Priced out generation fights back

nollag2006

sKiTz-0 wrote: »

what can I get for a mortgage of 60k with a 6k deposit?

Plenty - even in central London:
http://www.findanewhome.com/london/central-london/london-se1/1-bed-flat-for-sale/83b7cb67-b94f-40bc-b3f1-e651a81200b8.fap

The expectation of so many folks on here is that they are "entitled" to a 3 bed semi-d as their first home.

I lived in a small one bed flat for a couple of years, before I could afford anything bigger. Haven't looked back since

andykn

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

You will notice that twelve years of a Labour Governmet has not reversed this.
.

50,000 affordable homes were built financed by the Govts' Housing Corporation in 2008.

twadge_face

The hilarious thing is how Labour's campaigning platform is built on (ahem) "Fairness for All".

I tell you, it's reverse socialism. Bailed out over-borrowers, whilst future generations condemned to cr*ppy rental legislation and extra taxes.

Massively divisive social policy.

This is breeding ground for revolution.

Shakethedisease

Shakethedisease

You paint a compelling picture of the plight of these people, who aren't well represented among users of this board. Thank you. However, I'm not clear what you mean by saying that these people will force the issue. In what way? Could you explain?

Sheer numbers. The below is only the Scotland Shelter stats.

28 March 2010

Last year, 60 children a day were made homeless, according to a new report from Shelter Scotland.

The report - The facts: bad housing and homelessness for children and young people in Scotland 2010 - shows that across Scotland, 22,000 children were homeless last year – that's enough children to fill three primary one classes every day. And nearly half of homeless children (44 per cent) are under five years old.
155,000 children live in homes that have condensation or damp, putting them at a higher risk of asthma and other respiratory problems – this is the same as if everyone in Dundee were living in places with damp or condensation. And 128,000 children are living in fuel poverty.

The report also shows that over the last three years there has been a 37 per cent rise in the number of households with children living in temporary accommodation, compared to a general rise of 19 per cent for other groups, suggesting pressure on supply of suitable housing for families.

Sooner or later, someone in power is going to have to do something about that.. it's increasing at quite a rate !

Once they do, ( across the board Uk-wide preferably ), it'll kill houseprices one way or another. You can fill in the blanks from here youselves as to how any government is going to house 60 kids a day, when they haven't got the cash to build new houses and the population ( as trumpeted by Hamish et al ).. is increasing so fast that 'supply and demand' is well in action to raise house prices.

The above have forgotten those that have recently found themselves at the bottom of the pile, with no safety-net equivilent to 'mortgage rescue' schemes and low interest rates. They're just chucked out via a section 21, and naff all they can do about it really. No chance of another private rental either.

But, like house prices, the above and increasing levels of homeless families is getting 'unsustainable'. The newly 'budget slashed' councils just won't cope... There won't be anywhere to put them !

That will force the issue.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

increasing levels of homeless families is getting 'unsustainable'. The newly 'budget slashed' councils just won't cope... There won't be anywhere to put them !
.

But according to most of the bearish posters on here, "there is no housing shortage" because we don't have "hundreds of thousands of homeless people"........;)

Which is rubbish. We do have hundreds of thousands of homeless people. They're just in council funded B&B or overcrowded conditions with friends/relatives.

A situation made worse by the recession/crash and it's associated unemployment, that so many of the bearish posters cheered on.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

Interesting - but my experience as a tenant is certainly different from yours. I've had some truly appalling, immoral, grasping landlords. The kind to whom the health and safety of their tenants is as nothing compared to saving a few extra quid. Even if it is manifestly breaking the law. The kind to whom annual gas checks were an unnecessary luxury extra, rather than an essential precaution mandated by law; who sent out non-Corgi registered mates to fiddle with the gas because it was cheaper, the sort who left their tenants without any heating or hot water for 2 weeks in the winter (OK, they were trying to get it fixed, but lending portable heaters wouldn't have been impossible...).

I could go on and on.

