh yes!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a knock on the door from my friendly environmental health officer - He was a jolly chap!

Checking occupancy for the new HMO rules. He seemed slightly surprised that there were only 2 of us living in this quite large house (we're in the centre of Oxford so there are many student HMOs in this street).

Me: So have you caught out many dodgy landlords not complying with the new HMO rules?

Him: Oooh yes!

:)

Sop how do they work it if a landlord is in one LA and the property is in another? Which LA do they have to reg with?

(Or get snitched up to?)

Even more to let signs today - went out in the car a way haven't been for a while - and it looks like houses that hve sold are being let out or ATL - (attempting to let)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oxford City Council has being trying to crack down on HMOs for some years. It's a major problem in the town due to the high student population. (Personally speaking, when I lived thre I thought the large ramshackle old Victorian houses packed with students gave the place a bit of character).

Many other towns in the UK will not be enforcing the new legislation with anything like the same vigour, since HMOs are not perceived as such a big problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oxford City Council has being trying to crack down on HMOs for some years. It's a major problem in the town due to the high student population. (Personally speaking, when I lived thre I thought the large ramshackle old Victorian houses packed with students gave the place a bit of character).

Many other towns in the UK will not be enforcing the new legislation with anything like the same vigour, since HMOs are not perceived as such a big problem.

They'll still be loads of student HMOs, it's just they'll all have their own wash basins now - so they can throw up and piss in them on a saturday night without leaving the comfort of their bedrooms - students these days have it too easy :D

I don't know about character, living in a student area is not too bad, but it can get a bit boring waking up on saturday morning and finding a half eaten donner kebab on the bonnet of your car again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see another couple of possible outcomes from this. I see people who are currently saving money on their rent will soon have to spend more on their rent when they move to a less economical let.

On a large scale, this IMO has to add to demand for housing by existing vacancies being reduced, therefore transfering into price rises for houses. But I see a secondary impact as these people now paying higher rents than they were, plus the tenants where they used to live paying higher rents than they were, can only cause a lowering of discretionary spending & if the scale is big enough, that would lead to lower rates.

So higher HP's & lower rates.

Lambeth estimates they have 5,000 to 7,000 properties affected. I wonder how many people that affects, then you have to extrapolate that nationwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO with people being turfed out left right & centre, nothing but higher rents will be the outcome. [TTRTR]

Over an extended time period that may well happen -- ultimately the costs of regulation are borne by the customer since they're the only source of funds. However, in most areas of the UK, there's currently an over-supply of rental property, so most landlords will not yet be able to pass these costs on. One hopes that before these regulations have any major deleterious effects the current regime will be overthrown.

Edited by Jeff Ross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see another couple of possible outcomes from this. I see people who are currently saving money on their rent will soon have to spend more on their rent when they move to a less economical let.

On a large scale, this IMO has to add to demand for housing by existing vacancies being reduced, therefore transfering into price rises for houses. But I see a secondary impact as these people now paying higher rents than they were, plus the tenants where they used to live paying higher rents than they were, can only cause a lowering of discretionary spending & if the scale is big enough, that would lead to lower rates.

So higher HP's & lower rates.

Lambeth estimates they have 5,000 to 7,000 properties affected. I wonder how many people that affects, then you have to extrapolate that nationwide.

That's an amusing piece of spin...

...My turn.

Now let me see. Loads of houses come on the market because they can't be rented as HMOs but who's going to buy them? BTL landlords can't make a profit and FTBers are priced out. So the prices of houses plummets, while the cost of renting soars. Lots of FTBers realise can afford a home again and live happily ever after while BTL landlords burn in financial hell.

I reckon I could give New Labour a run for their money :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an amusing piece of spin...

...My turn.

Now let me see. Loads of houses come on the market because they can't be rented as HMOs but who's going to buy them? BTL landlords can't make a profit and FTBers are priced out. So the prices of houses plummets, while the cost of renting soars. Lots of FTBers realise can afford a home again and live happily ever after while BTL landlords burn in financial hell.

