Protest Against Holiday Homes And The Lack Of Affordable Housing

[Son of Taeper]

Jees This thread seems to have brought out all the slack-jawed in-breds. I'm amazed some of you have internet connections; isn't that a little too modern for your bucolic world?

How exactly will the economies of these villages survive without evil outsiders? Somebody has to support the local Kendal Mintcake industry. Greedy and selfish outsiders, as you call them, bring much needed money (and fresh genes) to these places.

More importantly, who the hell are country-dwellers to tell me where I can live? The fact that someone's parents (both cousins, presumably) can trace their roots in a village to the 15th century is irrelevant.

[HPCheese]

About '85.

Come the crash I rode it out

Considering you bought 4-5 years before the crash that shouldn't have been too hard.

As I said, I worked 85 hours a week.

Saving £125 a week in order to obtain £500 p/m for 2 years would be childs play. Pocket money to some.

If we assume the minimum wage to be £5.00 today then we earn £200 p/w. If we then work say 85 hours a week, we get up to £425 p/w. 27.5 weeks should equate to just under 7 months to get that deposit. Of course, one has to eat and dress but not get too bogged down in enjoying life.

Are you getting it yet?

You were fortunate to a ) be able to work 85 hours a week, and b ) to be ready to buy in '85 when prices were still low. Your advice might actually be useful now if this was 1999.

What proportion of FTBers today do you actually think could save a deposit for a flat in 5 months? The Alliance & Leicester have suggested 3 1/2 years as being realistic for the average FTBer.

[sun n sea]

Who the hell are townies to tell country folk how to live- which they do by whinging about normal country life and trying to prevent local business- "oooh, we couldn't possibly let you build an industrial park anywhere near our lovely country bolt hole".

If you do run your own business you will see the panacea of your business being the goose that lays the golden housing egg for the cr@p it is- I've run my own business for 20 years and you work *ucking hard to charge competitve prices- it's only housing that's rocketing in price. You try increasing your prices by 20% per annum or whatever- you'll so be an ex business owner.

[Europa]

I think you're missing the point here.

It's fine if an "outsider" wants to buy a home to LIVE in in one of these areas - many former city dwellers enjoy a relaxing retirement in the countryside. The problem is with those people who buy "holiday homes", occupied for 4 weeks a year and empty the rest - if their main residence is elsewhere they can only spend so much time "supporting the Kendal mintcake industry". They could just as easily stay in a B&B or hotel when they visit!

This (edit: not clear - I mean buying holiday homes) deprives your mintcake factory workers of homes. If this carries on there will eventually be no mintcake factory since no-one can afford to live and work there. Wonder who would be first to complain when the mintcake factory closes down! :angry:

I take your point, and I do sympathise with the plight of the mintcake workers; I certainly wouldn't want to see the mintcake factory (or mintcake quarry- for all I know, they may well mine it from the local hillsides) shut down. I'm a big fan of the stuff (and, indeed, have a tin of it on my desk right now).

But... some of the previous posters did highlight the empty-nesters and down-sizers who arrive in villages in search of a quiter life. I see nothing wrong with so called townies doing this.

[Lionel Richtea]

Who the hell are townies to tell country folk how to live- which they do by whinging about normal country life and trying to prevent local business- "oooh, we couldn't possibly let you build an industrial park anywhere near our lovely country bolt hole".

Who the hell are coutry folk to tell townies how to live? "Ooh, you must buy things in our local shops".

The village I grew up in had a local shop that gouged all comers, local or otherwise, and with a smile on their face. When I visit family there, guess what: they're still going and the owner still has the same body odour and 100% mark up on eccles cakes.

I can only blame those who live locally for their mis-guided loyalty which keep these idiots going and maintains the fiction that such small communities are self sustaining and should have its own school / post office / etc. These shop owners deserve a lingering death.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Lionel Richtea

[HPCheese]

Who the hell are coutry folk to tell townies how to live? "Ooh, you must buy things in our local shops".

The village I grew up in had a local shop that gouged all comers, local or otherwise, and with a smile on their face. When I visit family there, guess what: they're still going and the owner still has the same body odour and 100% mark up on eccles cakes.

I can only blame those who live locally for their mis-guided loyalty which keep these idiots going and maintains the fiction that such small communities are self sustaining and should have its own school / post office / etc. These shop owners deserve a lingering death.

I'm sure they live in palatial opulence like Columbian coke-barons (Cumbrian cake-barons? )

Edited July 27, 2006 by HPCheese

[Son of Taeper]

Considering you bought 4-5 years before the crash that shouldn't have been too hard.

You were fortunate to a ) be able to work 85 hours a week, and b ) to be ready to buy in '85 when prices were still low. Your advice might actually be useful now if this was 1999.

What proportion of FTBers today do you actually think could save a deposit for a flat in 5 months? The Alliance & Leicester have suggested 3 1/2 years as being realistic for the average FTBer.

Fortunate to be able to work 85 hours a week? Are you having a laugh?

Its called hard work and I was prepared to do what was required to meet the goal. At one stage I even thought of getting a weekend job.

I reckon 100% of FTBs could make the deposit in 5 months if they cut out on luxury stuff and got another job.

