Renters pushed to breaking point as Britain's selfish homeowners gloat their hands

Cornucopia

Carl31 wrote: »

its not about whether its affordable, its whether its a fair deal for the consumer

Okay, so what is fair?

ruggedtoast

Once again the landlords of the forum receive the opportunity to surprise everyone by demonstrating that they aren't really boorish gloating money toads with fragile self esteem issuers oriented around some petty sense of superiority over renters - and fail to take it.

mwpt

caronoel wrote: »

Ahh!! That explains it.

Joined MSE in late 2007, just as the property market went into its deepest one year fall in living memory... missed the chance back then to buy at a bargain bucket rate before the low point of Q1 2009. You have been whining on here ever since about the next big fall.

If I'd wasted 8 years waiting for a fall that never came, sitting in rented while I knew I had the cash for a deposit, I'd probably feel a bit bitter too

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Why not just stay with your chums on housepricecrash.co.uk? You'll find lots of similarly (or smaller) minded folks over there to stroke your ego.

Interestingly though, there seems to be a lot fewer of them over there than there was a few years ago. Maybe, like you, most of them realised the futility of waiting for the Great Fall, and have bought.

Caronoel,

You do have to admit that house price rises outstripping wages is actually only a good thing for a certain subset of people. Property investors, multiple home owners of other sort, and those who plan on emigrating (presumably to a country without a scarcity of supply).

To the rest of the population, that is most, excessively rising house prices is terrible. It only looks good in comparison to renting, and that unfortunately is the short sighted view of most single home OOs. They don't consider that it'll be even harder to upgrade for themselves in the future. Not to mention cost to business, social mobility issues, ever increasing and dangerous private debt, etc. I'm not saying anything new here, I'm sure you've debated all this before.

But my point is, many landlords are still afloat because interest rates were slashed and multiple other schemes from the government (FLS, QE). Fergus Wilson said this himself I believe. Then, when a landlord goes on the attack about "mugs" who waited for a house price crash, it's really a blood boiler, I can tell you.

I say this as someone who thought the market was overvalued for many years. When it appeared that finally extreme lending would be reigned in and the market would correct (2008), we saw all the schemes released that protected house values. That was another extremely bitter pill to swallow. The fact that the government was "forced" to protected indebted/leveraged over those saving and waiting. And it's still going on.

greensalad

marleyboy wrote: »

Do homeowners gloat - I doubt it as I don't and don't know any other homeowner who does. Maybe its more a case of sour grapes from the OP, who seems to have a bee in their bonnet over those who own a home.

It can be hard. My Dad (owner of 4 properties) told me earlier this year "I have so much money, I just don't know what to do with it. I'm thinking of buying two more flats". He doesn't actually care about the rent, he just wants the property value to increase, the rent is just a nice littler helper.

Yet I've spent the week searching for affordable 2 bed properties in the entire of Surrey and Kent and am struggling to find anything reasonable. Or not reasonable, for that matter.

caronoel

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Average monthly rent in London hits £1500.

Fifteen. Hundred. Pounds.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/15/london-rents-homelet-survey-housing-crisis

This is now approaching 100% of take home salary for people on an average salary.

How on earth are people meant to live?



This is combined with Britain having the most insecure, predatory and just downright unfair rental market in Europe.

I feel especially sorry for parents who can't even give a vague assurance to their kids that they will finish terms in the same school that they started in.


A man contemplates his appointment with Foxtons Letting Department later that day

Britain's hard working renting families deserve better than being pushed into ever more shoddy accommodation in ever worse locales.

Meanwhile:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/house-prices/11674108/Rush-to-buy-after-Conservative-victory-pushes-house-prices-to-record.html




As long as a small amount of people have more money the needs of a large amount of people regarding housing are forgotten

NIMBYs must be overruled. Britain needs buy to let landlords like it needs another bout of Black Death.

Homes for people not hedge funds.


The Homeowner's code

Back to the OP's comical little rant.

£1,500 rent, eh?

£1,500 would roughly equate to a 95% long term fixe rate mortgage on a property worth £300k-350k.

Just popping that price range into Rightmove for a 2+ bedroom place in London brought up more than 1,000 places:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?searchType=SALE&locationIdentifier=REGION%5E87490&insId=1&radius=0.0&minPrice=300000&maxPrice=350000&minBedrooms=2&maxBedrooms=&displayPropertyType=&maxDaysSinceAdded=&_includeSSTC=on&sortByPriceDescending=&primaryDisplayPropertyType=&secondaryDisplayPropertyType=&oldDisplayPropertyType=&oldPrimaryDisplayPropertyType=&newHome=&auction=false

:eek::eek:

Surely this really does evidence that now is a great time to buy to lock in your housing costs for 5 years at £1,500 pcm, and not need to worry about rising rents or being chucked out by your LL at a moments notice.

