FTB expectations too high?

exil

Hope those smilies aren't in negative equity or they wouldn't be smiling so much

IveSeenTheLight

thegibdog wrote: »

But you didn't say the average first time buyer, you were comparing two couples in the same situation apart from the fact one had bought eight years earlier and one hadn't. You were trying to illustrate why people who already own a house should be in a better position to buy an "upgraded level of property" by using a flawed argument. I was trying to make you see this but I give up.

:wall: indeed.

Two couples, one a first time buyer, another who bought years earlier.
So I was comparing a FTB wanting to jump straight to the higher level of property against someone who previously bought

I have a colleague of similar age and position who has went through life choosing a vastly different life than I have.
Now there is nothing wrong with the life choice he has made, in fact he would say he has lived a very excellent life so far, however now he is deciding to choose to set up roots and buy property.

Theres no way in the world he can afford the properties I could, thats because I am 9 years ahead in the choice of buying properties and he doesn't expect to because he realises as a FTBer he is only starting on the property purchase life

Time to move on now, weve gone round and round the mulberry bush far to long.

olly300

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Two couples, one a first time buyer, another who bought years earlier.
So I was comparing a FTB wanting to jump straight to the higher level of property against someone who previously bought

I have a colleague of similar age and position who has went through life choosing a vastly different life than I have.
Now there is nothing wrong with the life choice he has made, in fact he would say he has lived a very excellent life so far, however now he is deciding to choose to set up roots and buy property.

Theres no way in the world he can afford the properties I could, thats because I am 9 years ahead in the choice of buying properties and he doesn't expect to because he realises as a FTBer he is only starting on the property purchase life

Time to move on now, weve gone round and round the mulberry bush far to long.

What people are trying to point out to you is there is not such thing as the average first time buyer.

No ones situation is exactly the same.

First time buyers include those who sold to rent, those with inheritances, those who parents will bung them a few quid, those who have saved up a lot for their deposit, those on massive salaries ............. Regardless of age.

From your posts it seemed you would be upset if your colleague brought a bigger or "better" property then you. Deal with it.

I know people whose first houses where and are 4 and 5 bedroom houses in good areas.

whathavewedone

The 1977 Rent Act has been widely seen as a dreadful piece of legislation. Why would anyone want to rent out their property when they know they can't get it back when they want or need to, can't charge a market rent and even when the people that currently live there die the property will simply pass to them?

There are a few still left. I have acted for some commercial landlords who have some of these tenants. In my experience they completely take the p***. safe in the knowledge that they will never be removed. Many of them sublet and live elsewhere but proving that they are definitely subletting and not just allowing a friend to stay there for a while is nigh on impossible. Even if you get witness statements from all and sundry stating that the tenant is never there (apart from briefly once a month to collect the rent in cash probably) all they have to do is show an "intention" to return at some point. This includes leaving a few personal belongings behind.

One old woman had been in a home for 2 years with senile dementia. Her son said it was her intention to come home to die "in accordance with Asian culture". Despite the fact that she wasn't capable of making any such statement herself the court just went oh okay then. This despite a witness statement from someone saying he wasn't living there and had sublet to her. Because she couldn't produce a tenancy agreement and was no longer iving there the court was having none of it.

Another one would fail to pay for months on end, waste endless hours of court time, we'd get the order for possession and then he'd apply for a stay of execution and turn up with all the arrears, interest and costs in cash and the whole procedure would start again a couple of months later.

Yep what a fabulous piece of legislation that was.

IveSeenTheLight

olly300 wrote: »

What people are trying to point out to you is there is not such thing as the average first time buyer.

No ones situation is exactly the same.

First time buyers include those who sold to rent, those with inheritances, those who parents will bung them a few quid, those who have saved up a lot for their deposit, those on massive salaries ............. Regardless of age.

From your posts it seemed you would be upset if your colleague brought a bigger or "better" property then you. Deal with it.

I know people whose first houses where and are 4 and 5 bedroom houses in good areas.

LOL

I'm a long time advocator that UK averages mean nothing and that specifics need to be catered for.
In my posts, I have conceded there will be exceptions, of course that is the case and I did intimate that if a FTB has saved the equivalent of a previous home owner and their equity, then there is nothing to stop the jumping up the ladder.
This thread however questions in general whether FTBer expectations are too high.
It's been shown time and again on this so time to move on.

Incidently, I have no concerns what my colleage, the Joneses or whoever choose to buy. It would not upset me one little iota.
I am happy with my choices and thats all that matters. If everyone else is happy for their choices then good for them

carolt

EdInvestor wrote: »

Ahh, that rare but very fortunate group - the sitting tenants. These were the lucky people who caused life to be so ghastly for the rest of us renters in those days.The legislation that allowed trhe sitting tenant to stay put forever in flats paying peanut rents which didn't even cover maintenance costs, caused decent private landlords to desert the sector. By the 1970s, all you could rent was a bedsit room in a house, (not covered by the tenancy laws) and prices were very high for substandard accom because of the shortage..