As for the "3 1/2 years as being realistic for the average FTBer to put a deposit together" bit I think it's tosh. The only way is to get the dosh together quickly before inflation takes its toll on the savings. Heck, 3 1/2 years is enough to buy a flat outright if you did 85 hours a week and cut out the pleasures in life.

The average wage in the UK in April 2005 was £431.00 pw That's just over £22k pa a year ago. Say we do just 80 hours a week (don't want to spoil our nails do we) we get £44k pa. Presto, equates to £11k in 3 months. Lets say then you fancy blowing £11k in a 3 month period on food and fine wine.......no worries it will just take 6 months to get the deposit.

It's not rocket science you know, just a four letter word w.o.r.k.

[Als]

...to spend their time and effort (K) to do houses up thereby improving the housing stock for those looking to buy.

Don't pretend to be a saint. You are doing this to make money.

...so appreciate the effort of others

See comment above.

Those who do not want to pay this premium could always...

You premium service providers have pushed me out. I do not appreciate your efforts to make my home town more exclusive. If you want to profit then expect us to fight back.

...better than working in a call centre

Easy money heh?

There are simply too many people like you and I'd like to see a cull.

[HPCheese]

The average wage in the UK in April 2005 was £431.00 pw That's just over £22k pa a year ago. Say we do just 80 hours a week (don't want to spoil our nails do we) we get £44k pa. Presto, equates to £11k in 3 months. Lets say then you fancy blowing £11k in a 3 month period on food and fine wine.......no worries it will just take 6 months to get the deposit.

It's not rocket science you know, just a four letter word w.o.r.k.

What about rent? Or should everyone under 30 move back in with their parents and freeload off them?

I understand what you're trying to say about working hard & saving, it's good advice. But there is no way the average FTBer today could save a deposit in 5 months.

[Europa]

If you want to profit then expect us to fight back.

With pitch forks, presumably

[Lionel Richtea]

Don't pretend to be a saint. You are doing this to make money.

See comment above.

You premium service providers have pushed me out. I do not appreciate your efforts to make my home town more exclusive. If you want to profit then expect us to fight back.

Easy money heh?

There are simply too many people like you and I'd like to see a cull.

Don't confuse taking a position with being in a position. I am not a BTLer but those who blame the government for their own short comings need to take a look at themselves rather than projecting their own failings onto third parties.

So, you don't like the premium service. Then why not buy something that isn't premium? Guess what - if you can't afford the mean house price you may have to buy something that's below average as befits your position. Like most people since the history of time have had to do before they were inculcated with a sense of entitlement.

Your fightback goes as far as non-participation... but since you couldn't participate even if you wanted to, that's rather a hollow threat. Imagine how scared people must be with that threat. Why not shut up, pay your rent and work hard then you can buy what you want.

Dude - if there's going to be a cull, let's start with ballast like you, people who think that they can solve their problems by waving a flag outside a provincial town hall rather than spending a few hours in the room of mirror to address their own inadequacies.

Pathetic.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Blame yourself not the government - blah blah blah. Who the hell are you? a Millbank spinmeister?

So, if I follow your logic, we can improve our spending power to the point where we can all afford a nice pad - all we need to do is work hard and 'address our inadequacies'

Edited July 27, 2006 by gruffydd

[Als]

Your fightback goes as far as non-participation... but since you couldn't participate even if you wanted to, that's rather a hollow threat. Imagine how scared people must be with that threat.

I'm not sure what kind of participation you are talking about. The fightback has already been going on for some time in this forum and others.

[HPCheese]

Your fightback goes as far as non-participation... but since you couldn't participate even if you wanted to, that's rather a hollow threat.

That's a pretty good attempt at insulting every first time buyer on this forum. Next you could try trolling a wheelchair user's forum and telling them to get up and walk.

You obviously haven't realised that many FTBers do have a lot of savings and don't need you to tell them how to invest it.

Edited July 27, 2006 by HPCheese

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Don't forget:

Don't confuse taking a position with being in a position. I am not a BTLer but those who blame the government for their own short comings need to take a look at themselves rather than projecting their own failings onto third parties.

Edited July 27, 2006 by gruffydd

[Lionel Richtea]

Blame yourself not the government - blah blah blah. Who the hell are you? a Millbank spinmeister?

So, if I follow your logic, we can improve our spending power to the point where we can all afford a nice pad - all we need to do is work hard and 'address our inadequacies'

That's not the logic. We're talking about individual actions - you're talking about printing money.

To address another reply: this is not a FTB forum. It's a debate regarding a potential house price crash not a place for mutual todger stroking and karma buttons. Indeed, as has been posted, as an FTB you have a choice not to participate. And that hasn't worked to well so far what with all those evil BTL cheats out there.

I've plenty of time for those who are accruing their deposits and no insult is intended. However, those who think that supporting the VI politician who is planning the council office flag waving session to reduce house prices are deluding themselves.

Of course there is a problem with affordability, but there is nothing the government (of either pursuasion - it's interesting to hear these sentiments described as new Labour rather than old Conservative) can or will do which will provide affordable housing that will be considered "reasonable" by FTBs in the short run. After all, who wants to buy a council flat at the market rate? Ugh - I'm better than that.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

The Housing Act?

