Not a time to be a buy-to-let landlord

antrobus

westernpromise wrote: »

Yes, but you get several renting households per property as opposed to only one household per identical owned property.

Based on what evidence?

cells

antrobus wrote: »

That's what you always say whenever presented with some facts that contradicts your prejudices. The data must be wrong!:rotfl:

Personally, I have more confidence in the reliability of ONS data, that your data.:)

Using their data (and reasonable assumptions about the size of 1,2,3,4,5 bed homes) it comes to 25 sqm for renters and 33 sqm for owners

Anyway, I am not questioning the ONS I am questioning the respondents to the surveys the ONS does to collect its data.

You know how all the pollsters got the GE result off by quite a margin, well the ONS for a lot of its data sets uses sampling too and some of it might be wrong in the same way as samples of people telling lies (eg a renter living 10 to a house might say...3...from embarrassment etc)

cells

antrobus wrote: »

Based on what evidence?

The ons data suggests 33 sqm for owners vs 25 sqm for renters so there is no challenge here just your wish to disagree with people on the internet

padington

anchovypizza wrote: »

I mean this with no malice, anger or hate, I do not like or dislike you, and have no idea who you are, but could probably build up a decent picture on what I have read.

I hope that you lose your shirt in the next few years and recover enough from it not for it to have any lasting effects on your health...

Society does not need people like you in it, and yes we do need rental property in the UK

It's pretty hard for anyone to lose their shirt since rigorous mortgage checks and huge house price gains.

We're a nation of shirt keepers if you ask me.

CLAPTON

It doesn't seem to me that average data whether right or wrong is relevant to the issues at hand.

The issue really is : if there is a sell off of rented property to OOs, what sort of people will buy what sort of house.
As this situation hasn't really happened before, existing statistics are unlikely to be much help.

So while it fairly likely that one bed flats will be like for like i.e. single or couple will be replaced by single or couple
it's less clear what will happen to 2,3,4 bed properties
so will a 3 bed house (probably occupied by more than 3 people ) be bought for occupation by less, equal or more people).

I don't know the answer: my guess would be, on average, there will be fewer people living in the OO properties than formally

cells

I have said this before but its worth repeating, I really do not think the tax changes are going to stop BTL let alone reverse it. Not while house building is this low and population growth this high.

Also we need to remember that most landlords are probably accidental landlords (as by far most landlords only have 1 rental property) who decide to keep their old home and rent it out rather than sell it. I think discouraging that might be an effective way of slowing down the growth in rentals (and also increasing transaction volumes which have a positive knock on effect)

Maybe there should be proper licencing of landlords. Something like a 50 hour course and an exam. That would probably put off a lot of the accidental landlords which I think were responsible for the conversion of ~1.5 million owner homes to rentals over the last 10 years.

anchovypizza

chucknorris wrote: »

You are just another internet fool, I don't care what you think. But for the record if you had bothered to actually read my posts, you would know that I charge below the market rent, which is why it was so easy for me to increase the rents. But of course we already know that you don't do your research before leaping in, don't we 'laddie'.

I have already explained to you once, that I have way passed the losing my shirt position, how many times and different ways do I have to explain that to you, before it sinks in?

That was quite a rude rant and uncalled for seeing as though I am just trying to debate, the very thing you chastise HPC for on a daily basis. Read back S L O W L Y this time

Did "you" not read the very post you are ranting about, it was quite clear that I "want" people like you to lose your shirt, but have no idea if you will, seeing I have no idea the circumstances of your fantasy portfolio.

Do not take it personally, I am a big supporter of a decent rental market with choice, just do not like the type of attitude you have going on your posts.

anchovypizza

CLAPTON wrote: »

just love the concept that one can, without malice, wish some-one harm.

Yep

Just like I mean no malice to 1000's of people who would lose jobs once I got rid of the smoking industry, which I would do or a few hundred years ago when I would have supported the removal of the slave industry and the loss of jobs

Let me know if those two examples are to difficult for you to get around your head and I will come up with something more simple

CLAPTON

anchovypizza wrote: »

Yep

Just like I mean no malice to 1000's of people who would lose jobs once I got rid of the smoking industry, which I would do or a few hundred years ago when I would have supported the removal of the slave industry and the loss of jobs

Let me know if those two examples are to difficult for you to get around your head and I will come up with something more simple

oh dear

I was wrong about the malice then
and no sense of humour either

chucknorris

anchovypizza wrote: »

That was quite a rude rant and uncalled for seeing as though I am just trying to debate, the very thing you chastise HPC for on a daily basis. Read back S L O W L Y this time

Did "you" not read the very post you are ranting about, it was quite clear that I "want" people like you to lose your shirt, but have no idea if you will, seeing I have no idea the circumstances of your fantasy portfolio.

Do not take it personally, I am a big supporter of a decent rental market with choice, just do not like the type of attitude you have going on your posts.

Are you really this daft? What is there to debate about, when you want me to lose everything, do you really expect me to see your point of view? You want me to debate with you, as to whether or not I should lose everything? Can't you see that I might tend to lean one way on that question?

Also in one sentence you want me to lose my shirt because of my wealth, and in another sentence in the same post you state my portfolio is fantasy, if it was all fantasy then your wanting me to lose my shirt, wouldn't quite fit, would it? So which is it, I am wealthy and you don't like it, or its all fantasy, I think you need to have a chat with yourself and get your story straight.