And my experiences are very, very far from the worst - some of the horror stories I've read on the other housing board make my blood simultaneously turn cold, and boil. :eek:

I think we desperately need a return to equal rights for tenants and landlords.

That said, I have no sympathy at all with bad tenants; I think those who damage the property, are anti-social or fail to pay their rent should have less rights, not more.

One thing the website in the OP doesn't stress so much is the need for a proper register of landlords, as has been mooted but kicked into the long grass. I think that would go some way towards solving the worst of the problems, and at least rescue us from the current situation, where, in housing terms we're positively Victorian, in terms of looking the other way. Bit like the modern equivalent of child labour - we all know it's horrific, but it's easier to pretend it doesn't really happen/it's not that bad.

I've only just started reading this 5 or more page thread, so sorry if this part of the discussion has already been done to death!

I have also had an appalling experience at the hands of Landlords over the past 5 years. In the end we (gf & I) had enough and bought a house that was probably in worse condition than any of the lets I've been in (indeed I reckon it was worse than some squats!!). However, it's our house and so it somehow seemed not so bad. We've done most of the major work now (roof, rewiring, central heating, plastering) and we're working away decorating the house.

We're so glad that we have a place where if anything breaks, we can just sort it out, where we can decorate just as we like and where we have 100% assured tenancy as long as we pay the rent (well, mortgage). It's a crying shame that the tenancy laws in this country don't give non home-owners this sort of security. Until they do, people in the UK will always have a mania for owning their own home.

Good luck to anyone who are saving up like mad to buy, or who are in the process of buying - it's the best decision you'll ever make!!

carolt

I don't think anyone was arguing that owning a home was nice for those who can afford it Harry - I think the point of the OP was that not some people are priced out from owning their own places...

Presumably, as you are strongly in favour of home ownership, you support their campaign 100%?

StevieJ

nollag2006 wrote: »

Plenty - even in central London:
http://www.findanewhome.com/london/central-london/london-se1/1-bed-flat-for-sale/83b7cb67-b94f-40bc-b3f1-e651a81200b8.fap

The expectation of so many folks on here is that they are "entitled" to a 3 bed semi-d as their first home.

I lived in a small one bed flat for a couple of years, before I could afford anything bigger. Haven't looked back since

You would really be struggling at monopoly if you couldn't afford a house there

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

I don't think anyone was arguing that owning a home was nice for those who can afford it Harry - I think the point of the OP was that not some people are priced out from owning their own places...

Presumably, as you are strongly in favour of home ownership, you support their campaign 100%?

Sorry carolt, you must have missed the entire point of my post. I was agreeing with your post that renting can be an horrendous experience and that more secured tenancy is the way to go to allow tenants to have the same security and feeling of 'home' that OO's have.

In the absence of this, and TBH I won't hold me breath until decent tenancy laws come in in the UK, I was wishing those who can afford to buy and who dislike renting (not everyone does, and many people have a positive experience) good luck in their home search.

puddy

that place on the old kent road is shared ownership though, so you still have to pay rent on the part that you dont own and probably service charges too, which makes it actually very expensive on a monthly basis, something i wouldnt be able to afford and we own a home.

one the arguments on here is a bit flawed around the issue of social housing just simply being replaced by btl housing. its totally different because private renting is firstly much more expensive, secondly tenancies are less secure, thirdly it doesnt feel like your own home which council housing does.

in addition, i think that some of the comments in the original article make it difficult to sympathise with ftb. the father of the 22 year old with student debt? well who has made a pile out of high housing prices?? the father of course, why doesnt he use it to help his son, why didnt he use it to prevent his son building up student debt? why is he using the example of a 2 bed, 2 reception house as an indication of why his son cant buy somewhere, why isnt the son looking at a one bed flat?
i bought when i was 25, it was a 2 bed flat and needed lots of work, prior to that i rented rooms, couldnt afford anything other.

the woman on 40k in london, im afraid she needs to look further outside london, probably zone 5 or so, and find a flat. yes it will incur travel costs, but she could find a 2 bed place and rent a room out to a lodger, i did this when i first bought to make ends meet.