Would you support or oppose proposals for the government in introduce a “rent control

cells

Percy1983 wrote: »

To a point I do wonder on the higher occupancy, here goes:

From personal experience I don't know anybody who is renting with more people in a house than they would buy, ie all families/couples living very much the same way I am. Of course this doesn't mean all rented accommodation is rented like this but I would guess this means most of rented is just families/couples who would be a 1:1 swap rented to owners ie no change (essentially the priced out).

So if this process of selling off does start yes in headline figures it may change but in real terms it means nothing iie:

5 houses. 3 have families of 3 in and 2 are shared with 5 in. so thats gives occupancy of 3.8 per house.

Now to of the houses go up for sale, and 2 of the families buy, to which I agree stats wise thats 2 buys of 3 form a 3.8 pool, yet again fits with what you are saying.

But lets look at the results:

We now have 2 houses owned with 3 in each, 1 rent with 3 and 2 rented with 5 in.

So yes the stats say everything has changed but I fail to see where the homeless people come in.

So here is my the thing with that point if it does cause some landlords to sell, in most if not all cases it will be a 1:1 relationship of rented household to ownership, and this will be the main group to buy said properties as they are the ones who mostly wanted to buy but where priced out due to LL's buying up the properties pushing prices up.

Genuine question?

"PS every time you buy something you are paying some-ones mortgage".

If I understand this correctly is it, I buy something, it pays wages which in turn pay mortgages? if so I very much agree, but there is a big difference, in the process of paying there mortgage I have just received an item or service.

If you mean this in some other way, please explain what you mean.

The ONS collects and publishes data on household makeup for owned rented and social homes. From memory when I last checked there was a difference of about 0.1 persons between the two.

eg owners lived at 2.3 persons per household while private renters lived at 2.4 persons per household

so if you convert 1 million BTL homes into owners, you have displaced 2.4 milliom renters and replaced them with 2.3 milliom owners. You then have 100,000 people who need to find a home (probably in the remaining private rental stock)


BTW this info is out by about 5 years and I suspect the differential has increased. So it might be 2.3 persons per household for owners and 2.5 for renters.

Also there will be a big regional variation. I wouldn't be surprised if in London the differential was as high as 1

CLAPTON

Percy1983 wrote: »

To a point I do wonder on the higher occupancy, here goes:

From personal experience I don't know anybody who is renting with more people in a house than they would buy, ie all families/couples living very much the same way I am. Of course this doesn't mean all rented accommodation is rented like this but I would guess this means most of rented is just families/couples who would be a 1:1 swap rented to owners ie no change (essentially the priced out).

So if this process of selling off does start yes in headline figures it may change but in real terms it means nothing iie:

5 houses. 3 have families of 3 in and 2 are shared with 5 in. so thats gives occupancy of 3.8 per house.

Now to of the houses go up for sale, and 2 of the families buy, to which I agree stats wise thats 2 buys of 3 form a 3.8 pool, yet again fits with what you are saying.

But lets look at the results:

We now have 2 houses owned with 3 in each, 1 rent with 3 and 2 rented with 5 in.

So yes the stats say everything has changed but I fail to see where the homeless people come in.

So here is my the thing with that point if it does cause some landlords to sell, in most if not all cases it will be a 1:1 relationship of rented household to ownership, and this will be the main group to buy said properties as they are the ones who mostly wanted to buy but where priced out due to LL's buying up the properties pushing prices up.

Genuine question?

"PS every time you buy something you are paying some-ones mortgage".

If I understand this correctly is it, I buy something, it pays wages which in turn pay mortgages? if so I very much agree, but there is a big difference, in the process of paying there mortgage I have just received an item or service.

If you mean this in some other way, please explain what you mean.

If a family of x buy the house they are already living in or a similar one then there will be no significant change in occupancy levels as properties are sold.

However, there are many people flat sharing or living frugally saving for a deposit, who, when they buy will want a house or a larger place.
Is is unlikely that people are renting large properties with surplus space : on average on would expect that people going from renting to buying would end up with more space.

If there is no increase in total number of properties one would expect some people to have more space than before (i.e. the new OOs) and some people with nowhere to stay.

If the policy is successful and all rentals are sold then where will young people starting out in life actually live? They are unlikely to have sufficient of a deposit and unlikely to be able to get a mortgage.

I don't know your living circumstances or you friends but I can't think of one person I've ever known who hasn't bought a bigger place than they were previously renting.

I take the view that a landlord provides a service at least as valuable as the person that services me a beer in a pub or pours me a coffee.