I reckon I could give New Labour a run for their money :)

Fantasy economics? The price of renting soars as cheaper accomodation is controlled, agreed. The price of houses fall? Why? With BTL only 10% of the UK market & larger HMO's only 10% of the BTL market, that's 1% of the sales market that's affected. Of that 1%, expect less than 20% (0.2% of the market) to eventually come up for sale. But you can expect strong buying in the lower end of te market to satisfy the increased demand from people being spread thinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Winners and Losers

Fantasy economics? The price of renting soars as cheaper accomodation is controlled, agreed. The price of houses fall? Why? With BTL only 10% of the UK market & larger HMO's only 10% of the BTL market, that's 1% of the sales market that's affected. Of that 1%, expect less than 20% (0.2% of the market) to eventually come up for sale. But you can expect strong buying in the lower end of te market to satisfy the increased demand from people being spread thinner.

Three replies already from TTRTR in the slumlord thread. Has someone hit a raw nerve? ;) Tut, tut, thy doth protest too much. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO with people being turfed out left right & centre, nothing but higher rents will be the outcome. [TTRTR]

Over an extended time period that may well happen -- ultimately the costs of regulation are borne by the customer since they're the only source of funds. However, in most areas of the UK, there's currently an over-supply of rental property, so most landlords will not yet be able to pass these costs on. One hopes that before these regulations have any major deleterious effects the current regime will be overthrown.

As an investment, the return from a BTL property increases if the rent increases. All else being equal. The yield, for new entrants to the lettings market also increases if house prices go down. Hence if BTL becomes a less attractive option due to increased costs and static rents, then returns can rise if house prices fall.

Given the current state of the markets concerning house purchases and rentals, I wonder which of increased rents or decreased house prices is the path of least resistance.

Billy Shears

Fantasy economics? The price of renting soars as cheaper accomodation is controlled, agreed. The price of houses fall? Why? With BTL only 10% of the UK market & larger HMO's only 10% of the BTL market, that's 1% of the sales market that's affected. Of that 1%, expect less than 20% (0.2% of the market) to eventually come up for sale. But you can expect strong buying in the lower end of te market to satisfy the increased demand from people being spread thinner.

The prices I see for HMOs are not that different from half what a two bedroom flat can be rented for. Round here at least, with 500pcm being typical for a two bed flat, and 250pcm being a typical rent for a room in a HMO. So, if the HMO landlords try to put their rents up, the potential tenants can share two bed flats instead without paying more rent.

And does anyone think there is a shortage of two bed flats coming on the market? If HMOs try to put up prices, all that will happen is the current void fest for newbuild flats lessening, and being matched by an increased number of voids in previous HMOs.

BTW: I walked past several building sites in the past few days. Each time I asked "just curious, but what's being built here?". In every case, the answer was "luxury flats". And yes, the builders did say "luxury".

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not listening as usual BS.

If a place currently has 8 occupants, they're saving money by accepting a little overcrowding in exchange for a lower rent per person & therefore more beer money left over.

If the council decides that place is fit for 5 people, the rent will still be the same, but 5 will have to cough up more per person & 3 will have to go somewhere else.

You rightly point out there are voids in a lot of flats, that's because they're unpopular with people who would rather save money as is the above example. If these people no longer have a choice to save money, they'll move into those flats.

Hey Presto, higher demand for rentals, less discretionary spending. A perfect mix for higher prices & lower IR's.

Three replies already from TTRTR in the slumlord thread. Has someone hit a raw nerve? ;) Tut, tut, thy doth protest too much. :rolleyes:

That's right. I let larger house shares out. Very nice places with very nice people in them. I have a good relationship with my tenants & it's a damn pity that this govt has decided to stick their nose it where it's not wanted. The tenants always had the option of contacting the council if they had a problem with me, now instead the council will be contacted & will interfere regardless. Whether there is anything at all to be gained from this is yet to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a place currently has 8 occupants, they're saving money by accepting a little overcrowding in exchange for a lower rent per person & therefore more beer money left over.

