Owner Occupiers > BTL Landlord

HENRY78

Is there anyway the government can bring in new legislation to ensure that OO are given preferential treatment over private landlords when bidding for a property?


I appreciate we live in an open market and the new tax laws for Landlords hopefully will make things a little more difficult for Landlords to add to their portfolio.


Its not the only cause of the housing crisis in the UK but in the area I live in its the biggest annoyance and anger to FTB when they are outbid by a cash buyer landlord and this happens regularly unfortunately.


I would of thought that it would be relatively easy to police to ensure any properties that are put on the market were for OO only. eg individuals and families who will be living in the said property.


My idea would be a window of 60 days for OO bids only then if the property has not been sold at that point Landlords may bid for the property. I would extend this to auction houses as well.


Not sure if this is legally possibly or not but IMO would be a great thing for FTB in particular.


Of course there would be opposition from Landlords and probably estate agents who receive back handers from property developers for preferential treatment.


Just a thought.

CLAPTON

HENRY78 wrote: »

Is there anyway the government can bring in new legislation to ensure that OO are given preferential treatment over private landlords when bidding for a property?


I appreciate we live in an open market and the new tax laws for Landlords hopefully will make things a little more difficult for Landlords to add to their portfolio.


Its not the only cause of the housing crisis in the UK but in the area I live in its the biggest annoyance and anger to FTB when they are outbid by a cash buyer landlord and this happens regularly unfortunately.


I would of thought that it would be relatively easy to police to ensure any properties that are put on the market were for OO only. eg individuals and families who will be living in the said property.


My idea would be a window of 60 days for OO bids only then if the property has not been sold at that point Landlords may bid for the property. I would extend this to auction houses as well.


Not sure if this is legally possibly or not but IMO would be a great thing for FTB in particular.


Of course there would be opposition from Landlords and probably estate agents who receive back handers from property developers for preferential treatment.


Just a thought.

surely sellers would merely wait 60 days for the best price.

Clearly you wish to help FTB which is commendable but clearly you are screwing people who need to rent.

purch

HENRY78 wrote: »

Is there anyway the government can bring in new legislation to ensure that OO are given preferential treatment over private landlords when bidding for a property?

The Government can bring about any legislation it thinks fit. I doubt it could be workable, but that probably wouldn't stop them.

HENRY78 wrote: »

I would extend this to auction houses as well.

I've been to some boring Auctions, but one that lasted 2 months would be too much :eek:

HENRY78

CLAPTON wrote: »

surely sellers would merely wait 60 days for the best price.

Clearly you wish to help FTB which is commendable but clearly you are screwing people who need to rent.

Not really. Where I live (Hertfordshire) there are more 1 & 2 bed flat/small houses to rent than there are to buy. Anything for sale for a reasonable price gets snapped up very quickly and a lot of the time by a portfolio landlord when a FTB could of purchased their first home.


The price is set with when the property is placed on the market. If a FTB or LL meets the asking price I don't see the difference for a vendor.

HENRY78

purch wrote: »

The Government can bring about any legislation it thinks fit. I doubt it could be workable, but that probably wouldn't stop them.



I've been to some boring Auctions, but one that lasted 2 months would be too much :eek:

In London and the South East any suitably priced properties would be snapped up very quickly even without landlords. A lot of FTB in the trade would love the opportunity to purchase a property that needed a bit of work to live in. Better then than some landlord who will just do it up and rent it out?

PasturesNew

CLAPTON wrote: »

... clearly you are screwing people who need to rent.

No. There is no difference in the number of houses, just ownership.

If somebody cannot buy a house as their home to live in, then it increases the competition for the same house as a rental.

PasturesNew

CLAPTON wrote: »

surely sellers would merely wait 60 days for the best price.
.

It's not always about price. A BTL LL with a local reputation with the agents of buying property in the past is more likely to be promoted as the "offer to accept".

The OO and the BTL LL might be offering the same amount, but the BTL LL might indicate they can complete quicker and with less hoops to jump through to get a mortgage. A seller might be lead to believe, by the EA, that the OO will be slower and "might change their mind".

BTL LLs are often "tipped off" ahead of the pack when properties are about to come onto the market. "Hello John, got another for you in .... Ave, I know you've got a couple round the corner already. I'll be there this afternoon to get the contract signed... are you interested in viewing it tomorrow?"

CLAPTON

HENRY78 wrote: »

Not really. Where I live (Hertfordshire) there are more 1 & 2 bed flat/small houses to rent than there are to buy. Anything for sale for a reasonable price gets snapped up very quickly and a lot of the time by a portfolio landlord when a FTB could of purchased their first home.


The price is set with when the property is placed on the market. If a FTB or LL meets the asking price I don't see the difference for a vendor.

Are you saying then that the LL don't offer more than the OOs?

If so then what's the problem?

good to know that renting in Hertfordshire is easy and presumably cheap

HENRY78

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's not always about price. A BTL LL with a local reputation with the agents of buying property in the past is more likely to be promoted as the "offer to accept".

The OO and the BTL LL might be offering the same amount, but the BTL LL might indicate they can complete quicker and with less hoops to jump through to get a mortgage. A seller might be lead to believe, by the EA, that the OO will be slower and "might change their mind".

BTL LLs are often "tipped off" ahead of the pack when properties are about to come onto the market. "Hello John, got another for you in .... Ave, I know you've got a couple round the corner already. I'll be there this afternoon to get the contract signed... are you interested in viewing it tomorrow?"

Absolutely spot on!

HENRY78

CLAPTON wrote: »

Are you saying then that the LL don't offer more than the OOs?

If so then what's the problem?

good to know that renting in Hertfordshire is easy and presumably cheap

The problem is the EA will push a Landlord as the preferred buyer to the Vendor, in fact in many cases an offer made by an OO is not even put in front of the vendor.


Not cheap at all. Ridiculously expensive.

CLAPTON

PasturesNew wrote: »

No. There is no difference in the number of houses, just ownership.

If somebody cannot buy a house as their home to live in, then it increases the competition for the same house as a rental.

There is lack of real data about then number of people that live in houses so I have to base my view on anecdote.
It seems that the great majority of young people I know (or know of via their parents) tend to move from a share rental flat to their own property.

so may move from being two couples in a two bed place to their own 1/2/3 bed place rather than say from a 1 bed rental to a 1 bed owner.
Not real data but true for my own offspring and many of their friends and the children of my friends