Cameron: House Prices Will "Continue To Rise"

ess0two

doire wrote: »

When you say Ireland are you talking about north or south?

Im talking about north. Derry is in the north. Unfortunately the north is part of the UK.

You dont give a toss about Derry? Well i'll take the view that i dont give a toss about prices in your area either. I guess 90% of posters on here only care about their area so whats your point?

I could call you an english, welsh or scottish cu.nt but i wont lower myself to the gutter you are in


Tiocfaidh Ar La

Call me what you want, english c.unt preferably,but a wiseone to some extent,my area is roughly 10% down,yet i don't proclaim the fact.
So whats your're point then?previously claimed your're area is bombing yet you persist on chasing Hamish to argue the point.
Fill yers boots if its the case,the crash has been and gone,fortune favours the brave.

moggylover

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There is no supply and demand aside.
House prices directly affect affordability and therefore also affect the demand.

House prices are set by the market factors and house prices only need to be affordable to the market demand and the market supply.

As a quick example.
If there are 10 houses for sale and 100 people wishing to buy, the people with the highest affordability are most likely to be able to secure the properties.

In actual terms, I understand the owner occupancy level is something like 67%, therefore in theory, only the top 67% of earners need to be able to afford property.
The lower 33% therefore find property unnafordable

But the biggest problem we actually face is the fact that the extremity of house prices means that rental prices are also exhorbitant, and in many areas are beyond the reach of even two wages for many unless that wage is topped up by benefits, and our stock of social housing is poor and often poorly maintained.

Furthermore, if that 33% could be shown to be merely young people who had not saved adequately then I would agree that there was no problem, but in my experience it seems to affect a very wide range of people, even those who would traditionally have been able to afford decent housing and this has to be something that gives cause for concern, especially in view of the absence of a good stock of decent social housing.

Please, please do not give that old rotten tomato of "private rental" taking up the slack, because that is not, imo, either a decent, or a desirable alternative and I would personally like to see the whole industry of private rental legislated out or made very much more difficult since it appears to attract more than it's fair share of cowboys and con-men and doesn't provide any kind of secure home for those paying their rent.

doire_2

ess0two wrote: »

Call me what you want, english c.unt preferably,but a wiseone to some extent,my area is roughly 10% down,yet i don't proclaim the fact.
So whats your're point then?previously claimed your're area is bombing yet you persist on chasing Hamish to argue the point.
Fill yers boots if its the case,the crash has been and gone,fortune favours the brave.

You keep bringing it up not me...and for someone who doesn't care about prices in NI you seem to go on about them a bit.

See ya

moggylover

Having now seen the abusive and unpleasant turn the thread has now taken I shall not be returning.

I do think the nastiness should be left in the playground and that it should be possible to discuss and debate matters without resorting to personal insults and foul language.

Very sad! Both sides of the ring: very sad!

Harry_Powell

moggylover wrote: »

Having now seen the abusive and unpleasant turn the thread has now taken I shall not be returning.

I do think the nastiness should be left in the playground and that it should be possible to discuss and debate matters without resorting to personal insults and foul language.

Very sad! Both sides of the ring: very sad!

I agree. It's a damned disgrace.

IveSeenTheLight

moggylover wrote: »

Please, please do not give that old rotten tomato of "private rental" taking up the slack, because that is not, imo, either a decent, or a desirable alternative and I would personally like to see the whole industry of private rental legislated out or made very much more difficult since it appears to attract more than it's fair share of cowboys and con-men and doesn't provide any kind of secure home for those paying their rent.

Like it or not, private rental has only partially taken up the slack when social housing was sold off.

You may be interested to know that in Scotland, landlords are registered.
This is something you should lobby to be implemented throughout the UK.

As a landlord, I won;t take offence at your comments, given I do not believe that I am either a con-man or a cowboy.

Certainly from my experience and can be shown factually accross the UK, private rental has far improved accomodation when compared against social housing rental.

Regarding security, how long are tenants willing to sign up to a tenancy for?
I generally lease out on 12 month leases, but if a tenant wanted to negotiate a longer lease, I would be open to it.
No landlord wants a big turn around of tenants.
A long tenancy is desireable for Landlords.

moggylover

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Like it or not, private rental has only partially taken up the slack when social housing was sold off.

