C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

TickersPlaysPop

wotsthat wrote: »

Just look at Taylor Wimpey's 2013 accounts and search for the word 'debt' or 'finance'.

I'd do it for you but haven't got my GCSE results available to prove I'm competent enough to use Google.

Very rude.... I think Thrugamir can answer for his/her self?!

What is your background by the way?

wotsthat

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

What is your background by the way?

How do I know you're suitably qualified to judge whether I'm qualified enough to argue with people on the internet?

antrobus

sharnad wrote: »

It's not simple at all. There can be thousands more public sector staff on low wages but the average can be higher due to the top earnings racking it in

But there aren't "thousands more public sector staff on low wages" so your argument falls flat.

ruggedtoast

princeofpounds wrote: »

I have one very simple suggestion, which would go a long way to improving the quality of life for private rental tenants.

Make the minimum period for AST tenancies before a S21 can be issued 1 year, instead of 6 months.

With a 6 month contract, you start anticipating the possible delivery of a S21 notice just 12 weeks after moving in! I think people who haven't been in that situation don't realise the impact the insecurity has on the life choices people are forced to make.

Phone contracts. Energy contracts. Most importantly school places. They all typically last a year. Even gym memberships typically have more permanence!

It is not a perfect solution to anything. But I think it would produce societal benefits disproportionate to the modest societal costs.

----

A short PS: the single largest reason why tenants complain about security of tenure, but then hate long initial contracts, is that you simply have no real idea of the 'product' you are agreeing to purchase. Both in terms of the condition of the property or the conduct of the landlord.

Landlords are also challenged by poor tenants of course, but the threat of a S21 and/or S8 is a far more powerful sanction, the former usable for any trifling reason, than the ability of a tenant to appeal only to limited Section 11 repairing grounds or something similar.

(deposit protection being one area where things are different, thankfully)

Plus remember that the cost of losing your home typically far exceeds the cost of a one month void, so the calculus is already intrinsically disproportionate.

Much as landlords will squeal about it, it needs to be possible for tenants to give notice before they can. The point of private housing is to provide suitable homes for people. Not to trap them into long contracts or move them on from short ones.

The ones that dont like it can find a different "investment", and the ones that dont mind can carry on providing the service at a price which is usually more than commensurate with the minimal amount of effort involved.

antrobus

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

....Have you worked in the finacial dept of residential property development companies? Do you know anybody that does? What is you career background?

Why does that matter?

The idea that there are "land banking builders" is a myth. You don't need to work for a builder to know that. You just need to know that all these reports....

The Barker Review of Housing Supply (2004)
The Callcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery (2007)
Office of Fair Tradingreport : Homebuilding in the UK (2008)
Savills report on Strategic Development Sites (2011)
Molior report on Barriers to Housing Delivery in London (2012)

.... concluded that it wasn't a factor.

princeofpounds

The ones that dont like it can find a different "investment", and the ones that dont mind can carry on providing the service at a price which is usually more than commensurate with the minimal amount of effort involved.

Whilst I wouldn't use quite the same rationale as you, I do agree with the basic conclusion.

The utility of housing as housing should indeed be more important than the utility of housing as an investment, as long as investment is not the restricting factor on an adequate property supply (and it clearly isn't, the post-08 slump in development aside, as supply has fallen short in all market conditions over the last 10+ years).

TickersPlaysPop

So.... I'll wait a little longer to ask more people that post here.... But it's looking very likely that all of you pro BTL and "let's build more to fix everything" crowd don't have any creditials or background that gives you any more authority than any body else on here.

If you won't reveal your backgrounds that is what we have to assume.

TickersPlaysPop

There are lots of reasons for the establishment to protect the system that benefits them.

Reports need to come from an impartial sources with impartial funding to carry any weight.

You are all protecting the system that benefits you, and are petrified that Internet forums might spark a movement and awakening of those disadvantaged by the system.

I will take what you all say with this in mind in future.

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

Whilst I wouldn't use quite the same rationale as you, I do agree with the basic conclusion.

The utility of housing as housing should indeed be more important than the utility of housing as an investment, as long as investment is not the restricting factor on an adequate property supply (and it clearly isn't, the post-08 slump in development aside, as supply has fallen short in all market conditions over the last 10+ years).

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but by way of example, the Battersea Power Station site has been derelict for 30 years.
Do you think that lack of finance for investment was the restricting factor or something else?

antrobus

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

There are lots of reasons for the establishment to protect the system that benefits them.

Reports need to come from an impartial sources with impartial funding to carry any weight.....

I think the Office of Fair Trading qualifies under that heading. And I imagine that the likes of Kate Barker and John Calcutt might be a bit annoyed at your accusation that they were somehow 'corrupt'.:)

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

...You are all protecting the system that benefits you, and are petrified that Internet forums might spark a movement and awakening of those disadvantaged by the system.

I will take what you all say with this in mind in future.

That's right we are all paid agents of the Great Bilderberg Capitalist Conspiracy, but we're not in the slightest bit petrified. After all we only have you to deal with. And you're not scary, you're funny. :rotfl: