C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

There are plenty of examples of good social housing and the system used to work well in 60 and 70s and still does in some places. I wouldn't have though it would be difficult to devise a scheme that benefited both the tax payer and tenant, although finding the money is another story even though I think it would be cheaper in the long term. I think the main problem with BTL long term security, would you be prepared to give a tenant say a 10 year contract that only they could end early? I can see why most BTL landlords wouldn't.

I would welcome 3-10 year contracts providing:


1. Landlord could regain possession if selling (tenant could also vacate under exceptional circumstances i.e. divorce etc.)
2. Rent rises aligned to CPI (or some other acceptable index).
3. Both the tenant and the landlord tied in for the period (maybe a reasonably priced buyout for the tenant say 3 months rent, if the property not re-let within that time).
4. Substantial improvements would give the landlord the right to increase the rent over the rate of inflation. Obviously the tenant would need some protection, that could be the right to vacate or the rent increase reviewed by an independent body.

CLAPTON

The quality and size etc of council housing isn't, in general, a significant issue.
Excluding some of the system built tower blocks, most council housing is quite spacious and well built: if fact in many parts of London many people prefer to buy an ex-council flat as they are better quality and more spacious that the equivalent private sector properties.

However the difficulties with social housing are centred round the associated problem of council ownership

- why is a property subsidised rather than a person?

-because a person was allocated a subsidised council property, presumably based on need at one stage in their life: why are they then subsidised for life even if their circumstances under go a substantial improvement?

-council housing limits mobility in that people are reluctant to move for a lifetime tenure cheap house so would rationally prefer unemployment to moving and losing the life subsidy

-council housing sets up social ghettos which are undesirable

-what would the basis of allocation of subsidised life time property? To what extend do the criteria encourage undesirable life styles and undermine the incentives to work.

The problems with the UK housing market is the insufficient number of properties to meet peoples aspirations largely due the government restrictions on land usage and costs.

If we built sufficient houses many of the perceived problems in the private tenanted sector would be resolved.

ukcarper

chucknorris wrote: »

I would welcome 3-10 year contracts providing:


1. Landlord could regain possession if selling (tenant could also vacate under exceptional circumstances i.e. divorce etc.)
2. Rent rises aligned to CPI (or some other acceptable index).
3. Both the tenant and the landlord tied in for the period (maybe a reasonably priced buyout for the tenant say 3 months rent, if the property not re-let within that time).
4. Substantial improvements would give the landlord the right to increase the rent over the rate of inflation. Obviously the tenant would need some protection, that could be the right to vacate or the rent increase reviewed by an independent body.

That sounds reasonable to me but Social housing gives the tenant real security, whereas your point 1 still introduces a fairly large degree of uncertainty. Don't get me wrong I think point 1 is a reasonable thing for a BTL landlord to want it's just that if landlord can sell up when he wants doesn't give the tenant the guarantee that he has the property for 10 years.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

The quality and size etc of council housing isn't, in general, a significant issue.
Excluding some of the system built tower blocks, most council housing is quite spacious and well built: if fact in many parts of London many people prefer to buy an ex-council flat as they are better quality and more spacious that the equivalent private sector properties.

However the difficulties with social housing are centred round the associated problem of council ownership

- why is a property subsidised rather than a person?

-because a person was allocated a subsidised council property, presumably based on need at one stage in their life: why are they then subsidised for life even if their circumstances under go a substantial improvement?

-council housing limits mobility in that people are reluctant to move for a lifetime tenure cheap house so would rationally prefer unemployment to moving and losing the life subsidy

-council housing sets up social ghettos which are undesirable

-what would the basis of allocation of subsidised life time property? To what extend do the criteria encourage undesirable life styles and undermine the incentives to work.

The problems with the UK housing market is the insufficient number of properties to meet peoples aspirations largely due the government restrictions on land usage and costs.

If we built sufficient houses many of the perceived problems in the private tenanted sector would be resolved.