Percy1983

CLAPTON wrote: »

If a family of x buy the house they are already living in or a similar one then there will be no significant change in occupancy levels as properties are sold.

However, there are many people flat sharing or living frugally saving for a deposit, who, when they buy will want a house or a larger place.
Is is unlikely that people are renting large properties with surplus space : on average on would expect that people going from renting to buying would end up with more space.

If there is no increase in total number of properties one would expect some people to have more space than before (i.e. the new OOs) and some people with nowhere to stay.

If the policy is successful and all rentals are sold then where will young people starting out in life actually live? They are unlikely to have sufficient of a deposit and unlikely to be able to get a mortgage.

I don't know your living circumstances or you friends but I can't think of one person I've ever known who hasn't bought a bigger place than they were previously renting.

I take the view that a landlord provides a service at least as valuable as the person that services me a beer in a pub or pours me a coffee.

Yet again you are talking of the extremes of al rental property being sold.

I think you argument of buying bigger is flawed, yes those choosing to rent may well buy bigger, but yet again I don't know of anybody renting out of choice, all would more than happy to buy a house the exact same size as they one they are renting.

I will provide you the same service as a landlord does next time you want to buy a TV if you wish.

Me and a few mates will buy all the TVs, maybe let a few out into the wild be sold for £20k+ on ebay, as you can't afford the £20k for the £1500 TV I will kindly let you rent one of mine for only £50 a month. Don't worry i will never increase your rental, even after the 30 months when you have fully paid for the TV I still won't increase your rent, how generous am I, I will even give you new batteries for the remote when they run out.

Don't worry if you want a bigger more power efficient one later I will let you buy me one of those too or buy one my mates, but you can't get away form us, they are going for £45k on ebay now...

Yes this example is intentionally silly, TVs aren't in short supply so it would be much harder for me and my mates to buy them all and with that they will decrease in value with time unlike houses so our free TVs won't be worth as much as a landlords free houses.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

The ONS collects and publishes data on household makeup for owned rented and social homes. From memory when I last checked there was a difference of about 0.1 persons between the two.

eg owners lived at 2.3 persons per household while private renters lived at 2.4 persons per household....

It's the other way around.:)

Owner occupied housing is at 2.4 persons per household, and private renters are at 2.3. And social renters are at 2.2.

Survey of English Housing - Table FA1211 (S109): Number of people living in household by tenure, 2012-13
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tenure-trends-and-cross-tenure-analysis

cells wrote: »

...so if you convert 1 million BTL homes into owners, you have displaced 2.4 milliom renters and replaced them with 2.3 milliom owners. You then have 100,000 people who need to find a home (probably in the remaining private rental stock)...

Obviously not, given the figures I have quoted. By converting 1 million BTL homes into owners, you have just accomodated an extra 100,000 people, following your logic.

cells wrote: »

..BTW this info is out by about 5 years and I suspect the differential has increased. So it might be 2.3 persons per household for owners and 2.5 for renters. ......

It must be more than 5 years old.:) The data available in Table FA1211 (S109) goes back to 2008-9. The owner-occupied figure has consistently been 2.4, whilst the private renter figure varies from 2.3 to 2.4, but has never been greater than the owner-occupied figure.

cells wrote: »

..Also there will be a big regional variation. I wouldn't be surprised if in London the differential was as high as 1

Average household size in London is approaching 2.5, which is slightly higher. I'm not sure whether that qualifies as a 'big regional variation' or not. Whether or not there is a significant difference between renters and owners I don't know, but I suspect that your belief that the differential is as "high as 1" is probably way off the mark.

cells

antrobus wrote: »

It's the other way around.:)

Owner occupied housing is at 2.4 persons per household, and private renters are at 2.3. And social renters are at 2.2.

Survey of English Housing - Table FA1211 (S109): Number of people living in household by tenure, 2012-13
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tenure-trends-and-cross-tenure-analysis




Obviously not, given the figures I have quoted. By converting 1 million BTL homes into owners, you have just accomodated an extra 100,000 people, following your logic.



It must be more than 5 years old.:) The data available in Table FA1211 (S109) goes back to 2008-9. The owner-occupied figure has consistently been 2.4, whilst the private renter figure varies from 2.3 to 2.4, but has never been greater than the owner-occupied figure.



Average household size in London is approaching 2.5, which is slightly higher. I'm not sure whether that qualifies as a 'big regional variation' or not. Whether or not there is a significant difference between renters and owners I don't know, but I suspect that your belief that the differential is as "high as 1" is probably way off the mark.

