BTL Boom fuelled by rising rents

Jimmy_31

Road_Hog wrote: »

Housing association is not council housing, there is a world of difference.

If you have lived in both (as I have many years ago) you would know that.

Ive worked for both, and both wont be building anywhere near the amount of houses that are needed any time soon.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

BTL Boom fuelled by rising rents

It's quite understandable that investors will fill a gap in the market.

We have shown in the past that the number of rental properties has decreased, whilst we see that the demand for rental properties has increased.

This drives up rental prices

Indeed, if BTL had not partially filled the gap left by the social housing sell off, we'd likely have seen even higher rental prices.

IveSeenTheLight

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Ive worked for both, and both wont be building anywhere near the amount of houses that are needed any time soon.

Hence, there is a need for BTL......

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's quite understandable that investors will fill a gap in the market.

We have shown in the past that the number of rental properties has decreased, whilst we see that the demand for rental properties has increased.

This drives up rental prices

Indeed, if BTL had not partially filled the gap left by the social housing sell off, we'd likely have seen even higher rental prices.

Lordy. Given that increased rental demand for those unable to afford the lending criteria was "inevitable", its not half banged on about a lot.

At the end of the day this means less competition for those FTBs who can afford it, so can only be good news for them.


In any event, its only been weeks since the CML stated that BTL isn't actually increasing its market share of new sales, and the FTBs are in fact holding their own. So I would suggest that claims that BTL is "filling the gap" may not be quite what they seem.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Lordy. Given that increased rental demand for those unable to afford the lending criteria was "inevitable", its not half banged on about a lot.

At the end of the day this means less competition for those FTBs who can afford it, so can only be good news for them.


In any event, its only been weeks since the CML stated that BTL isn't actually increasing its market share of new sales, and the FTBs are in fact holding their own. So I would suggest that claims that BTL is "filling the gap" may not be quite what they seem.

BTL only partially filled the gap in available rental accomodation that occured when social housing was sold off.

Incidently this may be of interest
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3001

The gap I referred to is not in reference to recent months, but since the inception of BTL.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

BTL only partially filled the gap in available rental accomodation that occured when social housing was sold off.

Incidently this may be of interest
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3001

The gap I referred to is not in reference to recent months, but since the inception of BTL.

But not since the inception of "Landlords and tenants" right?

The press release is of interest. This is the one I was referring to.

"If you consider the buy-to-let recovery alongside the increase in first-time buyer numbers we published yesterday, it appears that first-time buyers are not being displaced by buy-to-let landlords but are holding their own in a restricted market. So, this is encouraging news for those who want to rent, as long as it is realised that much of the current increase is for remortgage rather than house purchase."

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

But not since the inception of "Landlords and tenants" right?

Your point!!!!!!!!!!!

I posted the links before (can't find them at the moment) that showed BTL expanded since inception and indeed throughout the recession, but nonetheless, others have commented on my post

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Some fascinating figures from the CML, with thanks to ISTL for posting in another thread.

2011- There are 1.34 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2010- There were 1.26 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2008 - There were 1.1 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2007- There were 938,500 buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

But to let has continued to grow all the way through the recession, and yet rents have also now risen to new highs.

Not the outcome some of our crashaholic posters had in mind.....;)

Hell, even you used the details I pulled out to start your own thread

geneer wrote: »

Some fascinating figures from the CML, particularly if you look back further than conveniently selected by some. :rotfl:

2011- There are 1.34 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2010- There were 1.26 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2008 - There were 1.1 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2007- There were 938,500 buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2003 - There were 334,800 buy-to-let mortgages outstanding.

Are you now dissagreeing with yourself?

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Your point!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have thought that was quite obvious.
Landlords and tenant existed before BTL.
I wonder how many "new" BTLs are simply remortgages?

BTW you missed a bit on that quote.

Between 2003 and 2007 outstanding mortgages increased by 180%.

Between 2007 and 2011 they increased just 42%.

2008 seems to have been a bit of a game changer for BTL eh.

Also relevant.

geneer wrote: »

There always were landlords, there always will be.
But it very much looks like the worst excesses of BTL Muppetry is dead and buried.

geneer wrote: »

Of course no one has yet explained why this concept of "no of BTL mortgages outstanding" since the BTL mortgage was created in the late 90's is paricularly meaningful.

Once can only presume that every single landlord that ever existed before the late 90's paid cash.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

I would have thought that was quite obvious.
Landlords and tenant existed before BTL.
I wonder how many "new" BTLs are simply remortgages?

See the post above, outstanding mortgages are increasing.

your attempt to confuse matters by stating the obvious that LL's and tenants existed before BTL has nothing to do with the decrease in social housing and the increase in BTL.

When I have time, I'll pull in the graph from the BBC that shows that BTL increased less than social housing decreased, hence why I said BTL only partially filled the gap created by the social housing sell off.

Road_Hog

de1amo wrote: »

be interesting to know how the two differ?-i have a letting property in a central location and it is mainly HA that dominates the letting.

As I said, it's been awhile since I lived in either, and there are many differences, but I'll try to give a feel for it in a couple of sentences.

A council house kind of becomes yours, it can be yours for life and you'll have to do something pretty bad to get evicted from it. It's usually low rent and very few rules, for example, there is not normally a problem having pets, such as cats and dogs.

A housing association property, is usually viewed as a short to medium term property. The rents tend to be nearer to market rates than council houses are. There are far more restrictions on what you can and can't do and it isn't unusual for there to be a 'no pets' policy. It is also far easier to get yourself evicted fro transgressing a policy.

In summary, a council house, has a feel of being yours and it is there for the long term if needed, with few restrictions, housing association is generally viewed as shorter term with more restrictions.

If I didn't own my own home, then a council property (in a decent area) would be my first choice, followed by HA and then private rented.