This is always your argument that is why I said a system could be devised to benefit tax payer and tenant. Market rents could be charged and rebates applied as they are now for instance.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

This is always your argument that is why I said a system could be devised to benefit tax payer and tenant. Market rents could be charged and rebates applied as they are now for instance.

How could such a system be devised?
People have been discussing this for 40 years and no realistic proposal on the table.
One may wish to square a circle but the mere wish doesn't make it possible.

The best proposal we have is to
-increase house building by ensuring land with planning permission is available
-ensure that both financial and non-financial state impositions are removed.
-allow the private sector to build to meet the requirements of the purchasers
-to subsidise people who need subsidy when the need it
-minimum standards of rentals should be enforced

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

How could such a system be devised?
People have been discussing this for 40 years and no realistic proposal on the table.
One may wish to square a circle but the mere wish doesn't make it possible.

The best proposal we have is to
-increase house building by ensuring land with planning permission is available
-ensure that both financial and non-financial state impositions are removed.
-allow the private sector to build to meet the requirements of the purchasers
-to subsidise people who need subsidy when the need it
-minimum standards of rentals should be enforced

It could easily be devised and there has always be people who can not afford to buy but need long term security. I don't think you could build enough houses in the London and the South East to bring prices down to a level where people on low earnings could afford to buy do you.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

It could easily be devised and there has always be people who can not afford to buy but need long term security. I don't think you could build enough houses in the London and the South East to bring prices down to a level where people on low earnings could afford to buy do you.

I don't think it desirable to have 100% owner occupiers partly because renting is a reasonable first step from the family home, partly due to people requiring temporary accommodation and partly because there are people with personal issues who can never be expected to buy.

So there is an essential requirement for rental accommodation but there is no requirement for it to be lifelong subsidised, gheottised, state owned.

As far as London and the SE is concerned, I see no reason why we can build sufficient for 70-80% owner occupiers unless we continue to allow unlimited immigration.

Where necessary, people should be subsidised by the state and not property.

ukcarper

Social housing peaked in 31% in the early 80s but now is about 18% the shortfall being made up with mainly BTL which is not the ideal solution for long term rental. Home ownership in UK peaked at 69% so I think your 80% is optimistic. In most places council housing worked very well and I'm not sure who will supply long term rental properties if not social.

To be honest I don't think much will change and the only option for low paid workers will be BTL with the lack of security it gives them.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Social housing peaked in 31% in the early 80s but now is about 18% the shortfall being made up with mainly BTL which is not the ideal solution for long term rental. Home ownership in UK peaked at 69% so I think your 80% is optimistic. In most places council housing worked very well and I'm not sure who will supply long term rental properties if not social.

To be honest I don't think much will change and the only option for low paid workers will be BTL with the lack of security it gives them.

in what way did council housing 'work well' ?

did it encourage labour mobility?
did is encourage employment?
did it stop quite well off people living in subsidised accommodation?
did it provide homes for local people ?
did it lead to optimal use of subsidised accommodation?
did it encourage ghettoistion especially in certain areas?
was it fair to both council tenants and non council tanants who are subsidising them?

etc.

The issue of lack of security of tenure is largely one of housing shortage:
if there was sufficient housing being built then the 'power' of landlords to dictate the conditions would be much reduced.
In areas of relative abundance of rental property long tenures are not such an issue

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way did council housing 'work well' ?

did it encourage labour mobility?
did is encourage employment?
did it stop quite well off people living in subsidised accommodation?
did it provide homes for local people ?
did it lead to optimal use of subsidised accommodation?
did it encourage ghettoistion especially in certain areas?
was it fair to both council tenants and non council tanants who are subsidising them?

etc.

The issue of lack of security of tenure is largely one of housing shortage:
if there was sufficient housing being built then the 'power' of landlords to dictate the conditions would be much reduced.
In areas of relative abundance of rental property long tenures are not such an issue

It work as it provided good safe secure long term properties for people who would otherwise not have had them. Your references to ghettos is Ingenuous when more council housing was available to working people they were reasonable places and now some private estates where BTL are prevalent are going the same way some of the council estates are going.