If the council decides that place is fit for 5 people, the rent will still be the same, but 5 will have to cough up more per person & 3 will have to go somewhere else.

You rightly point out there are voids in a lot of flats, that's because they're unpopular with people who would rather save money as is the above example. If these people no longer have a choice to save money, they'll move into those flats.

Hey Presto, higher demand for rentals, less discretionary spending. A perfect mix for higher prices & lower IR's.

Do you really think that 5 people will pay the same rent as 8? Dream on!

The lengths you have gone to in constructing your little psychological fortress, immune from any possible harm, are truly breathtaking. A beautiful example of delusional thinking. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think that 5 people will pay the same rent as 8? Dream on!

The lengths you have gone to in constructing your little psychological fortress, immune from any possible harm, are truly breathtaking. A beautiful example of delusional thinking. :lol:

Yes I do actually. Because I believe that in most cases the places have been let to a group of about the acceptable size & that the tenants have invited their mates in disregarding the landlord & saving themselves some money. So now landlords will have to be a bit more militant about it & the chance to save by inviting your mates in will be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not listening as usual BS.

I am listening. I'm not agreeing. There is a difference.

If a place currently has 8 occupants, they're saving money by accepting a little overcrowding in exchange for a lower rent per person & therefore more beer money left over.

If the council decides that place is fit for 5 people, the rent will still be the same, but 5 will have to cough up more per person & 3 will have to go somewhere else.

You rightly point out there are voids in a lot of flats, that's because they're unpopular with people who would rather save money as is the above example. If these people no longer have a choice to save money, they'll move into those flats.

Hey Presto, higher demand for rentals, less discretionary spending. A perfect mix for higher prices & lower IR's.

That's right. I let larger house shares out. Very nice places with very nice people in them. I have a good relationship with my tenants & it's a damn pity that this govt has decided to stick their nose it where it's not wanted. The tenants always had the option of contacting the council if they had a problem with me, now instead the council will be contacted & will interfere regardless. Whether there is anything at all to be gained from this is yet to be seen.

You claim that "the rent will still be the same" with no argument as to why this should be the case. Once again you seem to assume that landllords can set whatever rent they please, and tenants will have to cough up. If there are only 5 people in the flat instead of 8, then why isn't the result that the landlord will have to accept only 5/8 of the rent that s/he would have previously received?

As I said, rents for two bed flats here are similar to twice two bed flats. But checking out figures on Rightmove, the cheapest rooms im HMOs within 5 miles of my postcode start from £45pw, or £195pcm. There are lots of two bedroom flats available from £350pcm, and even three bedroom flats from £375pcm, which works out as £28.84 per bedroom per week. That's a lot cheaper than any of the HMOs. So, if people wanted to save money, then they're already better off renting flats with friends even at current prices. If the HMO rents go up, then renting flats in smaller, sub-HMO, groups will become even more financially advantageous compared to current HMOs.

I note however that the HMOs around here give much higher rental returns than smaller properties. Some of the HMOs I see on rightmove have 4 or 5 bedrooms, so would be taking in almost £800 to almost £1000pcm. So, if HMOs become less attractive to investors, then the primary cash cow for BTL has been slaughtered. So what happens then? The prices of houses then falls due to less BTL demand due to reduced yields. People buy cheaper houses, and have more money left over for descrtionary spending, and hey presto, the economy improves.

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am listening. I'm not agreeing. There is a difference.

You claim that "the rent will still be the same" with no argument as to why this should be the case. Once again you seem to assume that landllords can set whatever rent they please, and tenants will have to cough up. If there are only 5 people in the flat instead of 8, then why isn't the result that the landlord will have to accept only 5/8 of the rent that s/he would have previously received?

As I said, rents for two bed flats here are similar to twice two bed flats. But checking out figures on Rightmove, the cheapest rooms im HMOs within 5 miles of my postcode start from £45pw, or £195pcm. There are lots of two bedroom flats available from £350pcm, and even three bedroom flats from £375pcm, which works out as £28.84 per bedroom per week. That's a lot cheaper than any of the HMOs. So, if people wanted to save money, then they're already better off renting flats with friends even at current prices. If the HMO rents go up, then renting flats in smaller, sub-HMO, groups will become even more financially advantageous compared to current HMOs.

