Homes Under The Hammer today

POPPYOSCAR

I can remember one where a young couple were so excited when they won.

I thought how lovely just starting out in life etc. probably their first home.

But no they had bought it to do up and sell on.

You never can tell.

agrinnall

Arklight wrote: »

The problem isn't that people can buy houses and rent them out. The problem is that the taxpayer spends £25 billion a year paying the mortgages of private landlords to house people who should be in council rented accommodation, or in affordable owned accommodation.

It's simply a wealth transfer from the state to private individuals, and it's a colossal state subsidy of the private mortgage industry. There is no other country that does this.

And how exactly is that the fault of private landlords? If national and local governments of all political persuasions have declined to fund council house building since the 1980s then I'd argue that private LLs are providing an invaluable service - if they weren't there where do you think all those people currently renting would be living?

custardy

Arklight wrote: »

The problem isn't that people can buy houses and rent them out. The problem is that the taxpayer spends £25 billion a year paying the mortgages of private landlords to house people who should be in council rented accommodation, or in affordable owned accommodation.

It's simply a wealth transfer from the state to private individuals, and it's a colossal state subsidy of the private mortgage industry. There is no other country that does this.

agrinnall wrote: »

And how exactly is that the fault of private landlords? If national and local governments of all political persuasions have declined to fund council house building since the 1980s then I'd argue that private LLs are providing an invaluable service - if they weren't there where do you think all those people currently renting would be living?

Where do they say it is?

fairy_lights

My favourite part of Homes under the Hammer is when they bring the estate agents in at the end.
"You've done a good job of the renovations" they say, "Although you'd have been able to achieve a higher profit if the work had been done to a slightly higher standard. But as it's for the rental market, this'll do..."
Camera pans round to reveal blotchy magnolia walls, scrubby blue carpet and kitchen reclaimed from a scrapyard. *Jazzy themetune kicks in*

Cakeguts

Arklight wrote: »

The problem isn't that people can buy houses and rent them out. The problem is that the taxpayer spends £25 billion a year paying the mortgages of private landlords to house people who should be in council rented accommodation, or in affordable owned accommodation.

It's simply a wealth transfer from the state to private individuals, and it's a colossal state subsidy of the private mortgage industry. There is no other country that does this.

You have forgotten to mention all the private landlords who don't have mortgages and don't let to people claiming benefits but do offer employment to lots of trades people who look after the repairs on the rented houses which have to be kept to a high standard.

kingstreet

I'm a bit surprised by some of the comments.

This Government has surprisingly done more to put-off would-be landlords than any other in recent times, IMHO.

The SDLT surcharge and the restrictions on how mortgage interest will be allowable; along with the new PRA rules on landlord mortgage affordability should reduce demand in the BTL sector.

We're certainly getting fewer enquiries and much surprise when we explain the above.

Heliflyguy

agrinnall wrote: »

And how exactly is that the fault of private landlords? If national and local governments of all political persuasions have declined to fund council house building since the 1980s then I'd argue that private LLs are providing an invaluable service - if they weren't there where do you think all those people currently renting would be living?

Cant disagree with the first part of your post but to suggest private LL,s were fore filling some sort of divine service to the people who would otherwise be living on the streets has to be the funniest thing I have read all day. That must be why they never put up rents because of demand or just because they just can.

Maybe just maybe there would be more properties available to buy and therefore prices might be somehow a little more affordable if there were fewer LL's with huge portfolios.

Cheeky_Monkey

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Didnt see the programme - but am guessing they looked like they werent flush with money and maybe said it was to be a home to them - hence conclusion they wanted it as a home.

I didn't see the programme either but that's not how it works. The programme representatives attending the auction don't interview people who have been unsuccessful, only those who have won the bid and want to take part in the programme.

hazyjo

Out of interest, how much did they say the property was worth once they'd done it up? (Presuming they did do a refurb of sorts!)

Heliflyguy

Cakeguts wrote: »

You have forgotten to mention all the private landlords who don't have mortgages and don't let to people claiming benefits but do offer employment to lots of trades people who look after the repairs on the rented houses which have to be kept to a high standard.

Second funniest.