Two thirds of private rental landlords will leave sector if Labour win

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Don't get many of them with you. You could try google

childish..................

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

childish..................

Perhaps but no worse than distorting what people say I have a reason why I don't want to post link but what I have posted is accurate.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes one would but I suppose if it was just planning stopping the development then one could argue that they could build faster.

One thing for sure is that the impact on the already crowded roads will be large as there is no plan to improve them.

Not prepared to give link but it is government owned land.

That is atypical though. Most large building firms have a land bank of 2-3 years supply e.g.:

http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/4/i/berkeley-annual-report-2010.pdf

(page 4)

Why would building firms want to sit on huge amounts of undeveloped land? It's not making a profit for them until they put a house on it and sell it.

stator

Generali wrote: »

Why would building firms want to sit on huge amounts of undeveloped land? It's not making a profit for them until they put a house on it and sell it.

The land might have a contract attached that pays certain amounts to the previous owner on every completed unit, so they may well decide that a project they thought was viable before they signed the contract is no longer viable any more and so sit on it rather than build the houses and risk losing more money.

Generali

stator wrote: »

The land might have a contract attached that pays certain amounts to the previous owner on every completed unit, so they may well decide that a project they thought was viable before they signed the contract is no longer viable any more and so sit on it rather than build the houses and risk losing more money.

But that simply isn't what happens. Builders buy land and look to build within 2-3 years. Once they've paid for the land it's a sunk cost and there is no benefit to sit on the land.

According to Lloyds/HBOS, house prices are higher than 3-4 years ago in every single region of the UK: if a project was viable in 2011, 12, 13 or 14 then it's viable today.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

That is atypical though. Most large building firms have a land bank of 2-3 years supply e.g.:

http://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/media/pdf/4/i/berkeley-annual-report-2010.pdf

(page 4)

Why would building firms want to sit on huge amounts of undeveloped land? It's not making a profit for them until they put a house on it and sell it.

I don't think it is typical it's just the way this particular development is taking place.

NorthFin

I havent got time to read through all this, could someone please sumarise in a short explanation what it means ' a rent controls policy is introduced, limiting the number of affordable rental properties, '?

CLAPTON

NorthFin wrote: »

I havent got time to read through all this, could someone please sumarise in a short explanation what it means ' a rent controls policy is introduced, limiting the number of affordable rental properties, '?

it is a general observation that people engage in business to make money (profit).
If rent controls are introduced this will reduce the potential profit. This will encourage people to sell the property the currently rent out and will discourage people from entering the rental market.

The overall effect will be fewer rental properties being available.

Depending upon the precise wording of any rent control legislation, it will probably be that the maximum rent will also become the minimum rent due to the shortage of supply.

dori2o

CLAPTON wrote: »

it is a general observation that people engage in business to make money (profit).
If rent controls are introduced this will reduce the potential profit. This will encourage people to sell the property the currently rent out and will discourage people from entering the rental market.

The overall effect will be fewer rental properties being available.

Depending upon the premise wording of any rent control legislation, it will probably be that the maximum rent will also become the minimum rent due to the shortage of supply.

It may be the case for large investors that the ultimate aim is to produce a profit, but for the ordinary BTLer in most cases the properties are nothing more than pension pots.

We may see a reduction in the luxury apartments that are bought by big corporations, but for the ordinary BTL LL who has 5/10/15 properties their aim isn't to make a profit on their rentals it's to sell at retirement age and make a profit on the sales.

This isn't gonig to affect the majority of renters who live in 2 up 2 down terraced houses or those who live in small/modest semi/detatched homes.

A report on the TV a few weeks ago estimated that there were more than 3000 empty luxury properties in London (Greater London) which were owned by overseas individuals and corporations.

These people are not getting a rent anyway if the property is empty so rent controls wouldn;t affect them.

The proposals are fair. It protects tenants from ever increasing rents and it also provides security.

I would hate to be a renter at this time, not only because buying my house is far cheaper than renting a similar property in our area would be, but also because I'd hate to have the uncertainty of knowing that in only 6 months I may be forced to move, even if I don't want to.

If rent rises are capped at RPI/CPI or whaever then it still gives the LL the ption to raise the rent to cover his increased costs (if any) and it also gives the tennant the ability to realise what the increase may be so they are not suprised by a significant weekly/monthly increase at the end of the agreement.

As an example, we had my BIL live with us fr a few months after his rent was increased by £150 per month after 18 months in the house. He wasn't paying much below the market average, maybe £20 a month below, but how can a LL justify a £150 increase? Thats £1800 a year. Which stupidly the new tenant accepted.

The LL had very little work to do on the property as my BIL kept it very tidy and did all the decorating and even put new carpets in it. The house was in far better condition when he left compared to how it was when he arrived, but he simply couldn't afford an extra £150 a month.

This isn't an uncommon event, there are stories n this forum and many others of landlords increasing rents by stupid amounts.

It seems that we have entered a culture where there is only fairness when those with the control maintain that control. Suddenly when fairness gives powers to those who have previously been trampled on it's determined that the suggestions/changes are decidedly unfair.

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

It may be the case for large investors that the ultimate aim is to produce a profit, but for the ordinary BTLer in most cases the properties are nothing more than pension pots.

We may see a reduction in the luxury apartments that are bought by big corporations, but for the ordinary BTL LL who has 5/10/15 properties their aim isn't to make a profit on their rentals it's to sell at retirement age and make a profit on the sales.

This isn't gonig to affect the majority of renters who live in 2 up 2 down terraced houses or those who live in small/modest semi/detatched homes.

A report on the TV a few weeks ago estimated that there were more than 3000 empty luxury properties in London (Greater London) which were owned by overseas individuals and corporations.

These people are not getting a rent anyway if the property is empty so rent controls wouldn;t affect them.

The proposals are fair. It protects tenants from ever increasing rents and it also provides security.

I would hate to be a renter at this time, not only because buying my house is far cheaper than renting a similar property in our area would be, but also because I'd hate to have the uncertainty of knowing that in only 6 months I may be forced to move, even if I don't want to.

If rent rises are capped at RPI/CPI or whaever then it still gives the LL the ption to raise the rent to cover his increased costs (if any) and it also gives the tennant the ability to realise what the increase may be so they are not suprised by a significant weekly/monthly increase at the end of the agreement.

As an example, we had my BIL live with us fr a few months after his rent was increased by £150 per month after 18 months in the house. He wasn't paying much below the market average, maybe £20 a month below, but how can a LL justify a £150 increase? Thats £1800 a year. Which stupidly the new tenant accepted.

The LL had very little work to do on the property as my BIL kept it very tidy and did all the decorating and even put new carpets in it. The house was in far better condition when he left compared to how it was when he arrived, but he simply couldn't afford an extra £150 a month.

This isn't an uncommon event, there are stories n this forum and many others of landlords increasing rents by stupid amounts.

It seems that we have entered a culture where there is only fairness when those with the control maintain that control. Suddenly when fairness gives powers to those who have previously been trampled on it's determined that the suggestions/changes are decidedly unfair.

so rent controls won't affect people at the poorer end of the market (2up/2down terraces or modest semi/detached) and it won't affect people at the top end of the market

no point in introducing it then is there as it only helps the comfortable middle class in the middle (actually most of those tend to be owner occupiers)