Ban BTL landlords from buying new builds

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Sorry I thought you inferred on another thread that "greedy" landowners were partly to blame.

I am not suer why taxation on land is required, particularly active viable farmland. By all means zone it for development and oil the wheels of potential development. Even buying the land at a fair price, call it CPO+ and arranging for sustained release to developers in line with phased infrastructure releases. Utilising part for social housing funded by the tax payer.

'fair price'?

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.

So you include farmers subsidies in the workings of a free market do you?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Yours revolves around the applicant having a pulse.

Well that's certainly a pre-requisite, yes.

Of course beyond that I would also include a stable employment history and a near perfect record of paying all bills on time.

What does "near perfect" mean?

In my book, if you simply forgot and paid a small bill a day or two late several years ago, you'd get a mortgage.

If you have repeated late payments, or any defaults at all, you wouldn't.

I'd be prepared to bet the former, that can't get a mortgage today, but historically would have been considered creditworthy, number in the many millions.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'd be prepared to bet the former, that can't get a mortgage today, but historically would have been considered creditworthy, number in the many millions.

I does depend on how credit worth is graded yes.

That grading system constantly moves depending on the appetite of lenders. It isn't set in stone. If they want to push for market share then they will reduce the threshold. Sales people don't always make good business people but can exert overriding influence. Just because a certain level was accepted at a given point doesn't make it normal or sustainable.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I does depend on how credit worth is graded yes.

That grading system constantly moves depending on the appetite of lenders.

At the moment it moves depending on how little money they have available to lend for each product.

As they must reject sufficient numbers of creditworthy applicants to match the much smaller available pool of funding.

Rationing, in other words.

Just because a certain level was accepted at a given point doesn't make it normal

We know the level of mortgages required to ensure housing need is met and enough houses get built.

That would be north of 100K a month if the crunch hadn't happened so the pent up demand hadn't built, almost certainly north of 150k a month now.

And we know that in modern home-owning times, "normal" is between 80K and 120K a month.

And we know there are millions being disadvantaged through mortgage rationing, forced to enrich their landlords instead of themselves, and paying more in rent than they would to own.

So what we know is that the current level is abnormal and unsustainably low.

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

So you include farmers subsidies in the workings of a free market do you?

A good point; I fully agree with you that the food market would work much better without the EU and farmers subsidies

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

At the moment it moves depending on how little money they have available to lend for each product.

As they must reject sufficient numbers of creditworthy applicants to match the much smaller available pool of funding.

Rationing, in other words.



We know the level of mortgages required to ensure housing need is met and enough houses get built.

That would be north of 100K a month if the crunch hadn't happened so the pent up demand hadn't built, almost certainly north of 150k a month now.

And we know that in modern home-owning times, "normal" is between 80K and 120K a month.

And we know there are millions being disadvantaged through mortgage rationing, forced to enrich their landlords instead of themselves, and paying more in rent than they would to own.

So what we know is that the current level is abnormal and unsustainably low.

There is nothing to say that the "normal" amount of mortgages can be afforded and sustained.

There is nothing to say that there will ever be enough funds available for "normal" house building.

Even building at the normal rate will have little impact on the need.

If we don't earn we can't buy.

Perhaps people need to adjust their expectations.

Brassedoff

Ban them, I couldn't agree more. Leeches on the dreams of our young family.

If "we" (the country), are not going to provide suitable numbers of council/social houses. Make sure BTL cannot buy this lot of homes.

I would go further and tax profits of BTL @ 95%.

People buying so many on the BTL scheme helped bring this nations banking system down. Borrowing 110% LTV was never going to work.

I have a couple of properties. My rents are set by the local authority. My tenants have long term assured tenancy. How on earth an reasonable person can keep on moving people every six months is not right. The kids have no chance to put down their roots

IveSeenTheLight

Brassedoff wrote: »

I have a couple of properties.

Do you have any finance on these properties?

Cornucopia

Brassedoff wrote: »

People buying so many on the BTL scheme helped bring this nations banking system down. Borrowing 110% LTV was never going to work.

This is nonsense. 110% LTV never existed anyway, but it certainly never existed in the BTL market.