Priced out generation fights back

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Does it not occur to you that if all FTBs could afford to buy there would be an awful lot less potential tenants around wanting to rent, and that therefore rents would drop, and it would be much harder to find suitable tenants?

It is true that the rental market I invest in is very strong, for a number of reasons. If the rental market was different, it would impact on my decision to invest in this area.

As stated earlier, the properties I have rented out to are by people who do not wish to buy. A professional who already owns another property and students who do not wish to be tied down to property when they will be moving on in a few years time.

Incidently, rents dropping or rising does not impact on the quality of suitable tenants

You seem to infer that BTL has effectively stopped FTBers entering the market, when in reality and has been shown in here before, the amount of BTL properties has not replaced the reduction in the number of social rented properties.

Once again, why not look at the criteria that impacts people on the decision to buy or rent. It's not purely down to finances.

I've stated many times that if you want prices to fall, you need to resolve th supply / demand ratio.
As it is unlikely you can impact on the demand, why not invest your energy into looking at how supply could be increased.
This is the most positive step a "would be buyer" could partake in as it would lower prices and increase options if successful.

Your a renter and have at many times stated that you do not wish to buy because it is not in your interest at this stime because of your childrens schooling issues.
Where would you live if you didn't have the rent option?

carolt wrote: »

Really???

Oh come off it.

You want a strangulated market because all those priced-out would-be buyers pay your rent. And line your pockets.

End of.

Calm down carolt, your starting to get a bit heated again.
I'm not interested in strangling the market.
Should I retort by saying you wish to strangle the options of those who wish to rent?

I've said before that it would be better for a stable housing market, rising with inflation so that there is more certainty out there in the housing market.
I'm not interested in boom and bust.

I've also reflected that my tenants are not "would be buyers". I am however manouvered into a position whereby I understand that there are people with rental requirements and I provide quality homes for their requirement. They in turn are paying a fair market value for that rental.

carolt wrote: »

And line your pockets.

Should supermarket pockets be lined because people buy food and water?
Should utility company pockets be lined because people need electricity and gas?
As in any market, there is a price to pay for anything and it is up to each and every person in line with their circumstances

LydiaJ

StevieJ wrote: »

You my wish to read this because it was the catalyst for legislation.


Peter Rachman became known as Britain’s most notorious landlord. He acquired many slum properties in the north London suburbs, particularly around the Notting Hill area, which in the 50s and 60s did not have the hip and trendy image portrayed today. His policy was to acquire tenanted buildings. He used violence to evict sitting tenants so he could fill squalid properties with immigrant families from the West Indies who, without anywhere else to go, were crammed into tiny flats at extortionate rents because of the colour bar, which prevented them from renting anywhere else

Rachman’s name is so synonymous with bad housing that is included in English dictionaries: Rachmanism: ’Landlords buying up slums to fill with immigrants at extortionate rents; named after Peter Rachman, a notorious racketeering landlord in Notting Hill in the 1950s and 1960s’.

http://notting-hill.london.myvillage.com/article/peter-rachman

I'm not suggesting a return to the housing nightmare of the 50s and 60s either. But I do think it's ridiculous for LLs not to be able to get use of their house back for decades (literally), and not to be able to sell either.

I'm with carolt on this one - more rights for tenants, more enforcement of tenants' existing rights, more rights for LLs to deal with tenants who trash the place or don't pay or whatever. And definitely an end to the stupid situation where a tenant who leaves peacefully when the LL gives notice can't get social housing, but a tenant who waits to be evicted can.

IveSeenTheLight

damanpunk wrote: »

Yes, FTB's should be entitled to half price houses and 100% mortgages at 0.5% interest rate :beer:

Or they could do what I did........ Stop moaning and do something about it, re-train, get a better job, save some money then buy somewhere.

I'm not in favour of high house prices, infact I'd even like a little drop so it'd make it easier for my next step up the ladder but sitting moaning on the internet isn't going to bring prices down or change your circumstances.

Go on, post it again so I can thank you again.
Reality here of someone who got on with life instead of moping around hoping that circumstances would change.

There is a greater likelyhood of circumstances changing if you do something about it instead of waiting for it to happen to you.

carolt

ISTL - The fact that your 2 individual tenants at this precise moments are not would-be buyers does not change the facts that there are plenty of them out there in the marketplace, holding up rental values generally.

So your point is meaningless.

As for suggesting I put my energies into increasing supply, whilst logically I agree that is an equally good way to square the circle, I'm not quite clear how this would be done in practice. How does an individual increase supply on a national scale? Are you suggesting that I go and single-handedly build loads of houses?

