BTL'ers are not evil are they??

lawriejones1

wymondham wrote: »

ok....


I never thought I'd defend BTL'ers as I'm not one, but they are not responsible for housing policy, just taking advantage of a unique set of circumstances and being fortunate to have the money to do so....

I agree. It's a canny investment, but let's not delude ourselves that these people are successful, entrepreneurial businessmen and women. They are beneficiaries of a spectacularly hyped housing market.

If they all treated their role as landlords with respect, acted with dignity, treated tenants fairly, paid all tax and acted with some humility none of us would begrudge them their success.

Sadly, this isn't always the case.

TickersPlaysPop

Awesome report with clear graphics.... from Shelter in Sep 2012... almost half of renters are over 35 yrs old.... Amongst some other very interesting facts....

http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/587178/A_better_deal_report.pdf

"At the beginning of the last century, almost everyone was a private renter. As charities, councils and then private builders built more and more homes for social rent or sale, these tenures came to dominate – until by the early 1990s less than one in ten homes were let privately, typically to students, younger people and the highly mobile.

Then came the buy-to-let investment boom, and soaring house prices that shut millions out of home ownership. The decline in renting reversed – a trend that accelerated when the credit crunch hit.

The resulting change has been dramatic. Not only do 8.5 million people in England now rent privately, nearly a third of private renting households are families with children, and almost half are aged over 35.

But the deal offered to renters has not kept pace with this change."

Also just found this..... a report from "future homes commission" that calls for a 3 fold increase in house building to 300k/yr and suggests local authority pension funds could be a source of cash. (An idea I suggested last week)

Clapton.... Thx for misunderstanding my posts almost 100% of the time and putting words into my mouth.... of course I do not believe building houses will cause an increase in house prices.... I believe that the rate at which houses are built will determine how much it affects a house price increase. I am not convinced we can increase the rate of houses building at a fast enough rate to slow the market down.... We might move from 110k/yr now to maybe 150k/yr in 1-2 yrs.... But we need a rapid increase to have any impact. PROBLEM .... If house building rate increases slowly, it will fuel a surge in HPI.... partly due to 'buy to let' profiteers jumping in becase that is the way the market has been positioned and set up in this economic climate.

TickersPlaysPop

Nobody has reacted to my suggestion this week....

.... Houses put up for sale, should only be available for people wanting to own and occupy for a set period of 6 mths for example. Then if nobody wants to buy it within that 6 mths then it can be opened to buy to let purchasers.

Surely this must be an idea used in other countries?

Generali

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Nobody has reacted to my suggestion this week....

.... Houses put up for sale, should only be available for people wanting to own and occupy for a set period of 6 mths for example. Then if nobody wants to buy it within that 6 mths then it can be opened to buy to let purchasers.

Surely this must be an idea used in other countries?

I don't think it is.

Why do you think you're better placed than me to decide who I sell my property to? It's mine not yours.

Bantex_2

Surely renting is only for students, divorcees etc. Families should be able own and the government should should help to achieve this aim, even if it does put a few landlords noses out of joint.

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

Surely renting is only for students, divorcees etc. Families should be able own and the government should should help to achieve this aim, even if it does put a few landlords noses out of joint.

Why not allow people to build enough houses so that demand for rented and purchased acommodation can be fulfilled?

Just a thought. I realise it's a little 'out there' allowing people to manufacture things that other people would like to buy. If we try it, perhaps it might just catch on.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Clapton.... Thx for misunderstanding my posts almost 100% of the time and putting words into my mouth.... of course I do not believe building houses will cause an increase in house prices.... I believe that the rate at which houses are built will determine how much it affects a house price increase. I am not convinced we can increase the rate of houses building at a fast enough rate to slow the market down.... We might move from 110k/yr now to maybe 150k/yr in 1-2 yrs.... But we need a rapid increase to have any impact. PROBLEM .... If house building rate increases slowly, it will fuel a surge in HPI.... partly due to 'buy to let' profiteers jumping in becase that is the way the market has been positioned and set up in this economic climate.

an understandable mistake as you actually posted

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

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?

so presumably when you said 'higher' you actually meant 'less higher than would otherwise be a case'

ukcarper

Bantex wrote: »

Surely renting is only for students, divorcees etc. Families should be able own and the government should should help to achieve this aim, even if it does put a few landlords noses out of joint.

Why it's never been the case.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Awesome report with clear graphics.... from Shelter in Sep 2012... almost half of renters are over 35 yrs old.... Amongst some other very interesting facts....

http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/587178/A_better_deal_report.pdf

"At the beginning of the last century, almost everyone was a private renter. As charities, councils and then private builders built more and more homes for social rent or sale, these tenures came to dominate – until by the early 1990s less than one in ten homes were let privately, typically to students, younger people and the highly mobile.

Then came the buy-to-let investment boom, and soaring house prices that shut millions out of home ownership. The decline in renting reversed – a trend that accelerated when the credit crunch hit.

The resulting change has been dramatic. Not only do 8.5 million people in England now rent privately, nearly a third of private renting households are families with children, and almost half are aged over 35.

But the deal offered to renters has not kept pace with this change."

Also just found this..... a report from "future homes commission" that calls for a 3 fold increase in house building to 300k/yr and suggests local authority pension funds could be a source of cash. (An idea I suggested last week)

Clapton.... Thx for misunderstanding my posts almost 100% of the time and putting words into my mouth.... of course I do not believe building houses will cause an increase in house prices.... I believe that the rate at which houses are built will determine how much it affects a house price increase. I am not convinced we can increase the rate of houses building at a fast enough rate to slow the market down.... We might move from 110k/yr now to maybe 150k/yr in 1-2 yrs.... But we need a rapid increase to have any impact. PROBLEM .... If house building rate increases slowly, it will fuel a surge in HPI.... partly due to 'buy to let' profiteers jumping in becase that is the way the market has been positioned and set up in this economic climate.

You ignore the biggest impact on the number of people renting privately the transfer of council housing to private sector. You still haven't said how you are going to fill the void that would be left if BTL ceased to exist.

TickersPlaysPop

Hi Clapton
I see your point and apologise for not making my point clear.

I think when we talk about increasing building rates we need to talk about the magnitude of the rate of increase.

A source of funding needs to be found to fuel the building, the banks are hesitant for some reason, so pension funds is one idea supported by experts.

We also need to manage demand, and the demand is from buy to let and buy to live... and Generali I think you are missing the point.... The current high demand for rented property is a poor symptom of the free market housing system that is broken.... the current rental demand is because people cannot buy houses because they have been allowed to inflate to the current high level, and because of the restrictions on lending.

We need to move the market back to a healthy level where families can afford their home and not be forced to rent. This means restricting further property falling into the hands of buy to letters.