You may be interested to know that in Scotland, landlords are registered.
This is something you should lobby to be implemented throughout the UK.

As a landlord, I won;t take offence at your comments, given I do not believe that I am either a con-man or a cowboy.

Certainly from my experience and can be shown factually accross the UK, private rental has far improved accomodation when compared against social housing rental.

Regarding security, how long are tenants willing to sign up to a tenancy for?
I generally lease out on 12 month leases, but if a tenant wanted to negotiate a longer lease, I would be open to it.
No landlord wants a big turn around of tenants.
A long tenancy is desireable for Landlords.

The problem with the rental market that I have seen friends suffer from is that the tennant pays the rent, but his over-hocked landlord then doesn't bother to pay his mortgage and then the tennant finds themselves homeless despite having kept their end of the bargain. This is probably not such a problem for young singles, but has happened twice to a friend of mine who is a divorced mum with kids. No tenancy agreement in the private sector can protect you from this sort of thing, and the costs involved in keep moving around can be extremely unkind to already strained pockets.

My own personal belief is that housing is far too important a matter to allow the private market to hold any monopoly. Social housing was introduced in the first place because of the shoddy standards that the private sector had maintained and I see little (although I do have friends who rent out properties and do look after their tenants) to be gained from housing ending up in the hands of the private landlord again when we had moved mountains to move away from that.

This isn't intended at all to be personally insulting: I speak only of things I have seen happen to people unfortunate enough to have to rely on private rental. I know that it will not be every landlord, but it does seem to be enough of them that I would not wish that kind of rental to become any more prevalent than it already is.

In principle it should work well, unfortunately not everyone has those principles (and I do agree that not all tennants do either;)):(

IveSeenTheLight

moggylover wrote: »

but has happened twice to a friend of mine who is a divorced mum with kids.

............................

(although I do have friends who rent out properties and do look after their tenants)

Couldn't you introduce your tenant friend to your good landlord friend?

moggylover

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Couldn't you introduce your tenant friend to your good landlord friend?

Would be a lovely idea, except that she needs a larger house than either of my friends has had available. Also, it would mean that they would have to oust the perfectly good tenants that they already have.

I'm not against the idea of private rental altogether (or in principle) but I do think there need to be safeguards for the tenant and that perhaps making much stricter rules for the borrowing for BTL is one way to go. I would, for instance, make it impossible to borrow more than 50% of the "value" of the property if it was for BTL, and I would legislate so that the mortgage on that property has to be tied to the one on the landlords own property so that he cannot use the tenants money to pay his own mortgage (or buy another property, a BMW, a boat, etc.) until the mortgage on the tenanted property has been paid. I would also make it totally impossible for said landlord to "muddy the waters" by having his own properties "owned" by other members of his family so that he can get around the rules and even go bankcrupt without loosing anything himself;)

Perhaps it is because I am very much older than many on MSE, and can remember the dreadful privately owned rental slums in areas like Paddington that abounded when I was a child, as late on as the 1960's. Perhaps it is just that I don't think we end up with a good and workable society when everything works around some myth of "merit" which seldom seems to be about "merit" and often seems to be about dishonesty or a lack of principles. I think it is probably more about some one individual having far too much power to make or break the lives of others more or less on a whim, or because he overstretches his gambles. You know, pretty much like the banks did in their excessive greed.

Anyway, having seen the lending figures today, and noting that they are at their lowest since 2001, I suspect that the house prices are a bit of a moot point, because it doesn't appear as if many people are going to be able to secure finance for the houses out there no matter how much the sellers up their asking prices, at least unless the Government decides to get really very heavy with the banks which I feel they may be disinclined to do.

IveSeenTheLight

moggylover wrote: »

Perhaps it is because I am very much older than many on MSE, and can remember the dreadful privately owned rental slums in areas like Paddington that abounded when I was a child, as late on as the 1960's.

I'm not old enough to know living conditions in the 60's.
Looking into the facts, I'm pretty sure that conditions have vastly inplroved since then.

Here's some pictures from one of the properties I lease out.
I'm sure you'll be able to verify if the difference in standards: -