Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Back To The Old Paradigm?


Recommended Posts

QUOTE(Antsy @ Feb 25 2005, 07:36 PM)

, plus the govt also recently said they wanted to raise home ownership to 80% of the population.

I wasn't aware they'd said that, although I've said many times on this forum that no government will want to preside over falling levels of owner occupation, since it is a traditional measure of prosperity.

Whenever bulls on this forum talk about a new paradigm (Dogbox talks about a return to Victorian levels of tenancy) I counter with this point, but I never get a reasoned response.

This is a big issue I think. If the government want increasing levels of OO they are bound to start penalising BTL, IMO.

What are your views on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/article/...1461712,00.html

Labour 'could hit buy-to-lets'

By Kathryn Cooper of The Sunday Times

Landlords may lose tenants as a result of the government’s plans to help first-time buyers

LABOUR’s latest plans to boost home ownership could hit the buy-to-let market.

Last week, the government unveiled a package of measures to help people buy property. Tony Blair, the prime minister, said that he wants home ownership to rise from 71% to 80% of the population within 10 years.

At present, 15.4m of England’s 21.7m homes are owned by the occupier. Local authorities and housing associations own 4.3m and private landlords, including buy-to-let investors, account for 2m.

If the prime minister gets his way, another 2m homes would be owned rather than rented by 2015.

The government’s measures to boost home ownership include the First Time Buyer initiative. Under the scheme, 15,000 homes will be built on unused government land over the next five years. First-time buyers will purchase the bricks and mortar but not the land, enabling them to get a discount to the full market value. Land typically accounts for 40% of the full value of a property.

The government says that half of the 15,000 new homes will be earmarked for public-sector workers such as nurses and teachers, with the rest available to all first-time buyers.

Richard Donnell of Savills, the estate agent, says that 40% of tenants in existing buy-to-let properties work in the public sector. If they are able to buy as a result of the initiative, landlords could lose a big source of demand.

Donnell said: “These proposals may well be a worry for buy-to-let investors. If enough new affordable housing can be delivered under the initiative and tenants choose to buy instead, many landlords may have void problems — periods when their properties are empty.â€

He advises buy-to-let investors to pick their properties with care. The government has not yet announced where the 15,000 new homes will be built, but they are likely to be on brownfield sites owned, but no longer used, by organisations such as the National Health Service.

Donnell said: “There are always risks if you buy in an urban regeneration area where there is a lot of new building. Professional investors tend to avoid these areas because the supply of property keeps a lid on prices and rents.â€

The government also launched a Homebuy scheme last week to encourage more people to get on to the housing ladder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Antsy @ Feb 25 2005, 07:36 PM)

, plus the govt also recently said they wanted to raise home ownership to 80% of the population. 

I wasn't aware they'd said that, although I've said many times on this forum that no government will want to preside over falling levels of owner occupation, since it is a traditional measure of prosperity.

Whenever bulls on this forum talk about a new paradigm (Dogbox talks about a return to Victorian levels of tenancy) I counter with this point, but I never get a reasoned response.

This is a big issue I think. If the government want increasing levels of OO they are bound to start penalising BTL, IMO.

What are your views on this?

Gradual changes in the tax and rules relating to tenancies should be introduced to make BTL less viable.............Many such changes were introduced in the 1948 Housing Act to counter the post-war housing crisis but much of this act was repealed in 1988................

The 1988 Housing Act specifically encouraged BTL.........by bringing in Short term assured tenancies............

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article candidly suggests that pricing out FTBs is a key element of how BTL has worked so far. Sure, some people will always need or want to rent for reasons of, say, geographical mobilty but vast numbers who would have been happy buyers a few years ago are now forced renters.

That's why talk to any young person, and 'BTL' is never uttered more than one second from the word 'scum'.

Personally I'm all for the government building these homes. It should have had this in place in 1997, rather than in response to a crisis. the only trouble I see, is that too many homes are to be built in the South East, becoming an environmental nightmare in an already traffic-trodden region.

The UK needs cheap housing of all types. Renting is cheaper, but it sure as heck ain't cheap. In much of the South, you'd need to be earning 25k before you could sensibly rent independent accomodation.

Anything that makes people's housing costs lower raises quality of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The article candidly suggests that pricing out FTBs is a key element of how BTL has worked so far. Sure, some people will always need or want to rent for reasons of, say, geographical mobilty but vast numbers who would have been happy buyers a few years ago are now forced renters.

That's why talk to any young person, and 'BTL' is never uttered more than one second from the word 'scum'.

