Buy To Let Degradation?

epz_2

amcluesent wrote: »

http://money.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2103917,00.html

But the city council intends to fight back. It is now demanding changes in the rules that would give it more power to control buy-to-let.

"...the next stage will be to ask government to change planning rules so we could control the number of HMOs in an area in the same way as we can limit other property uses." says a council person.

There you go. Socialists will grab back effective control of your private assets (with no compensation).

whos grabbing assets? it seems they are just preventing the number of HMO's in specific areas, you still own the home its just you are expected to either

A) live in the house (shock!)

sell it on the open market so someone else can live there.

C) rent it out but not turn it into a bunch of bedsits creating parking and service bottlenecks because of the change in use the property which they were never designed to accomidate.

amcluesent

>you still own the home...<

Yes, I suppose even the old Trotskyists in the council know that saying "property is theft" is just going to raise a laugh these days. Far better a sneaking process of nibbling away at private property rights while increasing the tax burden on those still in 'too nice' an area.

hearts

Guy_Montag wrote: »

Plenty of people thought it was foolhardy, including the BBC's Evan Davis:

From the same article.

"Interestingly, the people on the committee who voted to cut were the professional economists. Charlie Bean, the late David Walton, Kate Barker and Stephen Nickell, plus Richard Lambert. They are all competent and sensible people, worthy members of the MPC; they acted on their interpretation of the data, and were clearly fulfilling the expectations of other economists too (the Reuters poll of analysts showed a large majority expecting a cut).
But in hindsight, they got it wrong."

Although they say in the article another government may not have lowered rates. The likelyhood is they would have. Anyway, that one cut and maybe the next were then followed by and still being followed by rises taking it well above the 2005 level and property is still rising. So that cut had it not happened would not have affected house prices in the time till now.

Guy_Montag

hearts wrote: »

From the same article.

"Interestingly, the people on the committee who voted to cut were the professional economists. Charlie Bean, the late David Walton, Kate Barker and Stephen Nickell, plus Richard Lambert. They are all competent and sensible people, worthy members of the MPC; they acted on their interpretation of the data, and were clearly fulfilling the expectations of other economists too (the Reuters poll of analysts showed a large majority expecting a cut).
But in hindsight, they got it wrong."

Although they say in the article another government may not have lowered rates. The likelyhood is they would have. Anyway, that one cut and maybe the next were then followed by and still being followed by rises taking it well above the 2005 level and property is still rising. So that cut had it not happened would not have affected house prices in the time till now.

It was the message that was sent out that was the problem - 25bp is neither here nor there to most people. I remember commentators suggesting that rates had peaked for the cycle & that we'd be heading back to 3.5%. We were in a new, post-inflationary paradigm (apart from HPI of course).

To the public the MPC were saying - "take on that extra debt, remortgage your house, stretch yourself to the limit to buy a property - you'll be ok, you can afford it."

Pssst

Phirefly wrote: »

You say you live in manchester but are you sure you're not talking about my street? When we moved into our street as tennants in 2005, it was about a 30/70 mix of tennants/owner occupiers. Within a month, one set of tennants moved out of #3 (a nice young couple who looked after the property) and in came a revolting loudmouthed pair of girls. Simultaneously, the elderly owner occupier of #12 moved into care and her house was sold to BTL. Within 6 months, the knock on effects have been tangible. The pleasant gay couple in #13 next to the new BTL have now put their house on the market and I've found out its because of their new tennant neighbours causing them so much grief. The nice young single man in #2 has now moved out because of the loudmouthed girls at #3 and has let his house to an equally obnoxious couple.

Found out this weekend that my next door neighbour (who is a dream - 50yr old friendly helpful lady who is happy to harbour my deliveries when I'm at work) is thinking of selling up because of the influx of antisocial tennants. No doubt if she does, another BTL nightmare will be right on our boundary. I love my house and my street and am really sad about all this

I don't think all renters are bad and all landlords are irresponsible, I rented my house until march this year and I don't think any of my neighbours would call me anti-social. However its TRUE owner occupiers take more care, since buying our house we've made the gardens over for a start. My experience of BTL on my own doorstep convince me its a scurge.

Exactly,the pattern is being repeated all over the country. Perhaps all you owners should band together,get onto the land reg,find out who these landlords are (probably individuals) and legally harrass them?

keeperbear

The anti-BTLers on this thread are really funny. If they possessed the money, they would have bought multiple properties for rental. As they don't have the funding, they jealously want BTL outlawed.

Furthermore, all this talk of regulating BTL is rubbish. It just won't happen as the government that does it will be unelectable.

pickles110564

keeperbear wrote: »

The anti-BTLers on this thread are really funny. If they possessed the money, they would have bought multiple properties for rental. As they don't have the funding, they jealously want BTL outlawed.

Furthermore, all this talk of regulating BTL is rubbish. It just won't happen as the government that does it will be unelectable.

Alot of them probably did have enough money, but when interest rates were low and property was still affordable they would have been saying " I will wait before I buy because interest rates will still go lower I don't want to borrow at this high rate"
The problem is they need to put their hands down their trousers and grab what's there to see what they are missing.
As I have said before you make your own luck and must be prepared to get off your @rse and work hard for what you want and not let the green eyed monster rule your life.
Its easy to knock others for taking chances when you are really mad at yourself for not having the balls to go for it.

Romani_Ite_Domum

With the attitude of the last 2 posts, it's no wonder the country is in the state it's in.

Ad

Romani_Ite_Domum wrote: »

With the attitude of the last 2 posts, it's no wonder the country is in the state it's in.

Sadly I agree. :rolleyes:

Ad

pickles110564 wrote: »

Alot of them probably did have enough money, but when interest rates were low and property was still affordable they would have been saying " I will wait before I buy because interest rates will still go lower I don't want to borrow at this high rate"
The problem is they need to put their hands down their trousers and grab what's there to see what they are missing.
As I have said before you make your own luck and must be prepared to get off your @rse and work hard for what you want and not let the green eyed monster rule your life.
Its easy to knock others for taking chances when you are really mad at yourself for not having the balls to go for it.

One doesn't know where to begin... I give up already.