I will have a look now. The big regional variation in London is that now the owner stock is below the rental.

antrobus

Percy1983 wrote: »

To a point I do wonder on the higher occupancy, here goes:

From personal experience I don't know anybody who is renting with more people in a house than they would buy, ie all families/couples living very much the same way I am. Of course this doesn't mean all rented accommodation is rented like this but I would guess this means most of rented is just families/couples who would be a 1:1 swap rented to owners ie no change (essentially the priced out).......

I have good news for you.:) Your personal experience is consistent with the data from the English housing survey (see above).

Although, interestingly enough, average household size for owner occupiers buying with a mortgage is higher (at 2.7) compared to owner occupiers who own outright (at only 1.9).

Which makes sense. People who have mortgages tend to be in their 30s-50s and have children, whilst people who have paid off their mortgages tend to be retired, and their children have now left home.

cells

antrobus wrote: »

It's the other way around.:)

Survey of English Housing - Table FA1211 (S109): Number of people living in household by tenure, 2012-13
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tenure-trends-and-cross-tenure-analysis

.

Thanks for the link

I am surprised quite a lot, I wish there was a breakdown for the regions too (maybe there is i have not gone though it all yet)


reading futher

---

I do find it difficult to believe, for instance over the four year period in that excel graph it shows owners and social tenants living more dense and renters living now LESS DENSE than 4 years ago? can this be right?

CLAPTON

Percy1983 wrote: »

Yet again you are talking of the extremes of al rental property being sold.

I think you argument of buying bigger is flawed, yes those choosing to rent may well buy bigger, but yet again I don't know of anybody renting out of choice, all would more than happy to buy a house the exact same size as they one they are renting.

I will provide you the same service as a landlord does next time you want to buy a TV if you wish.

Me and a few mates will buy all the TVs, maybe let a few out into the wild be sold for £20k+ on ebay, as you can't afford the £20k for the £1500 TV I will kindly let you rent one of mine for only £50 a month. Don't worry i will never increase your rental, even after the 30 months when you have fully paid for the TV I still won't increase your rent, how generous am I, I will even give you new batteries for the remote when they run out.

Don't worry if you want a bigger more power efficient one later I will let you buy me one of those too or buy one my mates, but you can't get away form us, they are going for £45k on ebay now...

Yes this example is intentionally silly, TVs aren't in short supply so it would be much harder for me and my mates to buy them all and with that they will decrease in value with time unlike houses so our free TVs won't be worth as much as a landlords free houses.

there are 500,000 immigrants into the UK each year (yes i know about 250,000 emigrate)
and about 1 million young people leaving home for the first time

the majority of these people will neither have a deposit for buying nor the ability to get a mortgage
if we close down rentals, where would they all live?


Most of the 'young' people, at least in London and the SE will start off living in flat shares : mainly because its cheaper and so they can start to save for a mortgage:

I doubt many of these people will buy an equivalent property when they get on the housing ladder.

So the majority if FTBs will have been living in modest housing (a couple living in a one bed flat or flat sharing with another couple). They will typically buy a 2 bed flat or a house (obviously it depends upon which part of the country you live).

cells

cells wrote: »

Thanks for the link

I am surprised quite a lot, I wish there was a breakdown for the regions too (maybe there is i have not gone though it all yet)


reading futher

---

I do find it difficult to believe, for instance over the four year period in that excel graph it shows owners and social tenants living more dense and renters living now LESS DENSE than 4 years ago? can this be right?

like i said im finding this hard to believe, some further info the ons should consider to explain these or at least make a note of it

owner occupiers are now renting out rooms far more than they have in the past. this is perhaps partly due to increased rents and perhaps partly due to it being a lot easier to find suitable lodgers thanks to the internet.

so how are these lodgers in owned homes counted?

this will have a big impact and may go some way to explain how it is renting has gone down in occupancy rate and owning up because it doesn't take into account these "invisible renters" or worse off it records them as owners instead!

cells

antrobus wrote: »

It's the other way around.:)

i'm finding it difficult to believe, maybe their sample size is not enough (unlike) and maybe the respondents to the samples are not being truthful

also there are some clear errors on the data, for example it shows the social housing stock as 3.842 in the 2008-2009 year it then drops to 3.675 million the following year....and then rises to 3.826 the year after and then falls back to 3.684 million two years after that. That is clearly volatility in the sampling as the councils dont sell 100,000 homes a year and then buy 100,000 back the following year

also as mentioned earlier the hidden renters counted as owners, the lodgers in homes

---

edit, the data also shows the number of households which effectively corresponds to the number of homes. It shows 63,000 fewer households 2012-2013 so it reckons we didnt build 130,000 homes that year, we knocked 63,000 down....sampling error for you