Rising rents pushes 100,000 more into flatshares

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Under regulation, the AST ensures that you cannot simply be moved every 2 months.

Indeed, as I understand it, the law is weighted on the tenants side if eviction proceedings are required i.e. you cannot submit a section 21 form until there has been two consecutive months of non rent payments.

I'm just glad I've had the fortune of vetting for and having good tenants that have not required eviction proceedings.

All my tenants have left on their request.

I have one property that turns over every year or two.
I have another property that's had the same tenants for over 4 1/2 years.

you understand incorrectly

maybe useful to read the regulations about AST

Road_Hog

ukcarper wrote: »

The last boom was bigger than the 80s boom but in relation to earnings prices in the 90s were less than they were for most of the 80s. The average house price in 1952 which is the earliest Nationwide goes back to was £1891 which is a lot more than the average salary at the time.

But as you say things have change and the pressure on prices is higher and good job opportunities for a lot of people have reduced.

Well, I was quoting my father and the year was 1950, he paid £900 for it, which was what he was earning at the time. Also we were talking about people getting on the housing ladder, is that the average price for a FTB or the average price overall?

Look at this graph to see the change since 1975, although there up variations, earnings and house prices are diverging.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456991/html/nn2page1.stm

pinkteapot

Percy1983 wrote: »

Very true, I mean I am not having children when I can't call a place home and when I could be moved evey 2 months without any control over the situation I am not having them, then i can't afford a house right now so there for can't afford to have children.

Yes many in country don't take responsibility for there own children, but I intend to.

I have rented two different properties, one for 18 months and one for almost two years. I think you're too negative on landlords. Yes, there are some stories on the Boards of shocking landlords but these are the minority. Many people live in rented property for years with no hassle from their landlord. When I lived in rented places I saw them as home.

If you don't want kids yet because you want to limit your outgoings and maximise your income in order to save a house deposit then that's fair enough. If you genuinely feel like the only reason you aren't having kids yet is because you're in rented, do get on with making the little Percys. Imagine how you'd feel if you leave it too late and then can't have kids. I know people who don't have children because they are unable to and believe me, they would give up owning their house in the blink of an eye if it meant they could have kids.

Percy1983

pinkteapot wrote: »

I have rented two different properties, one for 18 months and one for almost two years. I think you're too negative on landlords. Yes, there are some stories on the Boards of shocking landlords but these are the minority. Many people live in rented property for years with no hassle from their landlord. When I lived in rented places I saw them as home.

If you don't want kids yet because you want to limit your outgoings and maximise your income in order to save a house deposit then that's fair enough. If you genuinely feel like the only reason you aren't having kids yet is because you're in rented, do get on with making the little Percys. Imagine how you'd feel if you leave it too late and then can't have kids. I know people who don't have children because they are unable to and believe me, they would give up owning their house in the blink of an eye if it meant they could have kids.

Very true, right now its out of the picture to maximise savings to buy said house.

Age wise I was 28 last sunday and my better half is exactly 1 month younger than me, as it is the plan it to buy while 28 but it may slip in to early 29, the marriage will be cheap and the mini me's will follow. In many respects our lives are on hold while saving for a house, but once that goal is reached the rest will fall into place rather quickly.

CLAPTON

Road_Hog wrote: »

Well, I was quoting my father and the year was 1950, he paid £900 for it, which was what he was earning at the time. Also we were talking about people getting on the housing ladder, is that the average price for a FTB or the average price overall?

Look at this graph to see the change since 1975, although there up variations, earnings and house prices are diverging.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456991/html/nn2page1.stm

just for interest

the average wage in 1950 was £7.08 per week so about £368 per year

a house purchase would require a minimum of a 25% deposit

ukcarper

Road_Hog wrote: »

Well, I was quoting my father and the year was 1950, he paid £900 for it, which was what he was earning at the time. Also we were talking about people getting on the housing ladder, is that the average price for a FTB or the average price overall?

Look at this graph to see the change since 1975, although there up variations, earnings and house prices are diverging.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456991/html/nn2page1.stm

http://anmblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c565553ef0133ed0d1a76970b-pi
This is what Nationwide show

Percy1983

What suffering... confused.

olly300

Percy1983 wrote: »

Very true, right now its out of the picture to maximise savings to buy said house.

Age wise I was 28 last sunday and my better half is exactly 1 month younger than me, as it is the plan it to buy while 28 but it may slip in to early 29, the marriage will be cheap and the mini me's will follow. In many respects our lives are on hold while saving for a house, but once that goal is reached the rest will fall into place rather quickly.

I know people who could not have children at that age and younger.

If you both definitely want children the earlier you start trying if anything is wrong then you have more chances with help and they tend to have a better outcome.

Percy1983

olly300 wrote: »

I know people who could not have children at that age and younger.

If you both definitely want children the earlier you start trying if anything is wrong then you have more chances with help and they tend to have a better outcome.

Funnily we have a friend in one case and her cousin in another who both went with that idea and ended up with a baby way before they planned and it really messed them up.

I do see the later the worse the odds, but playing the odds 29 isn't too old and generally won't be a problem (Hopefully).

julieq

What is so difficult to understand about this? If there is a shortage of housing the poorest proportion of potential buyers will be musical chaired out of the market. Potential buyers include people with income and deposit, people with equity, landlords and young first time buyers. Proportionally the latter group have the lowest means and are going to be squeezed until lending criteria slacken and deposit requirements lessen at which point the cork comes out of the bottle and whoomph, big price jumps as they compete with each other and the incumbents for available housing. Long term fixes are stupidly low at present, the only barrier to entry for many couples is saving a deposit, and they will be doing that now.

The only solution is more chairs. It is NOTHING to do with lending criteria - that just makes it utterly impossible for a particular group to get into the ownership game, but they still feed demand because they HAVE TO LIVE SOMEWHERE.

I've been saying this for years. Hamish has been saying it for years. The idea that it's morally wrong to allow prices to increase and we should all jolly well agree not to let them is plain dumb. And the notion that somehow because multiple occupation is increasing in the rented sector we're on the way to a price drop ignores the fundamental fact that the same pool of housing is shared between landlords and owner occupiers, so increased rental demand feeds increased investment demand.

And I heard today that there is a massive drop in planning applications being approved. That's only going to make things worse.

As previously: there is only one solution. Build more houses. Where there are more houses - US for example - no amount of government support or low interest rates keeps prices up.