Rents soar to (another) record high

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

So you are just another leveraged landlord then? Maybe the thought that this guy couldn`t sell upsets you a bit? :rotfl:

Maybe the thought that he either sold or got another tenant to pay more rent upsets you a bit. Is that why you haven't checked to see if he sold or not?

Jason74

cells wrote: »

Rents are set by tenants. For all intents and purposes renting is like an auction with renters bidding against each other until a clearing price is reached.

That much is certain. It gets a bit more complicated when you try to figure out how the quantity of renters and supply changes to various factors. But it's certain that rents are set by renters not landlords.

Agreed. Which rather works against the argument that landlords can just pass on higher costs. As you say, they don't have the influence to do that, as the price is ultimately set by tenants

cells

Jason74 wrote: »

Agreed. Which rather works against the argument that landlords can just pass on higher costs. As you say, they don't have the influence to do that, as the price is ultimately set by tenants

yes but the tax changes are likely to result in tenants bidding up prices further as the supply of renters slightly shifts to less densely occupied owners.

Also there is a section of long term tenants that are on v.good rents as the landlord has not increased the rent for many years. A tenant who is paying £1,000 a month when the same properties are going for £1,600 a month might find that the tax changes are enough for the landlord to finally write that letter saying 'sorry buddy but they just increased taxes on me so im gona have to put your rent up to market prices' these groups will suffer the most

CLAPTON

supply and demand determine price in a reasonable 'free' market with many players

mwpt

cells wrote: »

yes but the tax changes are likely to result in tenants bidding up prices further as the supply of renters slightly shifts to less densely occupied owners.

Also there is a section of long term tenants that are on v.good rents as the landlord has not increased the rent for many years. A tenant who is paying £1,000 a month when the same properties are going for £1,600 a month might find that the tax changes are enough for the landlord to finally write that letter saying 'sorry buddy but they just increased taxes on me so im gona have to put your rent up to market prices' these groups will suffer the most

Yes, both those outcomes are possible. The first is an "either way" type scenario for me. Essentially it is saying that OOs have been let down for the last 14 years as OO occupation rate (%) peaked in 2002, and tenants have been given an easier time as occupation rate shifted to PRS. Of course, some on this forum will say this actually increased rents because fewer OOs meant more renters bidding for rental property. But others on this forum think it works the other way by stating that if we shift back to higher OO occupation it will again mean higher rents as fewer rental properties. So basically, renters are !!!!ed either way so I suggest lets support the action that leads to lower house prices for OOs looking to buy.

Crashy_Time

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe the thought that he either sold or got another tenant to pay more rent upsets you a bit. Is that why you haven't checked to see if he sold or not?

I will try one more time - Do you really believe it took him seven years to discover that he could charge more rent? Yes or no is fine.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/13/landlords-should-be-squealing-under-george-osbornes-crackdown-tr/

Thrugelmir

cells wrote: »

yes but the tax changes are likely to result in tenants bidding up prices further as the supply of renters slightly shifts to less densely occupied owners.

Judging by the gnashing of teeth in some quarters. Tax changes are seen as damaging to their business model.

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

I will try one more time - Do you really believe it took him seven years to discover that he could charge more rent? Yes or no is fine.

As I've said you were a good tenant, no trouble, paid cash, probably a decent yield because you prefer cheap over value, capital value increasing - a good way to minimise rent increases I'd guess.

Anyhow you said he didn't try to put up the rent but was selling up so you moved on. So did he sell or not - what's the big secret?

Your rent covered a big old wedge of his buying price whilst he enjoyed some capital gains I'd say.

Crashy_Time

wotsthat wrote: »

As I've said you were a good tenant, no trouble, paid cash, probably a decent yield because you prefer cheap over value, capital value increasing - a good way to minimise rent increases I'd guess.

Anyhow you said he didn't try to put up the rent but was selling up so you moved on. So did he sell or not - what's the big secret?

Your rent covered a big old wedge of his buying price whilst he enjoyed some capital gains I'd say.

Would have thought it would have been capital losses for that type of flat, unless he bought way before 2007, but again you dodge the question which of course we all already know the answer to

Crashy_Time

Telegraph headline is a classic isn`t it? We all know from the HPI madness how quickly the sheeple latch on to the current meme, should be fun watching this lot unravel :money: