Right to buy tenant plan to cost LLs £50 Billion

The-Joker

Cakeguts wrote: »

Families will have to buy them if they want to live in those areas if the S21 is abolished because no landlord is going to buy them.

Prices will keep coming down and down until somebody on nmw can afford it no problem with a tiny deposit

Either that or they remain empty

Cakeguts

The-Joker wrote: »

Prices will keep coming down and down until somebody on nmw can afford it no problem with a tiny deposit

Either that or they remain empty

People on National Minimium wage can already afford to buy something a bit better. It is only in the South East that there is a problem buying a property.

Cakeguts

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Landlords will have to reduce prices.

If landlords don't want tenants under a Labour government what else are they going to do? Leave them empty and hope the Tories make a comeback five years later.

Landlords are already starting to sell properties. The nice properties will get sold off to owner occupiers. So will no longer be available to rent. The ones left for rental will be the ones that are difficult to sell. They are difficult to sell because they are in run down high crime areas where no one wants to live unless they have to.



No landlord is going to invest in high quality expensive property now because of the risk. So landlords will only buy rental property in low cost areas. If the politicians were not so intent on buying votes they would realise the UK has been here before with the Rent Acts. The result of that was the only rental property available was in poor, run down areas, because that is all that landlords wanted to risk letting. It resulted in less choice of rental property. When the law changed in 1987 landlords felt they could buy better property in prime areas because they were covered by S21 if anything went wrong. The introduction of the assured shorthold tenancies increased choice of property after the Rent Acts reduced choice and even made it difficult for people to find any rented property.


There is an article in the Economist about the loss of section 21 and rent controls and security of tenure with information from other countries where they have done this and it has devastated the local rental markets. One country had tenants on waiting lists to get a property in the private rental market. I think people are going to need to think about this in the same terms as it takes to get social housing. You could be waiting for years in order to get an older house in a run down area due to shortage of supply.


In Scotland lots of landlords sold their properties and this has created a shortage and rent increases.

GreatApe

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Landlords will have to reduce prices.

If landlords don't want tenants under a Labour government what else are they going to do? Leave them empty and hope the Tories make a comeback five years later.

Landlords can just sell their properties

To the house price crash cheerleaders this sounds amazing because they think they will be able to pick up homes for two ha penny

They don't realise that landlords selling don't necessarily mean prices will go down
For instance landlords were net sellers for many decades in the past
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s ..... Landlords were selling big time....but what happened to property prices? They went up not down

GreatApe

I will say again, a simple increase of the additional property tax would see private rental stocks shrink and probably quite rapidly

Go from +3% surcharge to +10% surcharge and you would find the rental sector would shrink by at least 100,000 units a year. Might not sound a lot but over a 10 year period it is a lot. The private rental sector would shrink from about 20% of the housing stock to about 15% of the housing stock. You don't really want to go lower than 15% as we need some private rentals to allow for students and people moving around for work and people starting out in life (can't expect someone to go from university dorms to ownership overnight they need to rent for a few years

GreatApe

Also most people seem to forget that private renting is a transitional tenure

75% of private renters buy their own homes or get given a social home in less than 10 years.

That means only 25% of renter's are long term renters

And many of those are renters who want to rent long term
Like one of my pals who rents in zone 1 right next to work has been renting there for over a decade happy to do so. There are also some 500,000 private rentals that are rented for a sun of £0 mostly to family members think buying a house nearby and putting mum in there rather than in a care home and not charging her any rent.

Overall there isn't a problem with UK private renting

The problem is the lefties don't understand private renting is a transitional tenure
Very few people rent privately for the long term (10+ years) the majority of the private rental stock is for short term rentals (students people moving around people just out of university recent migrants etc) they can't jump straight into ownership and there isn't an excess of social homes so it takes them time to make their next move

Cakeguts

The other thing about this vote buying and politicians whim that they don't want to understand is that there are a lot of people who rent who choose to pay more rent to rent in a more expensive area. All of our tenants are like that. They could all rent something cheaper if they wanted to. They don't want to. They want to rent in a nice area. If they moved a couple of miles down the road they could get houses with cheaper rents.

Sailtheworld

Cakeguts wrote: »

The other thing about this vote buying and politicians whim that they don't want to understand is that there are a lot of people who rent who choose to pay more rent to rent in a more expensive area. All of our tenants are like that. They could all rent something cheaper if they wanted to. They don't want to. They want to rent in a nice area. If they moved a couple of miles down the road they could get houses with cheaper rents.

I reckon that people who could afford to buy but choose to rent in more expensive areas instead are few and far between.

We shouldn't kid ourselves that most people renting would rather buy and, if they had a deposit, they probably would.

Sailtheworld

GreatApe wrote: »

Landlords can just sell their properties

To the house price crash cheerleaders this sounds amazing because they think they will be able to pick up homes for two ha penny

They don't realise that landlords selling don't necessarily mean prices will go down
For instance landlords were net sellers for many decades in the past
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s ..... Landlords were selling big time....but what happened to property prices? They went up not down

All things being equal if there was a rush to sell rental properties because Labour got into power (as opposed to the landlord friendly Tories [insert ironic face here] prices would fall.

The population was rising all the way from the 1940s and there was a move towards less people per house.

You might ask why anyone would think prices would fall in bemusement but the good reasons are usually not known until after.

Cakeguts

Sailtheworld wrote: »

I reckon that people who could afford to buy but choose to rent in more expensive areas instead are few and far between.

We shouldn't kid ourselves that most people renting would rather buy and, if they had a deposit, they probably would.

It depends. Some tenants could afford to buy a house but not in the exact area that they are renting in or not the same size of house they are renting. If someone rents a 3 bed semi but could afford to buy a 3 bed terrace then renting is from choice.