We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Buy to let and the myth of rising rents
Comments
-
Big strikes today.... all these workers wanting wage inflation but with a Government that just can't afford to meet their pay demands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7508717.stmThe Unison and Unite unions expect 600,000 workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to join the 48-hour action, which began at midnight.
They will have to learn. I'd sack the lot of them and turn their jobs over to the private sector.0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »Nit picker. I was in a hurry, I didn't think there'd be somebody who would bother to work it out
Sounds like one of those irregular verbs - I am careful, you are a nitpicker, he / she / it is a pedant.......much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Absolutely right there. A lot of people say house prices are too high. I say wages are too low!
Sounds like those people who say they aren't overweight, they are undertall......much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »Of course, for couples, it's a lot easier with two incomes.
Unless and until they have children - generally, that means lower incomes and higher costs...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Gorgeous_George wrote: »Many LLs set rents based on costs and not house prices.
Surely neither is entirely the case - rents are set according to what people will pay, to a large extent?...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »There is a lot of good posts above.
Summarising in my opinion: -
1) Ladlords with Good tenants will not increase rents to keep those good tenants (I only increase rents between tenants)
I agree, except in the case of very long-term renters. We've had rent increases, but we've lived here for nearly 11 years, so that's fair enough. At our last AST renewal, we agreed a 10% higher rent, but fixed for the 3 year (no break clause) period.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »4) If rents are too high, people will share, go home to mum & dad etc
Seems fair enough.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »My opinion is that roof, food and utilities (heating) would be high up on the priority and when times get harder, I'm sure most people would think the same
I agree with all of those - but none of those costs are absolute. Food bills can be cut down, and heating used less....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »1) Ladlords with Good tenants will not increase rents to keep those good tenants (I only increase rents between tenants)
2) Some properties have not had rent increases for a number of years, therefore are subject to rent increases when changing tenants
3) Rents to disposable income ranges from 22% to 42% (data from this thread). This would also suggest that either properties may be liable for rent increses / decreases or more probably that the disposable income can vary and depending on the type of property rented
4) If rents are too high, people will share, go home to mum & dad etc
It would be good to see a poll on where people prioritise on their disposable income. Roof over head, Food, clothing, leisure & entertainment, cigarettes and Alcohol, Cars, Petrol, Utilities (Gas / Electricity), etc, etc
My opinion is that roof, food and utilities (heating) would be high up on the priority and when times get harder, I'm sure most people would think the same
Nice summary. Just like to add my situation since we're getting into anecdotals:- Rent at 15% of net monthly income (i.e. 15% of what I get after pension, student loan, NI, tax etc are deducted)
- Property owned outright by landlady, and has been for years. I think she bought it for a couple of sheep and some shiny pebbles back in nineteen-oh-nothing.
- My rent hasn't changed in the three years I've lived there
- I am a 100% hassle free tenant, and have made some minor improvements to the place.
- Rental is handled by landlady directly, no agency involved.
By keeping things as they are between now and the day I buy she knows she'll have a good tenant in the property that won't give her any headaches and will never miss a payment.
I'm guessing that non-mortgaged landlords are few and far between. There's quite a few round here, but I think it comes from land in a ruralish area being in the family for generations etc. City centers saturated with poxy new build flats probably have a much much higher density of amateur, highly leveraged, mortgaged to the hilt landlords. In my opinion these are the guys that will try passing on their increased costs to the tenants, and when they fail, get repossesed.0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »I agree, except in the case of very long-term renters. We've had rent increases, but we've lived here for nearly 11 years, so that's fair enough. At our last AST renewal, we agreed a 10% higher rent, but fixed for the 3 year (no break clause) period.
11 years, WOW, your landlord must be loving you.
I personally would be very very flexible for long term good tenants.
One of my properties was on a 6 month AST, 18 months ago. I recently discussed with them if they wanted to sign a new lease to provide security for them and of course for myself, with the sweetener being no increase in rent.
They declined stating that they planned to buy a house in about a years time and didn;t want to be tied in in case they found soewhere they liked.
They did say 18 months ago that they would only likely be in for 6 months as they intended to buy then
Fully agree, of course rents are not absolute either, you could move to a different area / type of property.neverdespairgirl wrote: »I agree with all of those - but none of those costs are absolute. Food bills can be cut down, and heating used less.
The point I was trying to make was that I personally and I believe most would put these things before spending money on other factors.
I dont think that puting percentages of ideally distributed disposable income is a factor when things come to a crunch. Everyone will adapt and adjust accordingly:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »11 years, WOW, your landlord must be loving you.
I personally would be very very flexible for long term good tenants.
Our LL is very nice, but we are also good tenants. We always pay on time, and OH sorts out small problems without bothering the LL about them. So we're all happy. We are paying a below-market rent, definintely (£1,000 a month, incl. water rates) but we look after the flat properly.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »The point I was trying to make was that I personally and I believe most would put these things before spending money on other factors.
I dont think that puting percentages of ideally distributed disposable income is a factor when things come to a crunch. Everyone will adapt and adjust accordingly
I think that's right, and agree that anyone with any sense would make a priority of somewhere to live, eating, and keeping warm....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
My rent is zero - company let as part of compensation package. But in terms of my salary, about 33%.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards