Right to buy tenant plan to cost LLs £50 Billion

The-Joker

A badly maintained property will be valued even less.

Just before a tenant thinks about buying they will not be looking after the place very well which will only increase the value, they will keep it damaged and everything before they get the valuations

GreatApe

There is an easy way to shrink the rental sector if the left deem this necessary or a net good

You just increase the additional property stamp duty from +3% to something higher. Let's say it is increased to +30% this would result in close to zero second home and BTL purchases

Landlords are big sellers selling around 250,000 properties per year, this is normally offset by about 250,000 properties bought by new landlords. But with no new purchases this means net sales would be around 250,000 a year

Over a period of 10 years the rental sector would shrink towards 2.5 million properties. The ownership sector would grow by about 5 million properties.

The result would be by 2030 the UK housing market would be circa

16% social
8% private rental
76% owner

That would be pretty much as low a rental figure as you want. You need some rental stock for students and people to be able to move around the country for work etc

Personally I wouldn't do the above as I think a private rental sector is necessary I spent 9 years renting and lived in many rental properties and many UK towns and cities i couldn't have moved around for work if I had to buy and sell each time that would have been impossible

Chrysalis

There is a place for private rental its for the upper rental market and for the "few" like yourself who do want that ability to move a lot. However that is a minority of the current private rental market. I dont think anyone is proposing we abolish private rental, just a shift of the majority to social renting.

The-Joker

Chrysalis wrote: »

There is a place for private rental its for the upper rental market and for the "few" like yourself who do want that ability to move a lot. However that is a minority of the current private rental market. I dont think anyone is proposing we abolish private rental, just a shift of the majority to social renting.

Are you saying the government should provide enough housing association property for the masses and only the rich n private rental?

The government needs to add another 500K properties to the supply every year and stick to it

Cakeguts

The-Joker wrote: »

Are you saying the government should provide enough housing association property for the masses and only the rich n private rental?

The government needs to add another 500K properties to the supply every year and stick to it

Private rentals were not designed to house social tenants. They were introduced to give working people a choice of renting in between selling or when they relocated for work. Because of the Right to Buy, not enough social housing being built councils, and councils accepting people with no local connection in the past for social housing council are now placing people in private rental property. This is the problem there is actually nothing wrong with private renting and section 21. What is wrong is that local councils and the goverment are expecting private individuals to provide the housing that they should be providing.



Private individuals cannot give security of tenure to their tenants for the simple reason that at some time the property is going to become part of their estate. The only way you can get a secure tenancy is if you rent from a housing association or a local authority. So the way to solve the problem is for far more social housing to be built and to stop Right to Buy. Removing section 21 is the way to go about losing privately rented accommodation at a time when you don't have enough social housing to replace it. Unless you have a surplus of social housing anyone who decides to tinker with the private rental market is making a big mistake. The people needing social housing under the Labour proposal and the Tory section 21 silly idea are going to be the ones who lose out because both ideas will reduce the number of properties available for tenants who should be living in social housing.

Chrysalis

The-Joker wrote: »

Are you saying the government should provide enough housing association property for the masses and only the rich n private rental?

The government needs to add another 500K properties to the supply every year and stick to it

Something like that yes, if it sounds crazy to you, they were doing this right through to the 70s.

My opinion is the private market isnt fit for purpose for the masses.

You cant regulate it, as that would be too hard on the landlords. They would sell up in droves and perhaps even protest.
If its unregulated its too unfair to the tenants. Hence the need for social housing on better terms.

Its an enormous task even if they started working on it next year (e.g. if corbyn wins snap election and keeps to his word) and then successive governments keep it going it would probably still be at least a decade before the effects start been felt.

The-Joker

Section 21 ending is going to mean a lot of very unhappy LLs just wanting out, they just want the tenants out and then sell up never to go back

Thrugelmir

Chrysalis wrote: »

You cant regulate it, as that would be too hard on the landlords.

Driving out the rogues by regulation is long overdue.

Cakeguts

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Driving out the rogues by regulation is long overdue.

The way the politicians are going at the moment means that they are going to drive out all the decent landlords and the whole sector will be left with Build to Rent at inflated rents and the rogues landlords.



Rents are already increasing because there are fewer rental properties available.



I am now beginning to see comments on PRS sites that landlords are going to sell up.

Malthusian

GreatApe wrote: »

You just increase the additional property stamp duty from +3% to something higher. Let's say it is increased to +30% this would result in close to zero second home and BTL purchases

Not exactly, people would just buy second homes overseas instead.

This would result in house prices in places like Cornwall collapsing. All the money that second homers currently spend in Cornwall and Exmoor would be spent overseas instead. All to make it easier to buy your first house in places where hardly anybody wants to live permanently anyway. And even fewer will once the tourism industry has been devastated.

People would still bang on about made-up housing crises because house prices and rents in London would move not one jot.

I realise you weren't seriously proposing it.