Ban BTL landlords from buying new builds

JencParker

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It costs to re-advertise, credit check, new lease signed etc.
It's therefore cost efficient for LL's to have longer leased tenants.



So the bought council houses (at a reduction) does not "make any money" on the sold properties, as they have to buy elsewhere on similar / increased costs.

Pedantry is alive and well. The discount gives them a great deal of capital in the property enabling them to sell and buy on the open market at a later date, whether they buy a similar priced, more expensive property or downsize to realise that capital is down to the individual.

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

Who said anything about state controlled SUPPLY of food.

And no, it isn't BECAUSE of BTL landlords, they have simply cashed in it. They are not the cause, but they are part of the problem purely because they can and they want part of the action. Interestingly, I know a couple of BTL landlords who ended up selling up because they came to the conclusion that it was morally wrong as things are now. I suspect they are in a very small minority.

I raised the issue of food as it is a greater necessity than housing but is very successfully supplied by the workings of the market.

Food suppliers / distributors make profits like builders and people who run letting businesses.

People who run letting businesses are not the problem or even part of the problem:
the problem are those well intentioned people who don't understand how people behaviour in times of artificial shortage and artificially restrict supply are the cause of the problem.

JencParker

CLAPTON wrote: »

I raised the issue of food as it is a greater necessity than housing but is very successfully supplied by the workings of the market.

Food suppliers / distributors make profits like builders and people who run letting businesses.

People who run letting businesses are not the problem or even part of the problem:
the problem are those well intentioned people who don't understand how people behaviour in times of artificial shortage and artificially restrict supply are the cause of the problem.

Ha ha - will let the insult bounce off me. I understand the supply and demand, but it doesn't work, as you say, when there is an artificial shortage. I also understand human behaviour and all the time there are vested interests in keeping housing costs high there will be those who are losers and those who are winners. So yes it does require some sort of intervention, but it won't happen. That doesn't mean I can't despair at the future we have left for our children, the effect it has on patients that come to see me or at the attitudes that will maintain the current state of affairs!

IveSeenTheLight

JencParker wrote: »

Pedantry is alive and well. The discount gives them a great deal of capital in the property enabling them to sell and buy on the open market at a later date, whether they buy a similar priced, more expensive property or downsize to realise that capital is down to the individual.

You may think its pedantic, but in terms of the point you were making (below) I'm not convinced it was because of the money they could make on it but more-so because of the control it gave them along with the opportunity to at one point be mortgage / rent free

Originally Posted by JencParker
People opted to buy their homes because of the huge discounts they were given and the money they could make on it. How many council house tenants bought at the full value?

I have also articulated that the quality of rental homes has increased since BTL and the RTB sell off.

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

Ha ha - will let the insult bounce off me. I understand the supply and demand, but it doesn't work, as you say, when there is an artificial shortage. I also understand human behaviour and all the time there are vested interests in keeping housing costs high there will be those who are losers and those who are winners. So yes it does require some sort of intervention, but it won't happen. That doesn't mean I can't despair at the future we have left for our children, the effect it has on patients that come to see me or at the attitudes that will maintain the current state of affairs!

you miss read my post

I was referring to the 'people' i.e. the planners and politician who have created the shortage.


I don't attribute the shortage to vested interested who wish to keep the cost of housing high

but rather well intentioned people who think that trying to link new builds to 'social housing' and burdening the price of new building to infrastructure costs etc that are responsible for limited the supply of new housing.

Cornucopia

I don't see any "vested interests" acting there, either. How could any private landlord, estate agent or even a bank operate to restrict the supply or price of housing, even if they wanted to? They have no control over those things.

There is a conspiracy of Government incompetence in this area, but that's something rather different, and involves different players to the ones that JencParker possibly imagines.

The only vaguely conspiratorial actions involve planners and (big) builders who allow land to be granted planning permission without being built upon. Because of the way the planning process works, this tends to restrict the supply of land for other building projects.

In addition, the English planning process restricts the use of non-PP land for small-scale/sustainable/off-grid residential use in a way that is potentially unfair and increases the cost of land with full PP.

SteveV2

Good idea.

Also ban Ferraris because alot of people can't afford those either.

JencParker

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't see any "vested interests" acting there, either. How could any private landlord, estate agent or even a bank operate to restrict the supply or price of housing, even if they wanted to? They have no control over those things.

There is a conspiracy of Government incompetence in this area, but that's something rather different, and involves different players to the ones that JencParker possibly imagines.

The only vaguely conspiratorial actions involve planners and (big) builders who allow land to be granted planning permission without being built upon. Because of the way the planning process works, this tends to restrict the supply of land for other building projects.

In addition, the English planning process restricts the use of non-PP land for small-scale/sustainable/off-grid residential use in a way that is potentially unfair and increases the cost of land with full PP.

While I don't disagree with the rest of your post, of course banks have a vested interest in keeping house prices high, just as many home owners seem to. The banks have their clout and to a much lesser extent so do homeowners at the ballot box.

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

While I don't disagree with the rest of your post, of course banks have a vested interest in keeping house prices high, just as many home owners seem to. The banks have their clout and to a much lesser extent so do homeowners at the ballot box.

houses are bought and sold by individuals like you and me

so one person puts their house on the market at a price they feel comfortable with

and another individual, having looked at lots of properties makes an offer

how exactly do the banks conspire to hold the prices high?

Cornucopia

JencParker wrote: »

While I don't disagree with the rest of your post, of course banks have a vested interest in keeping house prices high, just as many home owners seem to. The banks have their clout and to a much lesser extent so do homeowners at the ballot box.

I look at it the other way around - most people get little or no benefit from fast rising house prices.

However, like Clapton, I simply don't see a mechanism for banks to directly influence house prices to rise.

In pure economic theory terms, I guess you could argue that if the supply of mortgage money was closely tied to the supply of houses, then prices could be more stable, but I think that is a stretch.