[Lionel Richtea]

The Housing Act?

Interesting... care to elaborate?

[camem']

I reckon 100% of FTBs could make the deposit in 5 months if they cut out on luxury stuff and got another job.

The only way is to get the dosh together quickly before inflation takes its toll on the savings.

Heck, 3 1/2 years is enough to buy a flat outright if you did 85 hours a week and cut out the pleasures in life.

no worries it will just take 6 months to get the deposit.

It's not rocket science you know, just a four letter word w.o.r.k.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry - you old folk just don't get it do you. I'd defend that comment properly, but I'm too busy at work.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Deregulation of banks?

[Casual Observer]

Next you could try trolling a wheelchair user's forum and telling them to get up and walk.

Why not? It worked for Our Lord, Jesus.

[Lionel Richtea]

Deregulation of banks?

I'm none the wiser... wouldn't the regulation of banks have more of a downwards effect on prices?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

(Thanks zzg)

Buy-to-let lending was made possible by the signing into law of the Housing Acts 1988 and 1996. Before this time no bank or lender would lend on residential property to be rented out, as the legislation governing tenants and landlords before that time was strongly in favour of tenants, and a tenant once in a property could be virtually impossible to get out, as they had total security of tenure:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-273.cfm

Most private sector tenancies before 1988 were regulated tenancies, where the tenant is allowed to live in the property until they die, the landlord is not allowed to charge more than a certain amount of rent and the tenancy can in some circumstances be passed on/bequeathed in a will to a successor tenant (ie the tenancy can be inherited). The successor tenant has all the rights of the original tenant, so potentially the landlord is not able to recover his or her property for 2 lifetimes (properties with sitting tenants were worth a fraction of their open market value with vacant possession, and so not suitable security for a loan). This meant buying property to rent out was not a very attractive investment proposition, and the private rental sector dwindled to as little as 7% of all UK housing stock in 1991.

The introduction of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy in 1988 (and as amended in 1996) removed tenant's total security of tenure and ensured that a landlord/lender could regain vacant possession of their property at will, which made residential property to be let out suitable security for a loan (as the abolition of regulated and sitting tenants meant property values could no longer be hit by the tenant effectively taking possession of the property).

http://www.cml.org.uk/servlet/dycon/zt-cml...ps_55report.pdf

See page 5.

Before and during the final amendments to the Housing Act (1988) in 1996, ARLA (the Association of Residential Letting Agents) had been collaborating with an initial group of 4 mortgage lenders to create buy-to-let mortgages which were to be launched immediately after the Act was signed into law. They did so, as did many other mortgage lenders (ie Mortgage Express, Paragon, etc), and the rest, as they say, is history.

http://www.letlink.co.uk/Facts/Lfacts30.htm

[Lionel Richtea]

(Thanks zzg)

Buy-to-let lending was made possible by the signing into law of the Housing Acts 1988 and 1996. Before this time no bank or lender would lend on residential property to be rented out, as the legislation governing tenants and landlords before that time was strongly in favour of tenants, and a tenant once in a property could be virtually impossible to get out, as they had total security of tenure:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-273.cfm

Most private sector tenancies before 1988 were regulated tenancies, where the tenant is allowed to live in the property until they die, the landlord is not allowed to charge more than a certain amount of rent and the tenancy can in some circumstances be passed on/bequeathed in a will to a successor tenant (ie the tenancy can be inherited). The successor tenant has all the rights of the original tenant, so potentially the landlord is not able to recover his or her property for 2 lifetimes (properties with sitting tenants were worth a fraction of their open market value with vacant possession, and so not suitable security for a loan). This meant buying property to rent out was not a very attractive investment proposition, and the private rental sector dwindled to as little as 7% of all UK housing stock in 1991.

The introduction of the Assured Shorthold Tenancy in 1988 (and as amended in 1996) removed tenant's total security of tenure and ensured that a landlord/lender could regain vacant possession of their property at will, which made residential property to be let out suitable security for a loan (as the abolition of regulated and sitting tenants meant property values could no longer be hit by the tenant effectively taking possession of the property).

http://www.cml.org.uk/servlet/dycon/zt-cml...ps_55report.pdf

See page 5.

Before and during the final amendments to the Housing Act (1988) in 1996, ARLA (the Association of Residential Letting Agents) had been collaborating with an initial group of 4 mortgage lenders to create buy-to-let mortgages which were to be launched immediately after the Act was signed into law. They did so, as did many other mortgage lenders (ie Mortgage Express, Paragon, etc), and the rest, as they say, is history.

http://www.letlink.co.uk/Facts/Lfacts30.htm

Jeeze... I can't see those days coming back again. Rather draconian.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

I'm none the wiser... wouldn't the regulation of banks have more of a downwards effect on prices?

Recent governments have deregulated - the resulting lending frenzy has inflated prices - pushing FTBs out of the market. So surely FTBs are right to 'blame' the third parties that deregulated lending and maintain that deregulation?

Edited July 27, 2006 by gruffydd