BTL Boom continues

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

That is an interesting point, I must say I do want house prices to fall for the good of the human race, to be more exact my brother and many friends who are priced out.

Seeing that you have no self interest in high prices and actually want lower prices with sensible lending why don't you sell your property for 3x average salary for your area?

wotsthat

Emy1501 wrote: »

I not sure of the point you are making. In this country owner occupied areas are always going to be nicer as they are owned by people of a higher social class. The most well off are always going to buy if they can.

At the same time an owner occupied area in guildford is always going to look better than one in say Hull.

The point's fairly obvious really. People who own the houses they live in have much more of a vested interest in maintaining the local area. Areas with high levels of social housing suffer more social problems - it's not just because they are a lower social class than you - it's also because they have less 'ownership' of the area.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

Is that something to do with this thread or just a general comment on human nature?

Its a comment on human nature to what the source of the problem is.

wotsthat wrote: »

After years of moaning about greedy BTL's and how it was so unfair that you were born in 1983 and other people were born earlier etc. etc. you managed to save up a deposit in a matter of months.

Why can't your brother do the same?

Because him and his other half only have normal jobs and not jobs paying above the local average by quite a margin (like my fiancee and I both have).

chucky wrote: »

Seeing that you have no self interest in high prices and actually want lower prices with sensible lending why don't you sell your property for 3x average salary for your area?

Because I am quite happy living here for the time being thank you. With that if by the time I come to sell that is the price its worth (or less) I will happily sell for that, as mentioned I am happy for prices to drop. But me as I lone seller can't bring all the prices down.

Emy1501

wotsthat wrote: »

The point's fairly obvious really. People who own the houses they live in have much more of a vested interest in maintaining the local area. Areas with high levels of social housing suffer more social problems - it's not just because they are a lower social class than you - it's also because they have less 'ownership' of the area.

Its more to do with social class than anything else. There are areas where I would not live even though there is high owner occupancy.

I'm not sure there is any evidence that a local area with people of the same social class would be better maintained if it was owner occupied. BTL owners want to get the highest rent possible and therefore would have a vested interest in the area they own in being well maintained.

There is also a big difference between social housing and the private rental market. My parents have a BTL in a block of 12 flats, most are BTL's and you would not know the difference between it and a block where the vast majoirty are owner occupied.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

Because I am quite happy living here for the time being thank you. With that if by the time I come to sell that is the price its worth (or less) I will happily sell for that, as mentioned I am happy for prices to drop. But me as I lone seller can't bring all the prices down.

So you're thinking for yourself instead of the human race. Ok then.

It is clear that wanting lower house prices by posting about it on an Internet forum and actually wanting lower house prices are two completely different things.

wotsthat

Emy1501 wrote: »

Its more to do with social class than anything else. There are areas where I would not live even though there is high owner occupancy.

I'm not sure there is any evidence that a local area with people of the same social class would be better maintained if it was owner occupied. BTL owners want to get the highest rent possible and therefore would have a vested interest in the area they own in being well maintained.

There is also a big difference between social housing and the private rental market. My parents have a BTL in a block of 12 flats, most are BTL's and you would not know the difference between it and a block where the vast majoirty are owner occupied.

I don't think there's any evidence to support my view or vice versa. It's more of a gut feel that, all things being equal, higher owner occupancy rates are related to better places to live. Social class is a factor but just being posher doesn't make someone automatically a better citizen

It depends on the area to extent. There's no point comparing Hull to Guildford. I'd be comparing different areas in the same town.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Because I am quite happy living here for the time being thank you. With that if by the time I come to sell that is the price its worth (or less) I will happily sell for that, as mentioned I am happy for prices to drop. But me as I lone seller can't bring all the prices down.

Everyone's a lone seller aren't they? Why do you need the comfort of other people bringing their price down before you're willing to do the same with yours?

You could sell it to your brother for 3 x his salary if that's what you think the correct market price should be.

Emy1501

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't think there's any evidence to support my view or vice versa. It's more of a gut feel that, all things being equal, higher owner occupancy rates are related to better places to live. Social class is a factor but just being posher doesn't make someone automatically a better citizen

It depends on the area to extent. There's no point comparing Hull to Guildford. I'd be comparing different areas in the same town.

No being posher does not make someone a better citizen. At the same time in my experience the best schools tend to have kids from more affluent backgrounds. Also the more well off you are the better area you can buy or rent in.

I maybe wrong but I just don’t buy into this idea that if owner occupancy reduced by say 10% in my area its all of a sudden going to be a worse place to live in. For me BTL landlord have more of an interest in their asset and also I suspect that the sort person the properties would be rented to would be no real difference to me as I suspect the problem citizen type would not be accepted by the landlords or have the money to pay the rent.

RenovationMan

Percy1983 wrote: »

That is an interesting point, I must say I do want house prices to fall for the good of the human race, to be more exact my brother and many friends who are priced out.

Didn't you buy a house recently? If you did, then you're saying that you hope you go into negative equity so that other people get a house cheaper than you bought it for, even though it puts you and your wife and kids into financial danger.

Course you do. :rotfl:

The_J

Getting a BTL mortgage requires more cash deposit than getting a residential mortgage. It is easier and cheaper to get a residential mortgage than a BTL. This is a fact.

If you can't save for a deposit while paying rent then you can't afford a mortgage. Just because rates are low now and therefore your mortgage payment would be equivalent to the rent you now pay means nothing. In fact, it's dangerous and stupid to think like that.

Rental values are determined on the open market. If noone was prepared to pay X in rent they would not get X in rent.

People who are priced out of the UK property market are poor. Renting is their destiny, why is renting a bad thing? It's no different to paying interest on a mortgage.