Retiring landlords risk fuelling rental shortage

Flugelhorn

was also relatively unusual for single people to live alone or in a house share etc - far more likely to be lodgers or paying guests if they weren't living with their own family. 

ArbitraryRandom

Tiglet2 said:

tooldle said:

badmemory said:

I am afraid that some peoples logic is seriously flawed.  If there are 200 households needing rental properties & there are only 100 available then there will be 100 unable to find a property.  If the landlords sell 10 of them leaving 90 properties but now 190 households looking making the odds worse.

The basic problem is too many households & not enough properties.  There are only 2 answers to this.  Build more properties or kill off a lot of people.  The way things are going recently the second option would appear to be the most likely.

Or encourage people to live differently. Multi generational living, for example. 

Good point. 

Not only should people consider living differently, they should also consider what their realistic expectations are.  Too many people want to move out of the parental home, into their own home with a partner, have children etc, all without making the initial effort of saving up to buy their first home.  At this point, a rental seems like the easy option.  But then, it becomes difficult to improve their lot, since so much of their income is now taken up by the cost of living independently.

You are assuming it's not the parents wanting their children out - or that there are jobs which allow saving for a deposit for the children near the parental home (said as someone who grew up in a very rural area)

ComicGeek

ArbitraryRandom said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

So from a LL's perspective with 12 properties ranging EPC C-E.

We are making plans in the main block to cover the roof in solar and investigating wet heat pumps for those with gas and air to air for those with storage heaters but the local council are not being helpful in this regard with planning for such systems.

And the EPC requirements are also 'not being helpful' - scoring heat pumps as less desirable than keeping gas. 

And it's not impossible that the Government will change the whole EPC methodology at the same time as introducing the minimum C rating - meaning that all those Landlords who have actually been preparing in advance end up wasting their money when the goalposts move yet again.

We're seeing this in the commercial (non residential sector) where those really poor uninsulated, single glazed 1900s high street retail units with electric heaters were achieving F/G ratings this time last year - under the latest software they can now achieve C ratings without any investment/changes made! Any Landlord upgrading their property 12 months ago in preparation would be kicking themselves now.

The most important part of future legislation will be what is considered an acceptable exemption from the minimum EPC ratings. We're already getting lots of enquiries from Councils looking to justify why they can't improve their existing stock.

jimbog

Zoe02 said:

jimbog said:

tooldle said:

badmemory said:

I am afraid that some peoples logic is seriously flawed.  If there are 200 households needing rental properties & there are only 100 available then there will be 100 unable to find a property.  If the landlords sell 10 of them leaving 90 properties but now 190 households looking making the odds worse.

The basic problem is too many households & not enough properties.  There are only 2 answers to this.  Build more properties or kill off a lot of people.  The way things are going recently the second option would appear to be the most likely.

Or encourage people to live differently. Multi generational living, for example. 

or HMOs being the norm 

HMO becoming more common but only mainly for individuals.

won’t be suitable for families. 

Never suitable for families but nevertheless already very common in many countries

Sarah1Mitty2

badmemory said:

I am afraid that some peoples logic is seriously flawed.  If there are 200 households needing rental properties & there are only 100 available then there will be 100 unable to find a property.  If the landlords sell 10 of them leaving 90 properties but now 190 households looking making the odds worse.

The basic problem is too many households & not enough properties.  There are only 2 answers to this.  Build more properties or kill off a lot of people.  The way things are going recently the second option would appear to be the most likely.

Where are the 190 households living at the moment, very very unlikely that they could all be homeless? Lots of younger people now going back home to save a ton of money, laving the landlords to pick up the voids and extra council tax, plus with lending constrained for the typical buyer of BTL type properties some landlords might never be able to sell up.

Tiglet2

ArbitraryRandom said:

Tiglet2 said:

tooldle said:

badmemory said:

I am afraid that some peoples logic is seriously flawed.  If there are 200 households needing rental properties & there are only 100 available then there will be 100 unable to find a property.  If the landlords sell 10 of them leaving 90 properties but now 190 households looking making the odds worse.

The basic problem is too many households & not enough properties.  There are only 2 answers to this.  Build more properties or kill off a lot of people.  The way things are going recently the second option would appear to be the most likely.

Or encourage people to live differently. Multi generational living, for example. 

Good point. 