I note however that the HMOs around here give much higher rental returns than smaller properties. Some of the HMOs I see on rightmove have 4 or 5 bedrooms, so would be taking in almost £800 to almost £1000pcm. So, if HMOs become less attractive to investors, then the primary cash cow for BTL has been slaughtered. So what happens then? The prices of houses then falls due to less BTL demand due to reduced yields. People buy cheaper houses, and have more money left over for descrtionary spending, and hey presto, the economy improves.

Billy Shears

Apples & Oranges.....

My large shared houses are in desirable streets close to shops, transport, restaurants & pubs. There are cheaper per room, smaller flats available in the area, but the occupants will have less living space, pay higher bills per person and be further away from where they want to be.

Hence the higher price of the rentals I'm letting out & the cheaper price of the rentals others are letting out.

In my case, compare a flat & house in the same street & you start to see the 30 to 50% more per person that the tenant will have to pay to be in the same location.

And 5/8ths of the rent - you're just making me laugh....

Edited by Time to raise the rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples & Oranges.....

My large shared houses are in desirable streets close to shops, transport, restaurants & pubs. There are cheaper per room, smaller flats available in the area, but the occupants will have less living space, pay higher bills per person and be further away from where they want to be.

Hence the higher price of the rentals I'm letting out & the cheaper price of the rentals others are letting out.

In my case, compare a flat & house in the same street & you start to see the 30 to 50% more per person that the tenant will have to pay to be in the same location.

And 5/8ths of the rent - you're just making me laugh....

But, you yourself said that people were saving money by going for HMOs. Now you're saying that they aren't saving money, but prefer the facilities in your properties. So which is it that drives their choice cost or convenience? Can you please make you mind up?

And in another post you said that they were saving money by cramming more people in and not telling the landlord. Is this happening in your properties?

Looking at Wandsworth, it seems that rooms in a HMO start at about 80-85pw. That's £346.66 per person per month. So you'd need a 3 bed flat for £1040pcm to be paying the same amount per person. There seem to be a lot of 3 bed flats in the area for less than that. Not the 1/3 saving possible in Leicester, but still a bit cheaper. At 85per person per week, £1105pcm for a three bed flat is the cutoff point. Now, if we assume that your claim that they will end up paying 8/5 as much rent as before, that would mean that the £80-£85 per person per week would go up to £128-£136 per person per week. The break even point for a 3 bed flat would now be £1664 to £1768pcm. And you think it's a done deal that people will pay this much for your HMOs when even now it's cheaper to go for 3 bed flats and share?

And why is 5/8ths of the rent such a ridiculous suggestion? It's simple math. If you can fit fewer people into your properties, it's not unreasonable for you to receive less rent in total. Do you have a more sophisticated argument against this claim apart from it making you laugh?

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, you yourself said that people were saving money by going for HMOs. Now you're saying that they aren't saving money, but prefer the facilities in your properties. So which is it that drives their choice cost or convenience? Can you please make you mind up?

And in another post you said that they were saving money by cramming more people in and not telling the landlord. Is this happening in your properties?

Looking at Wandsworth, it seems that rooms in a HMO start at about 80-85pw. That's £346.66 per person per month. So you'd need a 3 bed flat for £1040pcm to be paying the same amount per person. There seem to be a lot of 3 bed flats in the area for less than that. Not the 1/3 saving possible in Leicester, but still a bit cheaper. At 85per person per week, £1105pcm for a three bed flat is the cutoff point. Now, if we assume that your claim that they will end up paying 8/5 as much rent as before, that would mean that the £80-£85 per person per week would go up to £128-£136 per person per week. The break even point for a 3 bed flat would now be £1664 to £1768pcm. And you think it's a done deal that people will pay this much for your HMOs when even now it's cheaper to go for 3 bed flats and share?

