Housing Shortage Forces Millions of Adults to Live With Parents

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

If you get turfed out, why do you have to move to a new area? Rather than close by.
Do landlords turf out good tenants every 6 months? How do they make money and why do they do that?

Do home owners never suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?

I think it's being very exaggerated.
Most landlords would want to keep good tenants and if not then move nearby and keep the same schools.
Homeowners are not immune from issues like job relocation or anything that would stop them making payments like job loss of illness.

The security is mostly an illusion.

I would agree with you but there are a lot of people on here are the house buying board complaining about ASTs

Percy1983

I do agree that in many cases a good tennant shouldn't have a problem.

But personally knowing I could be kicked out with 2 months noticed at any point based on the decision of a stranger isn't something I would want hanging over my head.

At least why my mortgage I would see an eviction coming as it would be based on my actions (missing payments etc).

Jason74

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Homeowners are able to provide a significantly more stable environment for children to grow up in than private renters. I accept council tenants with secure tenancies are somewhat different.

Things like links to the community, children's friendships in the local area, living in particular school catchment areas, etc, are easier as an owner than as a renter that may get turfed out and have to move every 6-12 months.

Every word of this post is 100% true. Which is why a key priority of housing policy (second only to more building, and a fairly close second at that) should be to increase the portion of homes that are owned or socially rented, and decrease the portion in the private rented sector (at least in it's current form). Sadly, this isn't even on the political radar at the moment.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Every word of this post is 100% true. Which is why a key priority of housing policy (second only to more building, and a fairly close second at that) should be to increase the portion of homes that are owned or socially rented, and decrease the portion in the private rented sector (at least in it's current form). Sadly, this isn't even on the political radar at the moment.

building a lot more homes will automatically mean there will be more in owner occupation because more properties equate to lower prices


lower prices mean more can buy
which means less will rent which leads to lower rental yields
lower rental yields will lead to lower profits and fewer rental properties as landlords are there to make money.


social housing is a way of giving a selected class of undeserving people a subsidised property for life.

lisyloo

but there are a lot of people on here are the house buying board complaining about ASTs

I'm a homeowner and I currently have issues with my drain which has involved DIY (plus expense for buying chemicals and rods) and will probably involve further expense in getting in the professionals.
My point being that homeowners face issues but we don't moan about them because they are "in our hands" and I think that's a big part of it.
I wonder if there is an element of it being easier to moan about things where other people are responsible and we're not in control of the minutae and they aren't being attended to as we would like?

I'm not fixing the drain right now because we're both working and won't get the professionals in until it's convenient for me to work from home.
If that delay was caused by someone else (in this case a lanlord) I might be moaning about it.

But personally knowing I could be kicked out with 2 months noticed at any point based on the decision of a stranger isn't something I would want hanging over my head.

I think that sums it up very well.

I think if something is in our own hands we feel more comfortable even if that is at least in part part an illusion (for example we all have death, ill-health etc. hanging over us with little control over it).

J_i_m

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

I agree Bantex, there definately is a certain ''stigma'' attached to living with your parents past a certain age - although I am not quite sure what age that is.

I couldn't wait to move out, and did so at age 16 into a rented flat- even the prospect of cheap or free board and lodgings wouldn't have held me back - Not that there was anything wrong with living at home, it was nice, but I was desperate to be independant

I often wonder if people would still have children if they realised there was a high risk of them still living at home and still being dependant in their 30s or 40's - it hardly seems fair on parents in retirement age to still be financially funding fully grown adults.

People say how the young have got it hard these days, but not in my opinion - they have it easy, off the backs of their parents. Parents are now financially funding their offspring until the offspring are middle aged, it seems like the parents get the mucky end of the stick, really

Hmm, yeah. But I think the perceived "stigma" says more about the person making that judgment than it does about the 30-something who lives with a parent.

Again, it's down to personal choice and circumstances. I don't see why some people feel the need to be judgmental and intolerant of other people's choices when it doesn't even affect them anyway.

gbsilp

CLAPTON wrote: »

lower prices mean more can buy
which means less will rent which leads to lower rental yields
lower rental yields will lead to lower profits and fewer rental properties as landlords are there to make money

Lol! So wannabe landlords won't be queuing to "snap up" cheaper properties as yields increase due to house price drops? Didn't realise they were such a charitable bunch, leaving the bargains to owner occupiers.......

CLAPTON

gbsilp wrote: »

Lol! So wannabe landlords won't be queuing to "snap up" cheaper properties as yields increase due to house price drops? Didn't realise they were such a charitable bunch, leaving the bargains to owner occupiers.......

yes of course, lower prices will encourage LLs to buy: however as they aren't buying a 'home' for their family, they are concerned about the return on their investment.


That return is partly rent which will probably be lower and their expectation of capital gain.


If sufficient houses are being built and there is also the expectation that this will continue then their expectation of rental and capital growth will (rightly) be low.




presumably your solution for the housing crisis is to knock down a few million houses as you expect that to reduce prices?

samsam89

lisyloo wrote: »

Hi Sam, I sympathise with you, however I'd like to ask why you don't think you can get on with your lives without owning a home?
Please don't take that as judgemental. It's a question to help me and others understand why you feel held back in other areas of your life.

Work wise it's not so much of an issue as not buying a house doesn't prevent me climbing the ladder with work. I suppose it's a mental stance. Every young person wants to feel that they have made it to a place where they're self sufficient and able to live their life without help from parents. Being able to afford your own home is the ultimate step to take. Having said that every young person is different, hence the comments about renting etc.

Moreover we both want children within the next couple of years but feel it's important to own your home before you have children. As someone has since mentioned, it just gives your family a better sense of security when you own your own home, you have YOUR own family environment which I personally don't feel you get if you rent as it's always someone else property.

moneyinmypocket

The best time to buy was a few years ago but it's still a v good time to buy now!

Percy - how's life as a homeowner - no doubt it's great? You should be telling people this as your constint bashing of HPI puts renters off making the jump from renter to homeowner.