Right to buy on privately rented homes

Green_Bear

MobileSaver wrote: »

Many of us here have said for years that building more houses is the way to "fix the problem" but for whatever reason the government seems to have had little interest in prioritising this. So I think the current supply/demand imbalance will continue for some time yet.


McDonnell may have said "I don't think it's complicated" but that just shows how clueless he and the proposal are; the banks will have a charge on the property and a legal right to prevent the sale if there's not enough money around to clear that charge.

The govt is indirectly getting more houses built via H2B.
Yes, most of the money ends up in the pockets of large house builder directors. But it does still result in more houses being built.

Japan, Germany, the UK and now even the USA are all facing the same problem;
Immigration is needed for economic growth, but is resisted by the existing population.

Green_Bear

MobileSaver wrote: »

Many

McDonnell may have said "I don't think it's complicated" but that just shows how clueless he and the proposal are; the banks will have a charge on the property and a legal right to prevent the sale if there's not enough money around to clear that charge.

Well yes, the law is the law- until it's changed.
That's what MPs do. They change laws.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

Depends where you are. If we put our rentals on the market they would sell straight away to owner occupiers. We picked them very carefully when we bought them. They are not first time buyer properties. There are 2 bed terraces for sale about 3 miles away in an area that people don't want to live that are much more difficult to sell at any price. High crime, drug use, anti-social behaviour put people off.

At present there are council tenants who can't afford to buy their council flats because of the service charges for maintenance.

Those houses are not difficult to sell 'at any price'.
Any house will sell if the price is low enough.
I'll buy a few for £100 each.

Green_Bear

chucknorris wrote: »

Not as hard as Labour implementing their crazy idea in the first place, do you honestly see that happening? I think that it is going to be hard enough for them to win a general election anyway, without this sort of nonsense from them. It just demonstrates how inadequate to govern that they are, when they table ideas like this one. So in a way, it is actually good news that they are bringing this up and highlighting their short falls.

I'd vote for it if I was a private tenant. The landlord's loss would be my gain.

Sure, a long explanation of potential future restricted rental property supply may be technically correct. But that won't convince many. Council tenants voted for Thatcher's RTB. They didn't care about whether their kids would get any social housing.

The key issue here would be targeted canvassing.
If I was Labour, I'd be busy compiling a list of private tenants and focusing on them.

In Thatcher's day, the large council estates made door knocking easier.
These days it's all about online data profiles.

chucknorris

Green_Bear wrote: »

I'd vote for it if I was a private tenant. The landlord's loss would be my gain.

Sure, a long explanation of potential future restricted rental property supply may be technically correct. But that won't convince many. Council tenants voted for Thatcher's RTB. They didn't care about whether their kids would get any social housing.

The key issue here would be targeted canvassing.
If I was Labour, I'd be busy compiling a list of private tenants and focusing on them.

In Thatcher's day, the large council estates made door knocking easier.
These days it's all about online data profiles.

In the format that most are discussing on here (i.e. the LL forfeits the discount) it just isn't going to happen, you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It's one thing the Gov deciding to give away discounts on their own assets, it is entirely different taking it from someone else. I doubt even Labour (there are some decent Labour MP's) would vote in favour for it, never mind that to be in power, they would probably have to be in a coalition with at least one other party.

It isn't just about the LL's either, it is also about maintaining the private sector rental market in a working format.

Green_Bear

chucknorris wrote: »

In the format that most are discussing on here (i.e. the LL forfeits the discount) it just isn't going to happen, you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It's one thing the Gov deciding to give away discounts on their own assets, it is entirely different taking away from someone else.

I agree it would be politically difficult, but technically the govt could do it. They take my wages every month, nothing I can do about it. If I don't pay my taxes, they'll take my car and my house.

But the same outcome could be achieved by implementing rent controls and secure tenancies.
The LL would be stuck with a tenant they can't evict and a house they can only sell to other LLs.
The tenant may then be in the position to buy the house, at a price less than a similar house being vacated by an owner occupier. ie below market value.

chucknorris

Green_Bear wrote: »

I agree it would be politically difficult, but technically the govt could do it. They take my wages every month, nothing I can do about it. If I don't pay my taxes, they'll take my car and my house.

But the same outcome could be achieved by implementing rent controls and secure tenancies.
The LL would be stuck with a tenant they can't evict and a house they can only sell to other LLs.
The tenant may then be in the position to buy the house, at a price less than a similar house being vacated by an owner occupier. ie below market value.

Labour have already discussed rent control, and it wasn't the old failed system, it was about 3 year tenancies, limiting rent increases at about inflation, and only allowing the LL to take the property back to live in or sell. I wouldn't have a problem with any of that.

Green_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

Depends where you are. If we put our rentals on the market they would sell straight away to owner occupiers. We picked them very carefully when we bought them. They are not first time buyer properties. There are 2 bed terraces for sale about 3 miles away in an area that people don't want to live that are much more difficult to sell at any price. High crime, drug use, anti-social behaviour put people off.



There is also something else. Before the introduction of the assured shorthold tenancy the only properties to rent at all in the local area were in rough areas due to the rent acts. They were all 2 bed terraces in bad areas and the properties were cheap. Very cheap. There were still people who could not afford to buy them. There were also people living in rented properties owned by the buyers of local mills who offered them to the tenants at a significant discount and there were still tenants who couldn't afford to buy them.



At present there are council tenants who can't afford to buy their council flats because of the service charges for maintenance.

Yes. But as a proportion of the population, those who could not afford to buy were less.
In terms of actual purchase price v wages.

Of course in terms of mortgage rates and availability, that's another matter.
You can't really make a direct comparison to today anyway. The workplace and family structures were different.

Green_Bear

chucknorris wrote: »

Labour have already discussed rent control, and it wasn't the old failed system, it was about 3 year tenancies, limiting rent increases at about inflation, and only allowing the LL to take the property back to live in or sell. I wouldn't have a problem with any of that.

Well, obviously these things exist on spectrum. What you describe is a watered down version of my scenario.
But the direction it has on prices is probably the same, just to a lesser extent.

MobileSaver

Green_Bear wrote: »

Well yes, the law is the law- until it's changed.

The law will never be changed so that legal charges on property become invalid; even the Labour party wouldn't be crazy enough to try such a thing.

Green_Bear wrote: »

I'd vote for it if I was a private tenant. The landlord's loss would be my gain.

The landlord wouldn't have a loss.

chucknorris wrote: »

In the format that most are discussing on here (i.e. the LL forfeits the discount) it just isn't going to happen, you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

Exactly, the discussion here is just about pointing out how ludicrous the proposal is to those who think the landlord will be footing the bill.

Even comrade Corbyn, when he first touted the idea, admitted that the State would have to cover the discount. Unfortunately for him he was going to use BTL tax allowances to fund it but these have already been removed so it's difficult to see where the money would come from now...