And why is 5/8ths of the rent such a ridiculous suggestion? It's simple math. If you can fit fewer people into your properties, it's not unreasonable for you to receive less rent in total. Do you have a more sophisticated argument against this claim apart from it making you laugh?

Billy Shears

You really don't listen do you?

Saving money by paying less that the top rate for the location. 1 bed flats in my streets are 250pw plus bills, 2 bedders about 340pw. Rooms in shared houses are 130pw plus shared bills. Same location, cash saved.

That ain't your 346pcm either. That's more like 560pcm which is roughly the avg for my tenants per person. Way off the 1080pcm they'd pay for their own flat and a decent saving on the 735pcm they'd pay in a 2 bed flat.

It seems BS that as with so many posters on this site, your research is poor & you will not convince me by comparing ex-council 3 bed flats in tower block rents with period houses in desireable locations.

And again 5/8. You ask me for a reasonable argument. What is yours? You've just made a broad statement & it should be my job to prove you wrong? Typical & another good reason why you're not a landlord & I am, because you theorise & I act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

Now then chaps, lets keep this civil. It's good to see to of the most interesting posters here having a ding-dong, but there is no need to get aggressive. If you do not feel your opponent has understood your point, perhaps you should explain it more clearly & let the other chap then respond.

hmm, too much wine for me I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't listen do you?

I do listen. I don't agree. There is a difference.

Saving money by paying less that the top rate for the location. 1 bed flats in my streets are 250pw plus bills, 2 bedders about 340pw. Rooms in shared houses are 130pw plus shared bills. Same location, cash saved.

That ain't your 346pcm either. That's more like 560pcm which is roughly the avg for my tenants per person. Way off the 1080pcm they'd pay for their own flat and a decent saving on the 735pcm they'd pay in a 2 bed flat.

You criticise me for "bad research" and "not listening" and you then compare shared rooms to one bed flats when the whole point of my argument was to compare rooms in shared HMOs to two and in particular three bed flats. At 130 per person per month, the cutoff point for a three bed flat being cheaper is £1690 per month. How much do three bed flats in the area around your properties go for? Now, if your claims that people will pay 8/5 of the rent were to be true, then people would be paying 130 * 8 / 5, or 208 per person per week. That's £901.33 per person per month. For a room in a shared house. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me. The cutoff point where it would be cheaper for three people to share a three bed flat is then £2704pcm.

It seems BS that as with so many posters on this site, your research is poor & you will not convince me by comparing ex-council 3 bed flats in tower block rents with period houses in desireable locations.

You switched my comparison to three bed flats to a comparison to one bed flats, and you criticise me? Well then, with my updated figures given that you have revealed more of the details of the properties you ren outt, how do the numbers stack up now? Can people rent 3 bed flats in your area for less than £1690 per month?

And again 5/8. You ask me for a reasonable argument. What is yours? You've just made a broad statement & it should be my job to prove you wrong?

My argument is this. I claim that if the rents for your properties go up by 60%, and that rents for other types of properties stay the same, that there will be reduced demand for your properties. Hence landlords won't be able to charge these higher rents as people will go elsewhere. You then have voids, and have to reduce your demands to an acceptable level to get tenants. With the price of rooms in your houses going up by that much, people are going to reconsider their options, and a fair proportion of your clientele is likely to decide that they don't want to live in properties like yours any more. The options they have are other types of properties in the same area, or properties in different areas. People aren't going to change their minds for a few pounds per week change, but a 60% increase? That is going to make a big difference to demand and you know it. And if demand for your type of property falls, what are you going to do about it?

Typical & another good reason why you're not a landlord & I am, because you theorise & I act.

Do you think that I want to be a landlord? Why would you think that? And given what you write here, maybe in a few years we'll be discussing why you went bankrupt and I did not :lol:

Billy Shears

Now then chaps, lets keep this civil. It's good to see to of the most interesting posters here having a ding-dong, but there is no need to get aggressive. If you do not feel your opponent has understood your point, perhaps you should explain it more clearly & let the other chap then respond.

hmm, too much wine for me I think.

