House buying help?

Cakeguts

cherryblossomzel wrote: »

House prices are slowing down and I am operating under the (possibly pessimistic) assumption that they will do so for a few years at least. But I'm looking for a place to live and for various personal reasons feel that now is the time for me to take this step. I'm not thinking about it as an "investment" in and of itself, although of course it would be unfortunate if I were to lose money on it.

My intention also wouldn't be to sell again quickly. I feel pretty stable at the moment and hopefully that won't change in the near future, so I'm as certain as I can be that I will stay here for long enough to weather any blips in the market. Interest rates going up just means I want to fix now.

It doesn't matter if the value of your house goes down. What matters is if your mortgage is bigger than that value but only if you want to sell the house and move. If you have no intention of moving you can't get at any money tied up in your house and if it goes down in value so will all the others.



Basically you can't lose money on a house that you want to live in for a long time because you can't get at that money while you are living in the house. You can only get it when you sell and then where will you live?

Cakeguts

Smodlet wrote: »

If, Crashy, it means property ownership for those who want homes rather than investments becomes even slightly less impossible a dream for those at the bottom of the ladder, I am all for it. I will shed no tears for BTL LLs, believe me.

I fear it may mean merely that fewer BTL LLs remain in the market but own larger portfolios thereby pushing rents up even further and failing to create any better opportunities for FTBs or those on lower salaries. I very much hope the first scenario is correct.

Could you please change this to "some" buy to let landlords. I get upset with being lumped in with those who supposedly stop first time buyers from getting a property. I say supposedly because I don't have experience of this. I have just checked and we are now charging less for a 2 bed house in a very nice area than the local council are for a 2 bed house in a grotty area. Why are we doing this? Because we have a long term tenant who is not very well off. I am sure that there are lots of landlords like us but you don't hear about them in the media. We are not news. We are just going about our business treating our tenants as customers who are buying our product which is space to live in.



Some of the landlords with the biggest portfolios now are letting properties that they built to let. These properties have never been on the open market for sale they have been built to be let.



The latest figures I could find for build to rent properties was 117,893 that are either completed, under construction or have planning permission. These are modern homes for rental.



Have a look at this https://www.livedifrent.com/ It took me some time to find this. I don't remember ever hearing about schemes like this in the media only about bad landlords. Nice rental properties that tenants are happy to rent don't make news. So there are many people who think that all rental properties are in grotty areas, bad repair and are let by bad landlords who have bought 1st time buyer properties because that is what makes people want to buy newspapers or watch the news.

Crashy_Time

Cakeguts wrote: »

Could you please change this to "some" buy to let landlords. I get upset with being lumped in with those who supposedly stop first time buyers from getting a property. I say supposedly because I don't have experience of this. I have just checked and we are now charging less for a 2 bed house in a very nice area than the local council are for a 2 bed house in a grotty area. Why are we doing this? Because we have a long term tenant who is not very well off. I am sure that there are lots of landlords like us but you don't hear about them in the media. We are not news. We are just going about our business treating our tenants as customers who are buying our product which is space to live in.



Some of the landlords with the biggest portfolios now are letting properties that they built to let. These properties have never been on the open market for sale they have been built to be let.



The latest figures I could find for build to rent properties was 117,893 that are either completed, under construction or have planning permission. These are modern homes for rental.



Have a look at this https://www.livedifrent.com/ It took me some time to find this. I don't remember ever hearing about schemes like this in the media only about bad landlords. Nice rental properties that tenants are happy to rent don't make news. So there are many people who think that all rental properties are in grotty areas, bad repair and are let by bad landlords who have bought 1st time buyer properties because that is what makes people want to buy newspapers or watch the news.

Local council tab is picked up by the taxpayer though, they can charge more than you and get away with it because the tenant is using HB? I don`t believe you could get much more and retain a long term tenant TBH.

Smodlet

You are right, Cakeguts, that one never hears about decent LLs like yourself in the media, just as one never hears about good tenants or good news in general; it does not sell nearly so well as horror and disaster, of which there is always an inexhaustible supply. Did you see what is happening in the Phillipines? Margaret Attwood would be hard pressed to make that up.

You know I don't lump you in with all BTL LLs by now, any more than I would include G_M, artful or (probably) Pixie in there but you guys are the exceptions, you and Mossfarr (wonder where he is these days) How many LLs make a point of coming on here and offering sound, free advice to tenants? Not too many. There are, thankfully, exceptions; they are, imho, too few.

I have nothing but respect for you and you know why. I apologise for seeming to "lump"; such was not my intention.

Cakeguts

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Local council tab is picked up by the taxpayer though, they can charge more than you and get away with it because the tenant is using HB? I don`t believe you could get much more and retain a long term tenant TBH.

Not true. My property rent should be around £80 a month more than the council one. The house is in a very desirable area. The only one I can find available to let in that area is £80 more than we what we are letting for.



You never ever hear of things like this in the media because it doesn't make news. Plus this house is not in an area that the average 1st time buyer could afford to buy in. Small houses can be expensive if they are in expensive areas.

Crashy_Time

Cakeguts wrote: »

Not true. My property rent should be around £80 a month more than the council one. The house is in a very desirable area. The only one I can find available to let in that area is £80 more than we what we are letting for.



You never ever hear of things like this in the media because it doesn't make news. Plus this house is not in an area that the average 1st time buyer could afford to buy in. Small houses can be expensive if they are in expensive areas.

But they don`t have a tenant, so what I am saying is probably true? The council tenant still probably gets HB, whereas the private tenant doesn`t?