Open house

Green3

What has been your experience of open house viewings? How many others were there along with you? Are people still paying full asking price or more in London?

mobfant

It wasn't fun. There were up to 40 or so with me. Many were buy-to-let scum. In fact, it was open house viewings more than anything else that led to a deep hatred of buy-to-let scum.

As to the second question, the latest rightmove stats suggest not. But that might just be a seasonal blip

CLAPTON

mobfant wrote: »

In fact, it was open house viewings more than anything else that led to a deep hatred of buy-to-let scum.

why do you hate people who have to rent so much?

is that because you were born with a silver spoon and expected the world but have fallen on hard times?

Bantex_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you hate people who have to rent so much?

is that because you were born with a silver spoon and expected the world but have fallen on hard times?

Many only have to rent because it is easier for a landlord to get the finance and they can outbid potential owner occupiers in many cases.

ladeeda

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you hate people who have to rent so much?

is that because you were born with a silver spoon and expected the world but have fallen on hard times?

I read it that it was the BTL purchasers that mobfant was referring to rather than people who rent?

lukeh23

I would never hate the BTL'ers, its more the framework that enables them.

The tax collection is so lax around them. If you buy a TV your hoodwinked into signing up for a license, yet you get a BTL mortgage and its left uo to you to notify the tax man.

It also favours those who benefited from a lower, more fairly priced market (without government props in place to stop any correction). They use an existing property to get leverage to borrow more. A FTB cannot compete with this. They are trying to save under rock bottom interest rates against a property market that is growing at around 7-10 % a year.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

Many only have to rent because it is easier for a landlord to get the finance .

That's what happens when you limit the availability of mortgage finance.

Old people with equity and savings outcompete the young for the limited supply of housing, and housing wealth consolidates in the hands of fewer people.

CLAPTON

ladeeda wrote: »

I read it that it was the BTL purchasers that mobfant was referring to rather than people who rent?

of course he did
however he didn't explain where people who need to rent will then live;
one can assume either stupidity or malice

CLAPTON

lukeh23 wrote: »

I would never hate the BTL'ers, its more the framework that enables them.

The tax collection is so lax around them. If you buy a TV your hoodwinked into signing up for a license, yet you get a BTL mortgage and its left uo to you to notify the tax man.

you mean that the landlord is treated, tax wise, just like the plumber, the builder, the hairdresser, taxi driver, all small businessmen, large businessmen
and just about everyone that isn't PAYE ?

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's what happens when you limit the availability of mortgage finance.

Old people with equity and savings outcompete the young for the limited supply of housing, and housing wealth consolidates in the hands of fewer people.

for sure housing debt consolidates in the hands of fewer people.

there's a tradeoff, as i'm sure a [cough] fair minded chap like yourself would readily agree.

let's imagine that the choice was between:

(a) 'mortgage rationing case'

an 80:20 residential:BTL new lending split; and
2.5% annual HPI

(b) 'loose lending case'

a 95:5 residential:BTL new lending split; and
15% annual HPI


then every time i'd prefer mortgage rationing, every time. far less damaging to the economy & society.

of course my numbers are made up & i'm sure [as above] a fair-minded chap like yourself has considered the tradeoffs in a lot more detail in order to reach a carefully considered & robust conclusion, that conclusion being that any form of lending restriction is satan, etc.

i won't even mention the possibility of a (c), e.g. tight lending but higher taxes on BTL.

lukeh23

CLAPTON wrote: »

you mean that the landlord is treated, tax wise, just like the plumber, the builder, the hairdresser, taxi driver, all small businessmen, large businessmen
and just about everyone that isn't PAYE ?

Big difference is none of your listed professions have a point where the 'business' would be automatically be notified to hmrc. Its impossible to know someone has started pulling in a bit of cash in hand cutting hair or installing a shower in someones flat.

That's very different to when someone applies for a substantial loan (which is a business loan essentially) with a large financial body such as a bank. If tescos can automatically inform the tv license body when someone buys a TV, I am sure lloyds/natwest/halifax can automatically inform hmrc of someone starting a BTL mortgage.