Wilsons Selling Up. The Lot. All 700 Houses.

carolt

I'm with ninky.

I don't see there being a desperate shortage of rented property per se, by which I mean an oversupply of people who desperately long to rent and nothing else would suffice. I think pre-the mid 1990's, there was sufficient choice of rentals; but buying was cheaper, as buyers were competing with far fewer investors. Remove the investors, and those who currently rent only because it is too expensive to buy, now buy, at the new cheaper prices. Thus reducing the artificial 'need' for so much rental property.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

That's your choice.

Of course by forcing that choice on other people, you're denying them the choice to pay an amount they deem to be reasonable but which you deem to be a rip-off.

What happens if someone wants to pay less than you for lower quality than you're prepared to accept and then force that choice on you?

Whose choice is reasonable? Mine? Yours? Gordon Brown's?

i don't know anyone who doesn't consider current private rent levels a rip off. it's hardly a choice either when the alternative is sleeping in the streets. i know many people in their 20s and 30s who still live in substandard shared accommodation because they can't afford anything else. the only people i know get along with the current system are male immigrants who see their current discomfort in shared rooms or houses as a payoff against being able to send money home.

ninky_2

of course a lot of the current problems can be traced to the 1988 housing act. what a disaster.

Generali

What would be a better system do you think ninky?

When rents were controlled, people were free to rent slums at low prices or rent from the council.

The council can't afford to provide more housing as the Government has already taken on more debt than it will be able to repay.

How would you see this conumdrum resolved? I have my ideas but we can explore those later if you are interested.

HammersFan

carolt wrote: »

I'm with ninky.

I don't see there being a desperate shortage of rented property per se, by which I mean an oversupply of people who desperately long to rent and nothing else would suffice. I think pre-the mid 1990's, there was sufficient choice of rentals; but buying was cheaper, as buyers were competing with far fewer investors. Remove the investors, and those who currently rent only because it is too expensive to buy, now buy, at the new cheaper prices. Thus reducing the artificial 'need' for so much rental property.

Surely then this will come to pass as your predictions of doom for BTL investors begin to kick in (despite massive economic shocks such predictions have yet to be proven to be correct). But what if these predictions don't come true? And what if the rises in the market are not in the most part due to BTL demand (but instead due to cheap finance in general)? Don't you think that very cheap mortages might also reduce the cost of renting (as buying becomes a viable option for renters outside of the forever to be overly priced South East)?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not much difference to Tesco's really!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5095407/Pensioner-died-after-Tesco-chemist-supplied-wrong-drugs.html

Pensioner died after Tesco chemist supplied wrong drugs
Elizabeth Lee, 30, mistakenly dispensed beta-blockers instead of steroids to 72-year-old grandmother Carmel Sheller.
Within minutes of taking the drugs at her home in Windsor, Berkshire, Mrs Sheller collapsed and was rushed to hospital.
The beta-blockers had an 'almost immediate effect' and slowed the pensioner's heart, the Old Bailey heard.

Can't say I like the Wilson's, but again there are story's out their if you look.

But I think the point cleaver was trying to make was missed.

PasturesNew

Generali wrote: »

The council can't afford to provide more housing as the Government has already taken on more debt than it will be able to repay.

I don't understand this. If a private developer can build and make a profit ... by selling to a BTL landlord who will recoup his expensive commercial mortgage .... and make a profit ...

Then why can't the Govt build houses cheaper, on cheaper borrowed money, without anybody making the profit?

After all, the Govt pay a lot of the private rents on housing benefit and LHA already.

carolt

It's more political - the govt don't want more social housing - even though it will of course save them money! because it will be cheaper than paying out huge rents to private landlords - because (a) it would depress the housing market and Gordon needs us all to believe in his economic 'miracle' before the election, and (b) all MPs have at least 3 BTLs, if recent admissions are typical, which therefore means they have a personal as well as political interest in not builiding any social housing.

It really sucks.

Really2

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't understand this. If a private developer can build and make a profit ... by selling to a BTL landlord who will recoup his expensive commercial mortgage .... and make a profit ...

Then why can't the Govt build houses cheaper, on cheaper borrowed money, without anybody making the profit?

After all, the Govt pay a lot of the private rents on housing benefit and LHA already.

I think the the main reason for it is repairs. this has bean the main reason for selling council stock to HA's.

It is rather stupid really but I think councils can't repair (don't want too and want the cash) them cheaply enough. (well they make out a case that repairs will eventually overtake revenues.)

ninky_2

i know i should get over this but i really can't. why oh why was the council housing stock sold off at way below market rent in the first place. what was the short sighted logic in that?

now not only have privately owned properties in previous council estates, they are now rented out at private rent levels, sometimes paid for by housing benefit. the tax payer and society has lost out on all counts. cheers mrs t....