Open house

mobfant

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

In the flat or house they can afford to buy when there aren't Buy to Let people outbidding them because they see it as an investment and pushing up prices.

I generalised a little - you're right that there need to be landlords for those who can't afford to buy or don't want to. But that wasn't the issue where I was looking, and most people were looking to BTL as an investment.

CLAPTON

mobfant wrote: »

In the flat or house they can afford to buy when there aren't Buy to Let people outbidding them because they see it as an investment and pushing up prices.

I generalised a little - you're right that there need to be landlords for those who can't afford to buy or don't want to. But that wasn't the issue where I was looking, and most people were looking to BTL as an investment.

I don't understand your point
landlords are looking to gain rent and expect long term capital growth?

what exactly are you proposing?
how do you propose the rental properties be made available without landlords?

lukeh23

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't understand your point
landlords are looking to gain rent and expect long term capital growth?

what exactly are you proposing?
how do you propose the rental properties be made available without landlords?

I don't mean to interrupt, but maybe councils could also provide housing at affordable rates, but this time now sell them off for 50% less then their value. That would mean people have more choice then just private landlords.

I think there will always be a place for private landlords, but social housing is more important.

mobfant

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't understand your point
landlords are looking to gain rent and expect long term capital growth?

what exactly are you proposing?
how do you propose the rental properties be made available without landlords?

I clarified in my second post, and said there do need to be landlords. But given the fundamental importance of somewhere to live to an individual's happiness, I would rather a property was owned by a couple who benefited from the knowledge that they were paying off their mortgage, had somewhere safe and secure, that they could make improvements to, and the stability etc that goes with it, than where that same couple lived in the same flat but paid money to landlord who was doing it for an investment.

IveSeenTheLight

mobfant wrote: »

that led to a deep hatred of buy-to-let scum.

I fear you may be missguided / missinformed.

BTL has proportionally only partially filled the gap created through the council house RTB sell off and the expansion of the population.

There are only 500k more rental properties now, however there are an additional 8 million people, meaning with a circa 66% OO level, there should have been additional properties to support the 2.5 million additional rental population.

We are therefore as a country approximately 500k rental properties short if you assume a 2.5 residency level and 33% rental split.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mobfant wrote: »

I would rather a property was owned by a couple who benefited from the knowledge that they were paying off their mortgage, had somewhere safe and secure, that they could make improvements to, and the stability etc that goes with it, than where that same couple lived in the same flat but paid money to landlord who was doing it for an investment.

A real pity the mortgage rationing of the last 7 years has hit young people the worst then. Along with causing house building to fall to 100 year lows and driving up rents.

Bizarrely, some people around here still cheer it on, and want even fewer people to have access to mortgages.

ruggedtoast

Its nice to see the buy to let landlords on here defending, themselves.

A probate house came on over the road from us, would have made a nice little place for a young family. Went STC within 2 hours on RM by some parasites who blocked the road for weeks with their SUVs while they gloated their hands about their 'investment'.

They then sold it on to a young family at a massive profit far in excess to anything they did to the house. Normal people just don't have a chance in this market.

You pay through the nose for a mortgage or lose out to a vulture cash buyer for anywhere cheap.

At least it did go to a family though and not the buy to let parasites, as the other poster said.

mobfant

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A real pity the mortgage rationing of the last 7 years has hit young people the worst then. Along with causing house building to fall to 100 year lows and driving up rents.

Bizarrely, some people around here still cheer it on, and want even fewer people to have access to mortgages.

I can't remember if you answered or not in a previous thread (sorry) but what is it that means that it is not profitable to build a two bed for £400,000 but it is for £500,000, when (surely) the cost price is far less. Either it's outside market control (e.g. planning restrictions) or there are cartels?

CLAPTON

mobfant wrote: »

I clarified in my second post, and said there do need to be landlords. But given the fundamental importance of somewhere to live to an individual's happiness, I would rather a property was owned by a couple who benefited from the knowledge that they were paying off their mortgage, had somewhere safe and secure, that they could make improvements to, and the stability etc that goes with it, than where that same couple lived in the same flat but paid money to landlord who was doing it for an investment.

many of us have preference but
what do you actually propose as practical solutions ?

tax payer funded houses for everyone?

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Its nice to see the buy to let landlords on here defending, themselves.

A probate house came on over the road from us, would have made a nice little place for a young family. Went STC within 2 hours on RM by some parasites who blocked the road for weeks with their SUVs while they gloated their hands about their 'investment'.

They then sold it on to a young family at a massive profit far in excess to anything they did to the house. Normal people just don't have a chance in this market.

You pay through the nose for a mortgage or lose out to a vulture cash buyer for anywhere cheap.

At least it did go to a family though and not the buy to let parasites, as the other poster said.

tell me
where do you think a young 18 year old European person, moving to London for their first ever job, should live?

-given a house by taxpayers for free
-given a rent free house until they build up a deposit to buy on a right to buy basis
-pay a subsidised rent in state owned property
-forced to buy with their no-existent deposit and their no-existent income

or what?