A shortage of housing ?? Over 750,000 are empty

ad9898_3

A shortage of housing ??? This is why there are no fields of tents, shanty towns and millions living on the street. Simple answer.... there is no shortage.

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/investment/article5196563.ece

beingjdc

There are, however, plenty of people living in houses that are so vile they make them and their children ill, or living more than one person to a room (not in the good way), or living with their parents when they'd rather move out.

ad9898_3

Atomised wrote: »

The amount of empty homes in Merseyside is shocking. The beautiful and dilapidated houses around the Edge lane area (the first area you see if entering Liverpool via the motorway) are depressing. We were shocked when aeeing them for the first time last year

It's funny you should say that, I was driving past there today, thinking the same thing

Heyman_2

That is shocking.

Excuse my ignorance but can anyone say why there is such a glut of empty houses? I mean are most of them privately owned or state owned?

amcluesent

>The beautiful and dilapidated houses around the Edge lane area<

Let's not forget the corruption and cultural vandalism of 'two-minutes' John Prescott who, in between gorging on pies, forced through the compulsory purchase and demolition of Victorian and Edwardian properties. In their place are chipboard shacks knocked up by developers, many of whom donated large amount to NuLabour. Coincidence I'm sure.

Chris2685

I guess empty homes makes more empty homes... There are people who like to live on their own out in the country in a big (or small) house.

Quite different from being the only one in a street of abandoned houses...

PasturesNew

There are many empty homes because people can't afford the rents.
All these new builds - they wouldn't be empty if the rents were half what they are for example.

The credit/housing bubble created more than over-priced shoeboxes to buy ... those shoeboxes were bought by people who thought you could charge what you like for rent (just because it cost you £X). Well, here's the thing: we can't afford them!

The London tubes are crowded in rushhour .... why not double the fares every year for 5 years? That'd sort out the over-crowding ... same thing. Economics.

The number of people that can afford to buy something, even if that thing is a basic requirement for living.

BTL LLs.... we can't afford your rents! And you can't make us afford them because ... we have no money!!

stephen163

I have to disagree. Rents are set by supply and demand. The empty houses should in theory have no effect on the supply curve because they are essentially out of the system. Those empty houses within the system can be in 1 of 2 states; lived in or on the rental market but they would still have to obey the basic laws of supply and demand.

How can individual landlords artificially set rents too high? Is there a cartel of landlords?

One other point. Increasing fares will indeed reduce demand for the tube at rush hour. Thing is, what effect will it have on the OVERALL rush hour congestion into and out of London at peak times? People will just use the bus or god forbid, drive into work.

PasturesNew

stephen163 wrote: »

I have to disagree. Rents are set by supply and demand. The empty houses should in theory have no effect on the supply curve because they are essentially out of the system. Those empty houses within the system can be in 1 of 2 states; lived in or on the rental market but they would still have to obey the basic laws of supply and demand.

How can individual landlords artificially set rents too high? Is there a cartel of landlords?

I don't have the language skills to write what I mean I don't think, but I will try.

What I mean is there are not enough people who can afford to rent all the new build flats they built. The flats were built for the investor market, people who already had a house/access to credit. Anybody who could get their hands on any kind of credit (real or bent) either bought something themselves, or bought a row of BTL places.

The other heap of people, who they expected to move into them, simply don't earn enough to rent the new shiny places.

New builds are lovely and shiny. If people could afford to rent them they might well prefer to do so rather than the small/draughty place they currently rent. But the rents are just OTT.

I'm giving up now. I can't write what I mean.

I'm hopeless at "debate", I know what I mean, I just can't write it down.

stephen163 wrote: »

One other point. Increasing fares will indeed reduce demand for the tube at rush hour. Thing is, what effect will it have on the OVERALL rush hour congestion into and out of London at peak times? People will just use the bus or god forbid, drive into work.

Yes, that was a really rubbish example I tried to give. I tried to explain what I meant by using an example: another epic fail.

I am just unable to communicate tonight it seems

Happens sometimes. . .

Gorgeous_George

I'm not sure that an empty house can be lived in

Most empty homes are owned by housing associations and are awaiting redevelopment. Most LLs do not want their homes to be empty. Some are empty because slum tenants have trashed them. Flats are empty because there are more flats than flat dwellers.

GG

PasturesNew

I thought an empty house included:
- 2nd homes
- BTL empties
- Buy to Sit on While Capital Gains Occur
- Flippers who crashed and burned

I was thinking of those.

In particular, my previous remarks were relating only to BTL empties.