How Many Spare Houses Would We Have If ....

cells

PasturesNew wrote: »

Well, now you're just nit-picking over my poor use of phrase!

What I meant .... was too big for the title box. And I didn't think it through as I know what I meant.

I meant: how much better could we use the housing stock if: ...

I guess.

housing is not a public utility or transport system or social service there is no need or justifiable reason to "use it better" AKA force those who have more than x to give some of it up

apart from of course the subsidised council/HA stock

BobQ

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't know anything about "parents who wanted to help their student offspring buy a house..." as I've never known anybody that did that (but then I've rarely met a student either). That could be allowed as it's the kids' house.

So you are more concerned about ownership than occupation now? Parents do buy flats and houses for their children to live in. This is not necessary when they are a student of course.

People don't need a second home to live in during the week - I've done that and rented a short-term studio flatlet, stayed in the spare room of private houses and used cheap B&Bs.

You may not but if you were say 55 and your employer transferred you to a job 100 miles away and had money in the bank, why should you live in a pokey flat or cheap B&B and pay rent when you can live in relative comfort for four nights a week and make a profit too.

I take your point about making better use of the housing stock we have, and policies to encourage that, but banning people buying homes or imposing occupation rules is a rather Stalinist solution in my view.

Banning people from buying will just force people to rent in the same area. What do you do to those with homes already, force them to sell? What if two owners of second homes agree to rent each other's properties ?

We need to build more homes.

PasturesNew

BobQ wrote: »

So you are more concerned about ownership than occupation now? Parents do buy flats and houses for their children to live in. This is not necessary when they are a student of course.

I can't answer this. You're clearly a mass debater - and I can't debate. I'm confused and lost, so can't answer. I didn't expect anybody to try to trick me, and it seems you're trying to put words into my mouth that, if I had a spare fortnight to go through it all again and understand, simply aren't there

Can I play the "thick as !!!!!!" card here?

BobQ wrote: »

You may not but if you were say 55 and your employer transferred you to a job 100 miles away and had money in the bank, why should you live in a pokey flat or cheap B&B and pay rent when you can live in relative comfort for four nights a week and make a profit too.

I take your point about making better use of the housing stock we have, and policies to encourage that, but banning people buying homes or imposing occupation rules is a rather Stalinist solution in my view.

Banning people from buying will just force people to rent in the same area. What do you do to those with homes already, force them to sell? What if two owners of second homes agree to rent each other's properties ?

We need to build more homes.

But I am 55 and it has happened before - as well as to my sibling. We both took the cheapest places we could find to fulfill a functional need, as disposable incomes would permit.

If an employer can send you 100 miles in one direction, they could next send you 100 in the opposite direction or drop you without much notice. You can't have a life with a trail of properties littering your progress.

I don't know what Stalinist is .... and CBA to Google it to get to grips with it. But I think you mean communist, so I'll assume that. Draconian, probably. Not as free as we're used to, certainly. But, otherwise, where are all the houses needed for people's primary homes supposed to come from out of thin air?

Somebody out there isn't prepared to free up new land for housing, to make the planning system quicker/easier, or to build enough of the right sort of houses quickly enough for the growing number of people who need a home to live in.

Graham_Devon

I'm not so sure I would agree with "banning"second homes, but I agree with the general principle of the idea - i.e. that something needs to be done about the list of housing types that PN mentioned.

I'd heavily tax second homes. That way at least some revenue is raised if people still wish to purchase them. I'd stop landlords being able to take out Interest Only mortgages, therefore already ahead of the starting line compared to a family wanting to buy. Infact, I'd do quite a lot to discourage the type of landlordism we've seen over the past decade.

You only need to look at the house buying and selling board and it's littered with people taking debt up to their eyeballs in order to move out of their existing home but keep it as a BTL. Many of them disagree that BTL is even a business. I believe this kind of amateur, basically money grabbing landlordism is bad for landlords as a whole.

Some of these landlords appear to be taking less than £50 profit a MONTH. They clearly aren't going to be shelling out to keep the house up to a good standard, they can hardly make it through each month as it is. On top of this they still see it as "their" home, not the tenants home.

p00hsticks

BobQ wrote: »

We need to build more homes.

... of the right type, in the right areas. It's not a 'one size fits all' problem, and there's no 'one size fits all' solution.

Wher I am there are plenty of back to back terraces currently being lived in by students. As the University builds more purpose built student accommodation they empty and no-one else will buy them - I give it a few years before we see swathes of them compulsory purchased and demolished.

And I could point you at least one block of newly built apartments standing empty that they appear to have given up attempting to sell as no one wants/ can afford them.

But then that's in a place where property goes for £1 ! (Stoke)

lisyloo

you could only own a 2nd home/holiday home if it'd been in your family for over 10 years

I have to work in London at the moment but have a weekend home and look after elderly parents in my home area.
Am I allowed 2 homes or am I judged to be a terrible and wastful person both for being prepared to get on my bike for work and look after the old folks?

onlyroz

As a student there were five of us living in a two-bed flat. We doubled up in the rooms and used the landing area as the living room. If we hadn't needed to live there then the flat would probably have been occupied by at most 3 people - and so arguably students make a much better use of the accommodation.

CLAPTON

onlyroz wrote: »

As a student there were five of us living in a two-bed flat. We doubled up in the rooms and used the landing area as the living room. If we hadn't needed to live there then the flat would probably have been occupied by at most 3 people - and so arguably students make a much better use of the accommodation.

no, not if student went to Unis near their home

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd heavily tax second homes. That way at least some revenue is raised if people still wish to purchase them.

why would you heavily tax second homes?

lisyloo

no, not if student went to Unis near their home

I was desperate to get out of my abusive home (and did).
I think it would be a mistake to assume all students can stay at home and also that they have a uni that does their subject nearby.
Mu husbnad did stay home though. I think he missed out of one some things though . It's a learning curve living away from home for the first time, managing your budgets and making new friends.

Am I allowed 2 homes or am I judged to be a terrible and wastful person both for being prepared to get on my bike for work and look after the old folks?

I am not trying to trick anyone with words, but I'd like to know what people (job seekers) are meant to do when they find a job in somewhere (London for arguments sake) but have an established family network elsewhere.
Some stay with friends and family but some do need somewhere to stay.
I am all for employers moving jobs out of London, but that's not happening.

We are not choosing to use 2 houses.
We have to because we need somewhere to live when working and unfortunately that's not near our family responsibilites.
I'm not sure who is to blame for the London centric position of the country, but I don't think it's us either for finding work and bring in genuine GDP from aborad or for not abandoning our parents (one fell over the other day - we could leave them to the NHS but I don't believe any caring offpring wouldn't pick their parents up off the floor if they could).

I'm not trying to be clever but ogten rules have unintended consequnces.
For example help single mothers and what do you get - a certain % of young women wanting a free house.
Penalise people for having spare bedrooms (fair enough in theory) but in reality you get amputees who can't have their carers stay over, so you penalise genuine people.

One thing I do know and it's that any measures need to be carefully though through.