Of course the sitting tenants benefited doubly as their low non-market rents enabled them to save up deposits to buy their own homes - while everyone else's money went on the sky high prices charged by the other landlords.

I'm sure you would.But you would be a member of a very small and privileged group. Less than half the population owned their hoime on the 1970s, many were unable to get mortgages, including most women, many single people, anyone who wanted to buy a flat, or a period property.

I certainly was, as an adult (FTB 1975).It seems you were a child, and thus your understanding is based on one example - that of your parents.Believe me, their experience was not mainstream.You can see this was the case by the explosion of new BTL investment when the law was changed in the late 1990s.There was massive pent-up demand.

Sorry, but the introduction of modern BTL and the removal of tenants' rights is a very recent thing - mid 90's I think - I remember quite clearly when the first BTL mortgages came out as it was discussed in all the financial pages (and yes, I read them then too).

Obviously, BTL existed prior to that as a proper business, but the easy credit for BTL and removal of tenants rights ensuring landlords never had to deal with annoying tenants with things like 'security' or 'fair rents' (the cheek of it!!) caused the explosion of amateurs we have recently witnessed, as you well know.

I rented - as an adult - well before then, and never found the slightest difficulty in finding suitable rental property, contrary to your claims.

Fewer people rented privately then, it's true - but not because they couldn't find anywhere suitable, but because there was no need - houses were affordable - all my schoolfriends parents at an ordinary state school owned their own homes, (cost now c 500K+ in that area).

Council housing was widely available.

My parents' families chose to rent as they came from Europe where renting not buying was - and still is - the norm, and it would never have occurred to them to do anything else.

But as their example shows, buying was easily affordable.

Are you getting forgetful in your old age? :rolleyes:

whathavewedone

Carolt, Ed Investor can actually remember trying to rent privately during the period that the Rent Act was in force so to just dismiss his recollections as you have done because they don't accord with your fairytale views about this dreadful piece of legislation is rather childish.

The effects of this legislation are still around now as I stated in my earlier post.

I bet if you inherited a house with a sitting tenant that didn't live there, sub-let it to all and sundry whilst pretending to still live there all for a way below market rent and spent a fortune unsuccessfully trying to get them out you wouldn't think it was such a wonderful idea.

If I inherited a house and something similar to the Rent Acts came in I would either sell it asap or leave it to stand empty. No way would I let it out knowing what I know about it.

Incidentally, as soon as the tories came into power they started making changes so that the protection of tenants was gradually eroded. It was a labour idea and as they haven't reintroduced it in the last 11 years I doubt very much that they will do now. If you're hoping that the conservatives will then I think you're hopes are very much in vain.

Just as an aside the Protection from Eviction Act came in the same year as the Rent Acts were introduced. Why? Because understandably landlords didn't want to have sitting tenants paying f all rent and many resorted to unethical means to get them out. That law still stands today but you don't find many landlords changing locks and throwing their tenant's possessions out into the street while they're out today.

Incidentally while landlords today only have to give 2 months notice a lot of tenants make them go to court for an actual possession order which drags out the whole process for a lot longer.

Not all people who let out their properties do so because they want to make money out of it. Some people do it for a year or so to see how things are going to work out while they live with their partner rather than selling up straight away. If someone doesn't pay the rent it still takes a few months to get them out and get a money judgement for the arrears. That can cause financial meltdown when you rely on rent to pay your mortgage. I did just this before I married my husband. Luckily I had a good tenant. Her rent only covered the mortgage (80k on a 150k flat) and not even the service charge.

AnnaMonkey

Hello!
I'm a FTB (well attempting)! I think many interesting points have been raised. I'm on an average salary, my OH is on less than me and we're in the process of trying to buy our own place. A one bed flat! The first rung.
We live in London so prices are a bit of a pain, and the place we're looking at is a (cheap) repo, otherwise we wouldn't even be thinking about buying now (the flat's in the block where we live now which is lovely, and we want to stay in this area). We've been saving for a while but still only have 10% deposit and if this place falls through we'll have to go back to saving as there isn't anything else within our price range near us. Our broker reckoned we could actually go for a higher priced place, but we both quite want to be able to live off our wage after monthly bills, not scrape through.
I have to say that even though I really want the flat one of the things that concerned me was selling it on - people do seem to want 2 beds and above now! I see it as it'll be our home and we're not doing it to try to get heaps of money from it.
I'm 26...and feel quite young to be a first time buyer too! shriek!

Pobby

teaspoon1 wrote: »

House prices will go back to what people are prepared to pay (and can borrow) for them. Looks like sensible prices will return, thank goodness. :beer:

Prices fell 34.2% in Northern Ireland in 2008 and show no signs of stopping. The rest of the UK is just playing catch-up.

Interesting regarding the NI situation. I have just come off the phone to A Belfast buddy. He says that a lot of the figures regarding the price drops there are not correct. He was telling me tales of stuff going for 50% or even less from their peak.

mbga9pgf

sweet! That will show the greedy B*ggers!