British culture of owning property??

dag_2

clapton says:

the basic problem in the UK is the shortgage of houses in relation to the population.

Are you sure about that? Last time I checked, there were reams of terraced houses in Manchester that were boarded up.

if I were buying to day there is absolutely no way i could afford to buy my house... true of loads of people.

Well yes, true of me too. But on the other hand, I've seen loads of people who've been renting for years who have suddenly got all excited about the idea that they might be able to buy a house after all, they overstretch themselves on their mortgage, the rates then leap up and they find themselves in negative equity. Such people tell me that they wish they had stayed in rented accommodation instead, it would have been much cheaper and less stressful.

Mutton_Geoff

This country was nowhere near as bad until Thatcher sold off council houses and replaced them with mortgaged Barratt boxes that she convinced people was now "home ownership". All she did was shift the liability from government to the individual. Rapidly rising prices fuelled this fire and when all the remortgaged money had been spent on 4x4's, tropical holidays and plasma TV's, the whole plan started to collapse.

My granny still lives in the same council house she moved into when it was first built in 1935. Despite dozens of offers, she has no intention, nor interest, in buying it. Old school maybe, but perhaps these days will return as the government are forced to rethink their social housing plan. For some reason they've convinced everyone home ownership is a right.

kunekune

We're currently renting privately and have a good landlord, but cannot see rental as a long-term solution to our housing needs. If it was possible to have a really secure tenancy, a bit like people such as Mutton Geoff's granny, it might be different, but I'd need to be able to sign up to at least 5 years for it to be a real alternative to purchasing a house.

And even then ... If we buy a house now and have the mortgage paid off by retirement, our costs then will be maintenance and taxes but not rent. We will also be able to adapt the house for our own needs. Quite frankly, after 2 1/2 years of someone else's decoration and a garden designed for no maintenance, I can't wait!

N79

Just a quick comment about longer / more secure European style lets.

In many European countries the T has repair liabilities. So yes there are lower rents and you can redecorate the house etc and make it your home but if the boiler breaks or the windows need painting then you can not just call the LL to come and fix everything. Buildings insurance can be the Ts responsibility as well.

European style longer, more secure lets with UK style LL regulation and responsibilities is not viable without higher rents in my opinion. Or you could have lower rents but only by removing LL obligations (gas safety / minor repair / white goods etc).

baby_boomer

From the wider economic perspective it makes sense for there to be less home ownership in the UK. Our economy is too tied to the housing market ----> more boom & bust than in Germany. The government recognised this a while back when Gordon tried to persuade us to go for long term fixed rate mortgages after the Miles Report.

So why does the government still persist in the "dream" of widening home ownership?

Is it to show the public that Labour believes in aspiration? Or is it because on the Continent the state pension is high enough to afford to continue to pay the rent after retirement whereas in the UK it doesn't come close?

Poppy9

My MIL lives in a former council house. She bought it about 15 years ago for £20k (prob. worth about £120k in today's market). So for 15 years she's paid no rent saving about £70 per week over £3500 per year. As long as she lives (she's 69) she will live rent free which is a big saving when your only income is state pension.

I've only rented for a short period in between selling and buying a house. If house prices continue to drop I will consider buying a second house to rent out as my mortgage on my current house ends shortly.

Northants_Simon

The problem in the UK is many landlords let their house until they can sell. There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of houses that are run as a business on a buy to let (buy to let seems to be mainly flats).

I lived in a property for 8 months and the bailiffs came knocking as the landlord was in debt. Next thing I know the bank start a repossession. Not a nice situation to be in when you have children settled into the local schools.

I have been luckier with my current house, I have been renting here for 10 years and am now buying. But once again the landlord didn't treat it like a business and the house was inherited when the landlord parents died. When we asked to change things (like putting up a fence at the end of the garden) we have been told we can't because of the landlords sentimental reasons, they want to keep things as they are.

The best option in the UK seems to be renting from an estate. They tend to own lots of houses/cottages and do run it as a business.

puddy

N79 wrote: »

Just a quick comment about longer / more secure European style lets.

In many European countries the T has repair liabilities. So yes there are lower rents and you can redecorate the house etc and make it your home but if the boiler breaks or the windows need painting then you can not just call the LL to come and fix everything. Buildings insurance can be the Ts responsibility as well.

European style longer, more secure lets with UK style LL regulation and responsibilities is not viable without higher rents in my opinion. Or you could have lower rents but only by removing LL obligations (gas safety / minor repair / white goods etc).

but isnt that the same with social housing here? im not sure, so correct me if im wrong, but if your council or social housing flat needs decorating or a new kitchen or something, dont you have to get it yourself? so thats not differnet, but i accept that its very different from privately rented here.

some posters on here have made the comments about buying not really being cheaper than renting, but surely (it is for me anyway) the point is about security, as in, no one is going to tell me to leave, or not fix the things that need fixing (because thats my job) etc, so its about the freedom of owning rather than it being cheaper over the course of your lifetime??

puddy

baby_boomer wrote: »

From the wider economic perspective it makes sense for there to be less home ownership in the UK. Our economy is too tied to the housing market ----> more boom & bust than in Germany. The government recognised this a while back when Gordon tried to persuade us to go for long term fixed rate mortgages after the Miles Report.

So why does the government still persist in the "dream" of widening home ownership?

Is it to show the public that Labour believes in aspiration? Or is it because on the Continent the state pension is high enough to afford to continue to pay the rent after retirement whereas in the UK it doesn't come close?

surely it cant be the pension issue because even if you were renting, then if your pension is low, you still get housing benefit. do they have housing benefit in european countries?

zappahey

We moved to Belgium in the summer and are renting, so I can provide some first hand knowledge of one European system.

We rent a 4-bed semi and the lease is for 9 years (there are only two options, 3 years or 9 years). We can break the lease at any time in the first 3 years by paying a "penalty" of one month's rent for every year remaining before the 3 year anniversary. After the 3 years, we can quit at one month's notice for a fee of one month's rent. The landlord can only break the lease if he wants to live in the house or needs to carry out major works on the house.

Maintenance responsibilities are enshrined in law as to who has responsibility for which part but basically it comes down to we need to carry out basic maintenance but he has to pay for repairs if systems break, e.g. heating, plumbing, etc.

At the start of the lease, an independent surveyor inspects the house from top to bottom and a thick report is provided which details every mark on the walls and the condition of every part of the house. At the end of the lease, the same surveyor inspects the house again and responsibility for any additional damage or wear and tear is allocated according to clear legal requirements. The requirements include the expected lifespan of things like carpets and paint finishes so, if something is damaged then the tenant's liability is reduced according to the ratio of life left in the paint. The cost of the survey is split between landlord and tenant and it seems to work well with problems not being too common. The biggest problem seems to be unscrupulous LLs taking advantage of expats who don't know the setup.

We're generally quite happy that we have the stability we need for the next few years until we decide what the future holds and if we want to buy here.

As a more general concept, Belgians only tend to buy one or two houses in their entire lives and they rent until they can afford to do that, though I understand that some build houses which they rent out until they can afford (or need) to live in it themselves. That's purely apocryphal so far and I haven't found anyone with a real-life example but it appears that the "housing ladder" is not a concept that Belgians would recognise.