It's not civil? I thougth it was civil. It's very difficult to debate while trying to sound like Benton Fraser from Due South.

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

Billy Shears

It's not civil? I thougth it was civil. It's very difficult to debate while trying to sound like Benton Fraser from Due South.

Billy Shears

I didn't want to be specific, but I was a little saddened by TTRTR's apparent anger, though perhaps exasperation would be fairer, summed up with this paragraph:

It seems BS that as with so many posters on this site, your research is poor & you will not convince me by comparing ex-council 3 bed flats in tower block rents with period houses in desireable locations.

Anyway back to the wine. Carry on chaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to be specific, but I was a little saddened by TTRTR's apparent anger, though perhaps exasperation would be fairer, summed up with this paragraph:

Anyway back to the wine. Carry on chaps.

It's always very tricky to read tone into written text.

Billy Shears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples & Oranges.....

My large shared houses are in desirable streets close to shops, transport, restaurants & pubs. There are cheaper per room, smaller flats available in the area, but the occupants will have less living space, pay higher bills per person and be further away from where they want to be.

Hence the higher price of the rentals I'm letting out & the cheaper price of the rentals others are letting out.

In my case, compare a flat & house in the same street & you start to see the 30 to 50% more per person that the tenant will have to pay to be in the same location.

And 5/8ths of the rent - you're just making me laugh....

Ok, I get it. What you are saying is:

"whatever it is, it won't happen to me. My properties are special". They may be special, but they are RELATIVELY special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TTRTR is making the mistake of assuming that everyone who gets turfed out of an HMO will be back in the rental market. Your typical HMO dweller is usually on low wages, saving as much as possible, or both. A great many will refuse to cough up a higher rent, and will move back with parents, mates, or go back to their country of origin. For a lot of people in London at least, their whole raison d'etre for being their depends on cheap rents.

Once the economics don't work, they will go, just as easily as they came. I can, for example, report a mini-exodus of Brazilians due to a combination of a stronger Real and big rises in London living costs. A couple of years ago you could come to London and work for 1-2 years and afford a house or a business in Brazil. That doesn't work anymore. Plus you have the risk of being shot in the head by the police.

If you start to reduce the pool of available labour through higher housing hosts, the next step is wage inflation. And then higher interest rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with TTRTR on the economic of HMOs from a tenants POV. My room costs me £340 pm including bills and council tax. So my basic living costs are £4080 pa plus phone/broadband. The cheapest one-bed flat round here would be about £600 per month plus bills and council tax, so that's £7200 pa plus bills/tax - say £8500 all in. So I'm nearly £4500, or nearly £90 per week, better off. Which is a lot when you consider the bankruptcy thread said the disposable income of people going for bankruptcy is about £215 per month. It might be sh!te but I'm better off than those hocked up to the eyeballs in their "luxury" rabbit hutch.

Three bed houses round here are about £900 per month, so that's £10800 pa. Add in bills and council tax and you're up to say £12500 pa, which shared three ways is £4170. So not much in it really and you're still sharing, and then you get into sub-letting and having to replace anyone who moves out and the whole joint tenancy stuff. All of which just means that housing is brutally and ludicrously over-priced.

But it's also very clear that HMO rentals, and for that matter rentals generally, are capped by incomes in a way that house prices aren't. House prices can go mad on the back of cheap money but you don't, and won't, find people borrowing month in month out to pay rent. If people do get chucked out of HMOs, and I'll believe that when I see it - more likely the slumlords will squeal and moan but they'll do what's needed to get their licenses - then either they'll go abroad, as ElP says, or they'll go home within the UK, or some will pay the higher rent because they have no choice. Whichever way spending will go down and the economy will decline, taking wages and thus rents with it. Truth is the economics of something like BTL at the top of a boom don't translate neatly into an economy in recession. But here's the rub - house prices are a function of greed, speculation and cheap money. Rents aren't. So even if there's a short-term uptick in rents this will be short-lived as the usual cyclical phase in the economy will leave slumlords with under-utilised assets. Business as usual, then.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.