Why the bad news for landlords is just beginning

Windofchange

Cakeguts

London appears to be different. Our properties are in Lancashire and the rents there have gone up a lot recently.

Plus I often see property advertised as suitable for an investor because first time buyers don't want it. We don't buy those. Not our part of the rental market.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

The solution in my view is to skew planning regulations so that it is difficult to build business premises and housing in areas of expensive housing, and easy in areas of low prices. That would drive businesses to the regions and encourage people to move there and require infrastructure to grow in those areas...

Those regions might well have names like Guangdong.

BobQ wrote: »

...It would also mean that places like London would find it impossible to grow bigger, and nurses and teachers would be difficult to recruit unless more realistic pay was offered.

Won't the nurses and teachers have been "encouraged" to move to Guangdong? Now you want to encourage them to move back again?

Electrum

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

The majority of the population already do own property.

The fact is that home ownership percentages are at lowest levels in living memory. This is a warning sign

economic

Electrum wrote: »

The fact is that home ownership percentages are at lowest levels in living memory. This is a warning sign

not really.

westernpromise

Ownership levels are back to those of the 1980s, which the Labour Party of the day was bitterly opposed to increasing.

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

Ownership levels are back to those of the 1980s, which the Labour Party of the day was bitterly opposed to increasing.

Only in percentage terms not in units owned which is an importing to note

The additional 3-4 million EU migrants over the decade is responsible for about 1.5 million of the additional rentals. If you excluded them and look at the ownership levels of the natives it will look better

lisyloo

ukcarper wrote: »

I think all workers deserves security of tenure and it doesn't follow that people on lower incomes have not worked hard.

I don't want or need it.
I have no issue with it being available to others, provided it's not cross subsidised by those of us who prefer flexibility and are happy to put our belonging in a suitcase and move (rented accommodation in London is usually furnished).

The-Joker

ukcarper wrote: »

Renting does not have security of tenure.

Buying is much larger risk than renting

westernpromise

The-Joker wrote: »

Buying is much larger risk than renting

That's not what Crashy Time has found. He sold to rent 20 years ago. If he'd stayed bought in he'd now own outright the place he sold, and would have a big pile of cash as well. As it is, he has a small pile of cash and faces indefinite renting.

It is to avoid that that people buy.