Personally I'm all for the government building these homes. It should have had this in place in 1997, rather than in response to a crisis. the only trouble I see, is that too many homes are to be built in the South East, becoming an environmental nightmare in an already traffic-trodden region.

The UK needs cheap housing of all types. Renting is cheaper, but it sure has heck ain't cheap. In much of the South, you'd need to be earning 25 before you could sensibly rent independent accomodation.

Anything that makes people's housing costs lower raises quality of life.

.

Still haven't heard from any Bulls. They've got to be concerned about this

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muttley
This is only a start, wait until the penny drops with the chancellor and he relalises that to help increase OO he can create some fresh taxes to take from all those juicy BTL plonkers.

I read an article in the Daily Telegraph about 18 months ago that said Brown was looking at this,but that Blair,as Premier,would never allow it.(sorry,no link) It didn't explain how,and I don't see how you could (or why you should) target BTLs,without affecting other small businesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that they will repeal SIPP's.

I heard an article on the radio (4) today that in scotland there is no discount in council tax for partially empty 2nd homes. I think this will be extended to England and for Landlords with void periods (as there will be too many props) they will be forced to cough up full council tax. In fact I would not be surprised if the level of tax for empty BTL properties will increase to encorage landlords to find and tennant and that would mean lower rents as they would not wish to be paying out 100+ per month in council tax.

If I had my way I would also increase CGT for 2nd homes to 60% with no reliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I read an article in the Daily Telegraph about 18 months ago that said Brown was looking at this,but that Blair,as Premier,would never allow it.(sorry,no link) It didn't explain how,and I don't see how you could (or why you should) target BTLs,without affecting other small businesses.

I would not define them as small businesses, they are just exploiting people and not adding anything to the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muttley
I would not define them as small businesses, they are just exploiting people and not adding anything to the economy.

I know how you feel,Crazy88s,from previous posts.I considered going into BTL in 2003,albeit commercial.Residential never appealed because of hassle from tenants and the poor returns.

I would include it has a business because it has risks.Anyone coming to the market in recent years just doesn't realise it yet.

I believe the surfeit of BTLs has also improved the range and quality of the rental stock,so maybe we could include it as a service industry?

This is particularly helpul to me as we are currently renting a smart,spacious new-build at well below IO mortgage rates and with two To Lets within 50m.We have let the Letting Agent know we are aware of the other two To Lets,so I can't see the LL putting the rent up just yet.I have considered asking for a rent reductions,but this may push the LL under,and Mrs M says we can't "cos he's in a wheelchair".

The point here is that without so many BTLs we may have been forced back onto the market,but instead can comfortably sit out the downturn.Effectively the bulls have handed us the stick with which to beat them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutley

I am agresive towards BTL as I know the backgrounds of a few, some of them have shall we say questionable pasts and have alledgedly seeded their portfolios with the proceeds of crime. It seems that in every town the kind of people getting into BTL are meat headed thugs (door man types). (and of course legions of deluded sheep who want to get on the bandwagon).

I am not so anti commercial landlord as many businesses need to operate in rented properties and simply cannot afford to buy their own building. (My company rented before building its own premises)

My issue with BTL is that it has helped deny many people the oppurtunity to afford thier own place.

A hous is a home not an investment, other incentives should be given to allow peole to invest in enterprises that add true value to UK PLC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know how you feel,Crazy88s,from previous posts.I considered going into BTL in 2003,albeit commercial.Residential never appealed because of hassle from tenants and the poor returns.

I would include it has a business because it has risks.Anyone coming to the market in recent years just doesn't realise it yet.

I believe the surfeit of BTLs has also improved the range and quality of the rental stock,so maybe we could include it as a service industry?

This is particularly helpul to me as we are currently renting a smart,spacious new-build at well below IO mortgage rates and with two To Lets within 50m.We have let the Letting Agent know we are aware of the other two To Lets,so I can't see the LL putting the rent up just yet.I have considered asking for a rent reductions,but this may push the LL under,and Mrs M says we can't "cos he's in a wheelchair".

The point here is that without so many BTLs we may have been forced back onto the market,but instead can comfortably sit out the downturn.Effectively the bulls have handed us the stick with which to beat them.

You are in a strong position, I suppose that if this is the only 'business' Mr Wheelchair can do I will make an exception for him... good landlord., however if we see him on the golf course then no mercy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTL'S provide a necessary service for people who need short term accommodation, or who cannot afford to buy at the moment. The bright ones know how to play the market right and how to make it a profitable business. Where abnormal profits are made market forces will pull in more providers and profit levels will drop back to long term trends. However the market forces only work where there are absolute knowledge about prices by vendors and buyers alike. Currently there is absolute ignorance by both parties, especialy amateur buy to let investors who foolishly got tempted by quick rich stories, or ignorant FTB's who think it is now or never.

