Right to buy on privately rented homes

DannyGold

Green_Bear wrote: »

When someone sells a house, it is not usually demolished.

So if a LL sells a house prior to any new govt, who do they sell to?

Another LL? ok - so still another house available to let. No change for the 10 million tenants.

An owner occupier, moving from their previous house? ok - so now their old house is empty. No change.

Someone previously renting? Well, now that's one less tenant. So that's 9,999,999 tenants looking for the same number of houses -1.

It’s going to be very hard for a the LLs to try selling lol at the same time with hardly my buyers around.

chucknorris

DannyGold wrote: »

It’s going to be very hard for a the LLs to try selling lol at the same time with hardly my buyers around.

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.

MobileSaver

RealElement47 wrote: »

No, either you are a perma property bull or you are not.

I don't recognise anyone on these forums as being a "perma prop bull" but that doesn't mean everyone believes there will be a 50% crash from 2003 prices as predicted by the HPC loons.

So, as I said, your fundamental problem is that you believe everyone either thinks prices will go up forever or that prices will crash by 50%; back in the real world most sensible, rational people believe the reality will be somewhere in the middle...

chucknorris

RealElement47 wrote: »

No, either you are a perma property bull or you are not.

If you don't think house prices can only go up forever without a correction, then you are not a perma property bull.

Welcome to the real world, where we believe a correction to property is very likely.

Nobody thinks that, I think what might be confusing you is that some think over the very long term property will rise (ie taking both booms and busts into account property will rise). I don't even think about that, because there is no 'long term' for me as far as property goes.

Cakeguts

DannyGold wrote: »

It’s going to be very hard for a the LLs to try selling lol at the same time with hardly my buyers around.

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.

MobileSaver

MobileSaver wrote: »

we as a nation are not creating anywhere near enough homes for the growing number of people who want them.

Green_Bear wrote: »

I'm not sure how long that will be true for.

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.

DannyGold wrote: »

If the tenant has a legal right to buy the place at 75% market value and the LL didn’t even have 25% equity in it, then the sale would go through and the previous owner would be on the hook to the bank for the loss.

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.

Malthusian

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.

1) It's mostly a made-up problem. All properties are affordable, unless they're empty. The fact that some people, mostly in London, would like more disposable income is not a social problem.

2) People in areas where people want to live don't want more houses built there. Any housebuilding proposals will therefore meet with protracted and expensive legal and political opposition.

3) The UK is a small island and anywhere desirable to live already has people living there. This isn't the US in the 19th or 20th century where there were still large tracts of land with natural resources, fertile ground and good potential transport links waiting for people to move in.

4) That means if the goal is to build lots of houses somewhere, practically you have to build them where nobody wants to live, and the disadvantages of the government making it a priority to build lots of houses where nobody wants to live should be obvious.

People trapped in a shared ownership mortgage on a house that is already falling apart is the inevitable consequence of the efforts the government has already made to pursue this stupid idea.

phillw

MobileSaver wrote: »

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.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the proposal, which don't seem to even be decided.

McDonnell was not clear whether a Labour government would subsidise the purchases. He also didn't confirm whether or not the discount would be set at the same level as council homes.

'You'd want to establish what a reasonable price is, you can establish that and then that becomes the Right to Buy,' he told the FT. '[The Government] sets the criteria. I don't think it's complicated.

My guess is that at most they'll allow the CGT to pass to a long term renter & when they sell the CGT will be calculated based on the discount price. So if they sell it on again, the CGT will essentially be repaid. That means if there is no CGT payable on the property, then there won't be a discount.

Sailtheworld

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.

It's probably just one of those things that gets mooted to gauge the reaction.

Politicians would do better to stop trying to help people that don't need help. If you're a grown-up without mental health or substance issues then you really don't need to be voting for stuff that will almost certainly not help you or anyone else either.

There are enough people with problems that need help. Adding a category of needy that's not much more than fancying someone else to give you money isn't helpful.

Malthusian

phillw wrote: »

You're making a lot of assumptions about the proposal, which don't seem to even be decided.

If a political party makes vague proposals we can't be blamed for attempting to fill in the gaps. It's impossible to discuss otherwise.

If the proposal is "People should be able to pay less for a house but we're not going to say who would pay instead or how much" then we may as well all give up.

My guess is that at most they'll allow the CGT to pass to a long term renter & when they sell the CGT will be calculated based on the discount price. So if they sell it on again, the CGT will essentially be repaid. That means if there is no CGT payable on the property, then there won't be a discount.

So if I rent from a propco which isn't subject to CGT, I can get stuffed? Doesn't seem very fair.