I don't think the problem lies fundamentally with a shortage of supply at all - as this article shows.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/04/empty-houses-guardian-research

The problem is with the existing stock not being utilised efficiently, and with financial inducements being given to the wrong people.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I stated, my figures miss out quite a few items. I just couldn't be bothered listing them all.

What like buying latest technology (ipods, iphones playstations, flatscreen tellys), new cars, going on holidays (abroad, fancy weekend breaks etc) multiple times a year, buying the latest fashion, going down the pub / club every weekend, drinking, smoking, gamboling etc etc etc.

Property is now and always has been the biggest financial decision one will make.
Appropriately, people need to understand this and finance appropriately.
If this means that hard decisions on cutting back on the frivolous things need to be done, then so be it.

A lot of people have a choice and its their choices which will impact on their affordability and how much / quickly they can save.

dopester

I tell them 'turn on the water'
I tell 'em 'turn on the heat'
Tells me 'All you ever do is complain'
Then they search the place when I'm not here

But we can, you know we can
Let's lynch the landlord
Let's lynch the landlord
Let's lynch the landlord man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo46V3Y8auE&feature=related

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Go on, post it again so I can thank you again.
Reality here of someone who got on with life instead of moping around hoping that circumstances would change.

There is a greater likelyhood of circumstances changing if you do something about it instead of waiting for it to happen to you.

It does make a lot of sense.

Move away, retrain, change your whole life, hope for a bit of luck and you may be able to afford a property.

Only niggle is when the euphoria of owning a property has worn off, and you realise your parents are miles away, maybe you have left your kids behind as you changed your life and left the family, taken them out of their school and away from their peers and are now unhappy and education is suffering....your mates are miles away so you have no one there for support when you need it.

You realise that everything you loved, an everything that actually meant something in life, you have sacrificed for a roof.....

That's savvy.

This solution only works for those with no ties or commitments. And then it is a good solution. But it's only a solution for a minority. I was thinking about doing this myself. But I realised when my dad got ill, family are more important than my housing status. And now I have my son, I'm here for good.

misskool

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I stated, my figures miss out quite a few items. I just couldn't be bothered listing them all.

I'd need to look through someones SOA to get a quick outline of outgoings, which I can't be bothered to do. So it doesn't leave £8,100 savings a year.

But yer, let's just leave it as that, as your complete arrogance firstly to carol and them to myself is starting to annoy. You believe what you want to believe, I'll do the same.

go on then, post a proper SOA. There are people on the DFW boards who can live on £4k a year. They show how it can be done to thin everything down to the bone.

I'm not arrogant, merely pointing out that perhaps other people should have a different point of view than yours. I don't post so people hit the thanks button in awe of my wit and wisdom, it's just my "arrogant" POV

misskool

carolt wrote: »

ISTL - The fact that your 2 individual tenants at this precise moments are not would-be buyers does not change the facts that there are plenty of them out there in the marketplace, holding up rental values generally.

So your point is meaningless.

As for suggesting I put my energies into increasing supply, whilst logically I agree that is an equally good way to square the circle, I'm not quite clear how this would be done in practice. How does an individual increase supply on a national scale? Are you suggesting that I go and single-handedly build loads of houses?

I don't think the problem lies fundamentally with a shortage of supply at all - as this article shows.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/04/empty-houses-guardian-research

The problem is with the existing stock not being utilised efficiently, and with financial inducements being given to the wrong people.

Actually, the one thing I agree with you is that housing stock should be prioritised. Social housing should be increased and there should be more houses instead of flats so people can be settled for longer. The whole moving up a ladder thing would negate the prices inflating too rapidly. If people did what they used to do which is buy one house for life, that would help. If there was enough social housing, then the right people would get help instead of being at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords and councils wouldn't have to pay rent to private landlords.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

ISTL - The fact that your 2 individual tenants at this precise moments are not would-be buyers does not change the facts that there are plenty of them out there in the marketplace, holding up rental values generally.

So your point is meaningless.

In your opinion it's meaningless as you cannot argue that there are less rental properties as a percentage today than there was historically.
BTL has merely replaced with better stock the social housing that was sold off.

Tenants now have a better standard of property than historically.

You believe that properties are ineficiently utilised, yet we can show that there is a higher percentage of owner occupiers than from decades previously.

I'm not denying that BTL has increased, but I am saying that the percentage of rental properties now as opposed to decades ago has lowered.

Quite simply put, the number of properties for both private and rental use has not increased in line with the demand for property.

Sort this out and you'll go a long way to stabalising house prices and rental prices.