What should the politicians do?

Crashy_Time

Comms69 wrote: »

The process is only 3 months for a mandatory s.8 notice because of lack of court time and resources, so who pays for this?

The landlord?

FBaby

Finally, in 2015, there was just three times more lending to first-time buyers than landlords.

Do we know officially that this is because demand by LL has increased rather than reduction of demand by first time buyers? Is it the case that first time buyers don't get to be owners because LL are favoured to get the properties they are competing for? Couldn't it be because there are fewer families able to afford becoming an owner for the first time? Surely it is mainly an issue of cost?

More owner-occupiers = less tenants. The supply of rental properties might drop as landlords decide to sell up or invest elsewhere instead of increasing their property portfolio but as there will be less people wanting to rent there will be less demand for those rental properties available.

The vast majority of LL (did I read somewhere that it is over 85%) do not own a portfolio of properties, only a second, often by default. I'm not convinced that there will be less people needing to rent at all, on the opposite and I think this will only lead to yet even more pressure on social housing.

Landlords letting those types of properties, I would have thought, would be looking for very long term tenants because that's the sort of tenant the property will attract.

Indeed, IF the tenants are not suddenly stopping to pay rent due to job loss, separation of the family etc... and the family is looking after the home like theirs rather than letting it deteriorate twice as fast as a home owner would.

It's a Sword of Damocles that dangles above tenants' heads and is misused and abused by so many landlords and letting agents.

I don't think that's what most LL have an issue with. The issue is that when they do have a good reason to evict, it becomes a stressful and costly process. The stress alone is enough to want to do everything to reduce the odds of having to go through this.

No that choice would not be security. Couple #1 would have more choice in where to live which also means a wider choice of schools for their children, living in a lower crime rate area, the size of house - siblings don't have to share rooms, a garden, a larger garden, room for a pony, more living space. More choices than someone on a more limited budget would have.

That choice is not real though. People are restricted by their budget, and being able to pick your perfect property in your idea location is yet another luxury above that of security.

You still haven't answered my point about people who do important but low paid jobs from whom home ownership might never be an option.

Most families where both work FT and decide not to have 3 + children will be capable to become home owner in their 30s or 40s if they make it a priority. Most don't though and opt to work PT (at least 1 out of the 2) or have more children which inevitably limit their ability to save for a deposit or have enough income to pass the affordability test.

Pixie5740

FBaby wrote: »

Do we know officially that this is because demand by LL has increased rather than reduction of demand by first time buyers? Is it the case that first time buyers don't get to be owners because LL are favoured to get the properties they are competing for? Couldn't it be because there are fewer families able to afford becoming an owner for the first time? Surely it is mainly an issue of cost?

First time buyers were not competing on an even footing with landlords. Take affordability for example for owner-occupiers it was based on the buyers income and that affordability reduced with the introduction of MMR in April 2014. Meanwhile landlords affordability was based on rental income and interest only payments. Furthermore, mortgage interest was (still is for some at the moment) an allowable expense to reduce income tax liability an advantage that owner-occupiers didn't have. Many landlords have used the huge HPI seen by their own homes as a way of raising capital to fund BTL whilst FTB have to save a deposit whilst rents and HPI increases outstrip salary increases. Then there are those who, once on the housing ladder themselves, decide to keep hold of their FTB properties to let out whilst moving up the ladder therefore reducing the stock available for FTB. How many of those landlords are letting without consent of the mortgage lender?

Do you think it is a coincidence that the number of landlords competing with FTB has fallen since the playing fields were evened a little with the changes in taxes for additional properties and mortgage interest relief? The less attractive BTL is made the less people will want to be landlords and the less competition buyers, FTB in particular will face. The BTL market was too hot, the government recognised this hence the tax changes and the Bank of England recognises this hence the changes to BTL mortgage affordability tests.

FBaby wrote: »

The vast majority of LL (did I read somewhere that it is over 85%) do not own a portfolio of properties, only a second, often by default. I'm not convinced that there will be less people needing to rent at all, on the opposite and I think this will only lead to yet even more pressure on social housing.

I could well believe there are a lot of one-man-band landlords operating out there. Enough of whom don't see to understand the basic legal requirement of being a landlord and/or are happy to completely devolve decisions to letting agents and don't seem to give a toss how much their agents are fleecing tenants for or the nonsense spouted by the agents about renewals etc. How can a landlord have a second property be default? Surely that is a choice the landlord has made it's not a default position at all.

If there are more people buying due to less competition with landlords for properties there will be less people looking to rent so I don't follow your logic that there won't be less people looking to rent.

FBaby wrote: »

Indeed, IF the tenants are not suddenly stopping to pay rent due to job loss, separation of the family etc... and the family is looking after the home like theirs rather than letting it deteriorate twice as fast as a home owner would.


I don't think that's what most LL have an issue with. The issue is that when they do have a good reason to evict, it becomes a stressful and costly process. The stress alone is enough to want to do everything to reduce the odds of having to go through this.

If landlords want to evict because they have a good reason then why the need for the Section 21? The Section 8 route would take the same amount of time and for some grounds is even quicker than using a Section 21 particularly when a tenant falls into arrears. Absolutely landlords should be able to serve notice to tenants who are in arrears or persistently pay the rent late or cause significant damage to the property or the landlord needs to sell etc. I just think that it's dangerous to allow tenants to be evicted for no good reason. It has been abused by too many landlords and letting agents. I don't think that when the Housing Act 1988 was introduced Mrs T expected landlords and letting agents to use the Section 21 as a Sword of Damocles how wrong she was.

FBaby wrote: »

That choice is not real though. People are restricted by their budget, and being able to pick your perfect property in your idea location is yet another luxury above that of security.

We shall have to agree to disagree on this point. I do not see having a secure tenure of the roof over your head as a luxury. If you abide by the rules and act in a tenant-like manner you should have to live with the worry that your next 6 months could be your last or be too scared to report repairs and escalate those repairs to the council if necessary in case it leads to eviction.

FBaby wrote: »

Most families where both work FT and decide not to have 3 + children will be capable to become home owner in their 30s or 40s if they make it a priority. Most don't though and opt to work PT (at least 1 out of the 2) or have more children which inevitably limit their ability to save for a deposit or have enough income to pass the affordability test.

Is that the case where families have been unable to buy it's because one parent works PT (which is sometime more cost effective once child care has been factored in) or because they have more than 3 children? I think geography will have a lot to do with it. There are parts of the country where buying a home is a realistic goal for people on low(ish) and average incomes and there are other parts of the country where it's just not going to happen where people can't save faster than HPI and whilst trying to save more the rent goes up. Before you say they should move somewhere less expensive who will work in the nurseries where all these FT worker parents put their kids all day if the nursery staff can't afford to buy in the area but would like some more stability for their own family.

Where are these people who are putting off buying until their 30s and 40s going to live whilst saving? I imagine most of them will need to rent somewhere so why shouldn't they be able to rent somewhere without a landlord or letting agent threatening them with a Section 21. Every £ paid to a letting agent money diverted to the deposit. When should they start a family? Whilst renting with the instability that brings under current legislation or should they put off having a family until much older and have bought somewhere. That then leaves them problems such as it being more difficult to conceive or having to pay out a fortune for IVF and a higher risk of complications during the pregnancy and delivery, and increased chances of having a baby with a congenital abnormality.

Crashy_Time

The politicians will do whatever brings them votes, at the moment that is cheaper housing and rents.