C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

chucknorris

Cornucopia wrote: »

I can certainly see the case for 3-5 years, and these would tie in to commonly available fixed terms for BTL mortgages. I could go beyond that, if the banks matched the commitment.

With regards to termination of tenancies, I still think that there need to be separate routes for termination with cause and without cause.

Without cause, I would be happy to have a fixed 3 year tenancy, followed by a rolling commitment on both sides with an agreed break window perhaps every year, and at least 3 months notice on the LL's side.

With cause, I think there needs to be an overhaul of what we currently do...

- an official list of transgressions
- 3 written warnings
- ability for LLs to access deposit funds when rent debt arises
- 30 day notice to quit
- official appeal tribunal

We have not found any tenants that would sign a 2 year contract never mind a 3 year one, in fact we don't bother to ask anymore.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Although I have never rented I can see that renting can be better for some people and realise that there have always been people who can not afford to buy. That is why I think we need a balance housing market and as far as I can see the thing we are lacking the most at the moment is long term rental accommodation.

To what extent is the lack of long term rental accommodate a significant problem?
Do other countries see it as a major problem and if so what do they do?
Most normal people (even owner occupiers ) seem to be able to handle moving property occasionally.
By 'long term' I assume you mean 'contractually guaranteed as long as you like' rather than de facto occupancy: does it need to be subsidised by other people as well?
In large parts of the country de facto long term occupancy is normal and welcomed by most landlords as it's cheaper and less hassle for them.

The real issue is the lack of adequate properties in many areas and not the ownership model or length of contractual length of the tenancy

ukcarper

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'd like to know whether the lowest 20% of earners have ever had the ability to purchase homes. It seems unlikely to me. (There is a school of thought that says that the price of housing relates directly to affordability across the top X% of earners in the area, where the number of households in the X% is related directly to the number of available houses).


That's my point there has always been people who can't buy and social housing has dropped from 31% to 18%.

Yes. What I am getting at is that this is a complex, multi-dimensional issue, and there are other factors aside from BTL.



It is complex and there will be plenty of people who could afford to buy if they could get a 100% mortgage.


I can't see that a difference of £110 per month would make the difference between being out-priced or not for many people.


It's not so much the difference between £850 and £960 but the fact that they don't earn enough to get the mortgage.

It strikes me that £850 per month is somewhat expensive, and therefore there may be other, cheaper areas nearby that would be affordable.


That's the cheapest area and pretty much typical of the south east.

Don't get me wrong I think there is a need to build all types of property and that BTL provides a good solution for many people.

lisyloo

Most normal people (even owner occupiers ) seem to be able to handle moving property occasionally.

Some people say it can be an issue if you have kids.
For example even moving 1 street can move you out of a catchment area. I guess if you have several kids in different schools it could be an issue.

Cornucopia

ukcarper wrote: »

Don't get me wrong I think there is a need to build all types of property and that BTL provides a good solution for many people.

The thing that concerns me about the discussion is that people are focussing on BTL as something which looks suspicious, but isn't actually the underlying cause.

Then there are vested interests like Land-banking builders and NIMBYs opposing planning permission, both of which force up the price of land with PP.

Then there are other models, that haven't even got out of the starting gates, like Build-to-Let. The idea being that by setting out very specific planning constraints, land can be released more cheaply, or possibly leased by local authorities, leading to the release of batches of eco-build housing at affordable rents, with little or no cost to the taxpayer, and with covenants preventing them being sold off.

lisyloo

The thing that concerns me about the discussion is that people are focussing on BTL as something which looks suspicious, but isn't actually the underlying cause.

Would be helpful if you said what you thought was wrong with that view as it's not clear to me ???

There is a big undersupply.
You can blame certain groups - foreigners, BTLs, holiday homes etc. but the bottom line is that the population is increasing faster than we are building houses.
If you re-distribute more fairly then that's nice but it doesn't solve the issue.
If you let tennants buy a house then you cut out the middle man and remove someone's investment but you haven't done anything about all the people living with parents because they can't get one.

I don't believe BTL is the issue. Undersupply is the issue.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

To what extent is the lack of long term rental accommodate a significant problem?
Do other countries see it as a major problem and if so what do they do?
Most normal people (even owner occupiers ) seem to be able to handle moving property occasionally.
By 'long term' I assume you mean 'contractually guaranteed as long as you like' rather than de facto occupancy: does it need to be subsidised by other people as well?
In large parts of the country de facto long term occupancy is normal and welcomed by most landlords as it's cheaper and less hassle for them.

The real issue is the lack of adequate properties in many areas and not the ownership model or length of contractual length of the tenancy

I'm not sure private long tern renting is readily available in many areas. But I accept that a large number of landlords are happy to let tenants stay long term but understandably they are not prepared to contract to it and the lack of security is worrying for tenants especially those with children.

I do mean as long as you like which understandably not wanted by BTL landlords and no it doesn't have to be subsidise by other people or at any rate no more than it is already.

I think just saying building more properties is to simplistic as it's much more complicated than that. If you could build enough properties it might work but that has as much chance of happening as a return to large scale social housing.

ukcarper

Cornucopia wrote: »

The thing that concerns me about the discussion is that people are focussing on BTL as something which looks suspicious, but isn't actually the underlying cause.

Then there are vested interests like Land-banking builders and NIMBYs opposing planning permission, both of which force up the price of land with PP.

Then there are other models, that haven't even got out of the starting gates, like Build-to-Let. The idea being that by setting out very specific planning constraints, land can be released more cheaply, or possibly leased by local authorities, leading to the release of batches of eco-build housing at affordable rents, with little or no cost to the taxpayer, and with covenants preventing them being sold off.

I agree I don't see BTL as the problem some people seem to think it is.

As you say there are plenty of things that could be tried but there doesn't seem much desire to. Where I am a large area of government land is being made available to developers at what I assume is the going rate although there is a commitment to build 30% affordable homes it's not clear what that means.

As for nimbyism some is justified some is not hopefully the new local plans will help but I fear not.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure private long tern renting is readily available in many areas. But I accept that a large number of landlords are happy to let tenants stay long term but understandably they are not prepared to contract to it and the lack of security is worrying for tenants especially those with children.

I do mean as long as you like which understandably not wanted by BTL landlords and no it doesn't have to be subsidise by other people or at any rate no more than it is already.

I think just saying building more properties is to simplistic as it's much more complicated than that. If you could build enough properties it might work but that has as much chance of happening as a return to large scale social housing.

I don't really understand you.


Do you believe that we can improve the overall housing of the people without building more properties?


As far as long term tenancies are concerned, the issue is whether there is a practical realisable scheme that doesn't have lots of draw backs i.e. doesn't make the overall situation worse.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't really understand you.


Do you believe that we can improve the overall housing of the people without building more properties?


As far as long term tenancies are concerned, the issue is whether there is a practical realisable scheme that doesn't have lots of draw backs i.e. doesn't make the overall situation worse.

I believe we would improve the overall housing of people if we just built more properties I just don't think we can practically build enough properties to solve the problem completely.

As for long term housing there are issues it's just like I believe it would be possible to overcome them while you don't.