BTL'ers are not evil are they??

ukcarper

It's not true that all new builds are snapped up by BTL the reason people who could afford mortgage payments could not buy was the high deposits required post crash. Builders targeted BTL because of that but with the dreaded help to buy they are again targeting owner occupiers. If you look at link I posted you will see owner occupiers are still at a high level compared to 70s and 80s but the big difference is in the number of people in social housing. I agree we need an increase in the number of rental properties with better security but I don't think banning BTL will do that.

Bantex_2

The affordability criteria for BTL is way lower than for owner occupiers on mortgages.

ukcarper

Bantex wrote: »

The affordability criteria for BTL is way lower than for owner occupiers on mortgages.

The affordability criteria is different and requires large deposits.

chucky

Bantex wrote: »

The affordability criteria for BTL is way lower than for owner occupiers on mortgages.

If that were the case where can you get 95% and 100% mortgages for the purpose of BTL?

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I respect everybody on here and my posts are for debate, as the sign off on my posts says, "I'm here to learn"

I don't like to disagree, but I am trying to learn and validate my thoughts for my own sanity :-) .......

To me it seems that if more houses are built now, with buy to let buyers having an advantage over buy to live, BTL as an entity within the market will increase, it will push the house prices higher due to the demand from both types of buyer. I think we all agree it is not in the interests of our society for more and more people to be trapped in the private rent market?

The solution to this situation is surely not as simple as building more houses because that plays into the hands of BTL?

Surely there needs to be a change in the rules and regs to enable people that deserve, want and are able to buy a house to do so before it is snapped up by BTL buyers? Also, we don't want the housing market to increase yet further at the rate it is, it needs either a period of no change or slow growth at or just below wage increases?

The idea of having very long term rules and regs such as allowing people to buy the property after renting for 25 yrs makes me nervous. Rules and regs can be changed and I think a 'promise' such as that is too far away to be trusted? Example, look at pension reforms.

My ultimate fear..... if nothing is done about this situation now and the market increases beyond wage increases for many more yrs to come, we will be in an even worse state. In that future, not only will many more people be trapped in private renting, many will be trapped by very long term mortgages, example is japan where they have terrifying inter generational mortgages. In that scenario, it is only the banks that benefit and the power that they have over things in general, makes me wonder if this whole situation has been engineered by them over the yrs.

As I've said before, it has been reported that the banks have been starving the building sector of credit.

This all smells to me like social control, which sounds like a liberal lefty mad conspiratorial nut job comment lol but.... actions speak louder than words.... And what has been done over the yrs to do anything to acknowledge this is a problem by press or government? And has anything been done with law, rules or regs to stop it.... I think to the contrary.... With BTL incentivised so far?

Renting is a appropriate and necessary service that meet many peoples housing need. This is true whether this service is provided by many small businesses or a few large companies or a mixture.

I favour the principle of having many competing rental businesses rather than one (or a few ) massive centralised businesses as this offers people choice and increases price competition.

Building more properties will reduce the price for both renters and owner occupiers.


The solution to a shortage is to have more and not to create anger and hatred for small businesses meeting a very vital need.

AlexMac

It's politics, ennit?

I'm coming late to this fascinating thread, so forgive me for harking back to a really good point made by Chucky in post#12:-

chucky wrote: »

This and the different layers around it is a political ticking time bomb that will be very interesting how it is dealt with over time.

I think the government (in place in time) will look after the majority and it isn't the property investors. That group is getting too big, historically it's the elite or and exclusive number who can afford it.

I agree Chucky's sentiment, but regrettably, I have no confidence that any Government will "look after the majority" (i.e. the people in rented homes, not the investors).

I have two BTLs, both ex-Council, and while I fundamentally disagreed with the sell-off of public housing (other than it helped redistribute wealth to an arbitrary selection of some Council tenants) as it was a cynical Thatcherite tactic to create a (tory-voting?) 'property-owning democracy', I take a fig-leaf of moral comfort from the fact that I have leased the recent purchase back to a Housing Association who use it to take another person off the Council priority housing list.

But how crazy is it to have a National public housing strategy based on selling off the stock to tenants, who, bless 'em, make a few bob by selling it on to people like me to make a profit by giving it back to the Council via a Social Housing bureaucracy; albeit a charitably-intentioned one, but one which still costs money to run?

I recall the chairman of the Housing Corporation (the even bigger charitably-intentioned Housing bureaucracy which Government set up as an arms-length funder but which also costs money) criticising the system, but being impotent to change it so I doubt the will of any Government to stifle or significantly control capitalism.

I got into it almost accidentally by buying a tidy little ex-council maisonette at a ludicrously low price 17 years ago, because my GF's single-parent daughter and her grand-daughter were in an awful damp, mouldy rental and we wanted better for them. When D & GD moved on to happier circumstances, I continued to let it, often to people in reduced circumstances, and often at a soft (under-market) rent because I could afford it (the place only cost £34k all those years back) and if you treat tenants right they tend to respect the place and stay on, minimising costs and voids.

When I had a few bob spare a couple of years ago, it seemed a no-brainer to buy another BTL rather than write off my mortgage.

So its politix, ennit?

CLAPTON

AlexMac wrote: »

It's politics, ennit?

I'm coming late to this fascinating thread, so forgive me for harking back to a really good point made by Chucky in post#12:-



I agree Chucky's sentiment, but regrettably, I have no confidence that any Government will "look after the majority" (i.e. the people in rented homes, not the investors).

I have two BTLs, both ex-Council, and while I fundamentally disagreed with the sell-off of public housing (other than it helped redistribute wealth to an arbitrary selection of some Council tenants) as it was a cynical Thatcherite tactic to create a (tory-voting?) 'property-owning democracy', I take a fig-leaf of moral comfort from the fact that I have leased the recent purchase back to a Housing Association who use it to take another person off the Council priority housing list.

But how crazy is it to have a National public housing strategy based on selling off the stock to tenants, who, bless 'em, make a few bob by selling it on to people like me to make a profit by giving it back to the Council via a Social Housing bureaucracy; albeit a charitably-intentioned one, but one which still costs money to run?

I recall the chairman of the Housing Corporation (the even bigger charitably-intentioned Housing bureaucracy which Government set up as an arms-length funder but which also costs money) criticising the system, but being impotent to change it so I doubt the will of any Government to stifle or significantly control capitalism.

I got into it almost accidentally by buying a tidy little ex-council maisonette at a ludicrously low price 17 years ago, because my GF's single-parent daughter and her grand-daughter were in an awful damp, mouldy rental and we wanted better for them. When D & GD moved on to happier circumstances, I continued to let it, often to people in reduced circumstances, and often at a soft (under-market) rent because I could afford it (the place only cost £34k all those years back) and if you treat tenants right they tend to respect the place and stay on, minimising costs and voids.

When I had a few bob spare a couple of years ago, it seemed a no-brainer to buy another BTL rather than write off my mortgage.

So its politix, ennit?

it's certainly disgraceful that the Thatcher allowed you to rescue your GF's D&GD from a awful mouldy flat, whereas by any moral standard known to socialists, they should have waited their turn however long that took.
I'm sure you give all your rental profit to appropriate charities.

Bantex_2

chucky wrote: »

If that were the case where can you get 95% and 100% mortgages for the purpose of BTL?

Affordability and deposit are two different things.

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

Affordability and deposit are two different things.

one might suppose, that to afford a property one needed both a deposit and a mortgage

chucky

Bantex wrote: »

Affordability and deposit are two different things.

Not really, the affordability of a 95% mortgage is different to a 60% mortgage.