I cannot see any serious investor even bothering to post on this forum, and common sense dictates that no successful businessman can be classified as bear or bull. They treat a specific commodity as they read the market for it bet bearish or bullish.

As for bulls posting on this site - all I can think is that they are ex schoolyard bullies with imaginary portfolios wiling away the time having done their share for the unemployment figures by now being permantly disabled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mutley

I am agresive towards BTL as I know the backgrounds of a few, some of them have shall we say questionable pasts and have alledgedly seeded their portfolios with the proceeds of crime. It seems that in every town the kind of people getting into BTL are meat headed thugs (door man types). (and of course legions of deluded sheep who want to get on the bandwagon).

I am not so anti commercial landlord as many businesses need to operate in rented properties and simply cannot afford to buy their own building. (My company rented before building its own premises)

My issue with BTL is that it has helped deny many people the oppurtunity to afford thier own place.

A hous is a home not an investment, other incentives should be given to allow peole to invest in enterprises that add true value to UK PLC.

I know loads of BtLers and as much as i hate them for what they're doing none of them are dodgy characters.........They're all professional people with modest mortgages on their own places who've MEWd to get in on the property bandwagon having seen their shares go down the pan since the Millennium.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given New Labour wants people to be more independant of the state (who would have guessed?) I don't see any draconian taxes placed on BTL in the future especially as they know lots of people are doing it instead of pensions. For the short term BTL'r they are already hit by a good whack of CGT , if you are in for the long term can get taper relief so its not too bad at all.

Is it immoral to potentially deprive ftb's of housing doing BTL? No body is going to look after me in the future in "UK PLC" under Mr Blair so I don't worry too much about that I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dumbfounded

Tony Blair, the prime minister, said that he wants home ownership to rise from 71% to 80% of the population within 10 years.

But... wasn't Gordon Brown and various of the great and the good saying that we needed a larger rental sector in the UK to reduce volatility in the housing market?

Methinks there is a serious lack of policy clarity in this area, and new labour are simply political slaves to events rather than the master of them. So nothing new there...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spotted someting towards the end of zzg's quote which I had to re-read. It was a comment made by Richard Donnell of Savills Estate Agents, which appears to me to be a veiled dig at amateur BTL landlords.

This brought to mind the Glasgow Harbour development (by Cala Homes I think) where I recall that only around only 30% were OO.

Donnell said: “There are always risks if you buy in an urban regeneration area where there is a lot of new building. Professional investors tend to avoid these areas because the supply of property keeps a lid on prices and rents.â€

Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Antsy @ Feb 25 2005, 07:36 PM)

, plus the govt also recently said they wanted to raise home ownership to 80% of the population. 

I wasn't aware they'd said that, although I've said many times on this forum that no government will want to preside over falling levels of owner occupation, since it is a traditional measure of prosperity.

Whenever bulls on this forum talk about a new paradigm (Dogbox talks about a return to Victorian levels of tenancy) I counter with this point, but I never get a reasoned response.

This is a big issue I think. If the government want increasing levels of OO they are bound to start penalising BTL, IMO.

What are your views on this?

Government want to do all kinds of things but usually fail.

New Labs main goal was to decrease the gap betwwen rich and poor. Exactly the opposite has been actually delivered.

The Government are nearly always a few clicks behind the coal face. EG - BANKCRUPTY RULES. I predicted the new rules will lead to a sharp rise in bankcruptcies from young with mega debt (the actual target was business owners). In other words, yet again the Governement have entirely failed to spot how the coal face works.

So dont rely on Government to have any real effect on the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Government want to do all kinds of things but usually fail.

New Labs main goal was to decrease the gap betwwen rich and poor. Exactly the opposite has been actually delivered.

The Government are nearly always a few clicks behind the coal face. EG - BANKCRUPTY RULES. I predicted the new rules will lead to a sharp rise in bankcruptcies from young with mega debt (the actual target was business owners). In other words, yet again the Governement have entirely failed to spot how the coal face works.

So dont rely on Government to have any real effect on the market.

Sorry I don't buy that. Imagine a scenario where, in the future, levels of OO are falling . 70%, 65, 55, 50. Imagine the political fallout. I really do think this is a big factor against any new paradigm - opposition parties would crucify any incumbent government if levels of OO decline, despite your cynicism. Labour are already embarassed about unaffordability for FTBs, and no matter how much we disagree with its effectiveness look how they've panicked into a new build programme.

This is a key indicator of national prosperity - no government is going to let it decline.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • 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.