Such a no brainer to buy now that even ruggedtoast has done it

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

ukcarper

mwpt wrote: »

Caronoel,

You do have to admit that house price rises outstripping wages is actually only a good thing for a certain subset of people. Property investors, multiple home owners of other sort, and those who plan on emigrating (presumably to a country without a scarcity of supply).

To the rest of the population, that is most, excessively rising house prices is terrible. It only looks good in comparison to renting, and that unfortunately is the short sighted view of most single home OOs. They don't consider that it'll be even harder to upgrade for themselves in the future. Not to mention cost to business, social mobility issues, ever increasing and dangerous private debt, etc. I'm not saying anything new here, I'm sure you've debated all this before.

But my point is, many landlords are still afloat because interest rates were slashed and multiple other schemes from the government (FLS, QE). Fergus Wilson said this himself I believe. Then, when a landlord goes on the attack about "mugs" who waited for a house price crash, it's really a blood boiler, I can tell you.

I say this as someone who thought the market was overvalued for many years. When it appeared that finally extreme lending would be reigned in and the market would correct (2008), we saw all the schemes released that protected house values. That was another extremely bitter pill to swallow. The fact that the government was "forced" to protected indebted/leveraged over those saving and waiting. And it's still going on.

Although I agree that high house prices are not a good thing for the majority. You make a couple of assumptions that I disagree with, not every landlord is over indebted and would be in trouble if interest rates increased I suspect that the majority wouldn't although their profits would reduce. Secondly a lot of the people who would have been badly effected by high interest rates (which were not solely to protect housing market) were recent buyers who are no different to the people trying to buy now.

mwpt

ukcarper wrote: »

Although I agree that high house prices are not a good thing for the majority. You make a couple of assumptions that I disagree with, not every landlord is over indebted and would be in trouble if interest rates increased I suspect that the majority wouldn't although their profits would reduce. Secondly a lot of the people who would have been badly effected by high interest rates (which were not solely to protect housing market) were recent buyers who are no different to the people trying to buy now.

Eh? You read my post and then came up with those objections? I didn't say that every landlord is over indebted. I also made no point about OOs. I agree, OOs would be in trouble, but why are they different to renters? What makes it bad to increase rates and put OOs into trouble but not bad to screw over renter savers?

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

But my point is, many landlords are still afloat because interest rates were slashed and multiple other schemes from the government (FLS, QE). Fergus Wilson said this himself I believe. Then, when a landlord goes on the attack about "mugs" who waited for a house price crash, it's really a blood boiler, I can tell you.

Fergus adopted a high risk model that was 100% reliant on ever increasing credit and HPI so shouldn't really be seen as the average BTL landlord. For sure some were rescued by low rates but most just quietly increased their margin.

mwpt wrote: »

I say this as someone who thought the market was overvalued for many years. When it appeared that finally extreme lending would be reigned in and the market would correct (2008), we saw all the schemes released that protected house values. That was another extremely bitter pill to swallow. The fact that the government was "forced" to protected indebted/leveraged over those saving and waiting. And it's still going on.

I've noticed that those who could've purchased but rented in the hope of a housing crash do tend to possess high levels of bitterness especially when the sheeple, with their lower intellect, just bought a house because they wanted one, had access to credit and the means to pay the mortgage.

It's ironic that some BTL owners might have been bailed out by tenants willing to take a gamble on house prices.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

I've noticed that those who could've purchased but rented in the hope of a housing crash do tend to possess high levels of bitterness especially when the sheeple, with their lower intellect, just bought a house because they wanted one, had access to credit and the means to pay the mortgage.

Yes, your last point is very valid, most people don't really consider much when it comes to housing. Which is fine, and good if you're a property investor willing to leverage that.

But bitterness is to be expected when the single biggest investment of your life, the single biggest expense per month, is just getting out of control and the government pander to those who already own it. I am not a socialist, I believe in free markets, but we don't have a free market on land. We have champagne socialist policies and most of the population are the losers from this (they just don't realise it).

ukcarper

mwpt wrote: »

Eh? You read my post and then came up with those objections? I didn't say that every landlord is over indebted. I also made no point about OOs. I agree, OOs would be in trouble, but why are they different to renters? What makes it bad to increase rates and put OOs into trouble but not bad to screw over renter savers?

You imply that the majority are and if low interest rates are benefiting buyers they are benefiting renters as landlords can accept a lower yield. The problem is only really London and a few other places where I am in Surrey you can still rent a 2 bed flat £850.