Not only should people consider living differently, they should also consider what their realistic expectations are.  Too many people want to move out of the parental home, into their own home with a partner, have children etc, all without making the initial effort of saving up to buy their first home.  At this point, a rental seems like the easy option.  But then, it becomes difficult to improve their lot, since so much of their income is now taken up by the cost of living independently.

You are assuming it's not the parents wanting their children out - or that there are jobs which allow saving for a deposit for the children near the parental home (said as someone who grew up in a very rural area)

I wasn't 'assuming' anything at all. 

Simple fact is some parents may want their children to leave but very few would actually force them out and if they do, it would be a minority.  Usually children want to leave, particularly the older they get. 

I have not 'assumed' they want to live near the parental home.  There has to be a compromise over what they can afford near the parental home and what they can afford further away. 

It would obviously take longer to save a deposit on a smaller income in an expensive area.  But it can be done.  

I live in an expensive area - daughter moved 200 miles away and son lives 3 miles away.  Both with similar income levels and bought very different sized properties for the same price.

ArbitraryRandom

Tiglet2 said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Tiglet2 said:

tooldle said:

badmemory said:

I am afraid that some peoples logic is seriously flawed.  If there are 200 households needing rental properties & there are only 100 available then there will be 100 unable to find a property.  If the landlords sell 10 of them leaving 90 properties but now 190 households looking making the odds worse.

The basic problem is too many households & not enough properties.  There are only 2 answers to this.  Build more properties or kill off a lot of people.  The way things are going recently the second option would appear to be the most likely.

Or encourage people to live differently. Multi generational living, for example. 

Good point. 

Not only should people consider living differently, they should also consider what their realistic expectations are.  Too many people want to move out of the parental home, into their own home with a partner, have children etc, all without making the initial effort of saving up to buy their first home.  At this point, a rental seems like the easy option.  But then, it becomes difficult to improve their lot, since so much of their income is now taken up by the cost of living independently.

You are assuming it's not the parents wanting their children out - or that there are jobs which allow saving for a deposit for the children near the parental home (said as someone who grew up in a very rural area)

I wasn't 'assuming' anything at all. 

Simple fact is some parents may want their children to leave but very few would actually force them out and if they do, it would be a minority.  Usually children want to leave, particularly the older they get. 

I have not 'assumed' they want to live near the parental home.  There has to be a compromise over what they can afford near the parental home and what they can afford further away. 

It would obviously take longer to save a deposit on a smaller income in an expensive area.  But it can be done.  

I live in an expensive area - daughter moved 200 miles away and son lives 3 miles away.  Both with similar income levels and bought very different sized properties for the same price.

I think you missed my point? 

By my reading you were suggesting people should live at their parental home for longer to save for a home of their own (because, as you say, rentals seem an easy option but then their income is used on living costs).

That requires the parents to be okay with the adult child remaining at home AND for there to be jobs near the parental home for the adult child that allow saving for a deposit (after any contribution expected by the parent is paid). 

So it's not as simple as the individual 'managing their expectations', it's a question of what is practical and possible in a given circumstance - which, for many, is moving into rented accommodation near suitable employment. 

Sarahspangles

ArbitraryRandom said:

That requires the parents to be okay with the adult child remaining at home AND for there to be jobs near the parental home for the adult child that allow saving for a deposit (after any contribution expected by the parent is paid). 

So it's not as simple as the individual 'managing their expectations', it's a question of what is practical and possible in a given circumstance - which, for many, is moving into rented accommodation near suitable employment. 

When I left home many years ago, after Uni, the removal van pulled out and the builders wagon pulled in to convert the space released into a granny flat. We could have repeated this pattern when my two went off to Uni, some kind of move to facilitate supporting older parents has been an option ever since they moved out.  I’m sure this is true for many families. I see more parents helping adult children to pay the mortgage by providing child care, than by housing adult children for longer. As they say ‘Grandkids are more fun, you can hand them back’.

ArbitraryRandom

Sarahspangles said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

That requires the parents to be okay with the adult child remaining at home AND for there to be jobs near the parental home for the adult child that allow saving for a deposit (after any contribution expected by the parent is paid). 

So it's not as simple as the individual 'managing their expectations', it's a question of what is practical and possible in a given circumstance - which, for many, is moving into rented accommodation near suitable employment. 

When I left home many years ago, after Uni, the removal van pulled out and the builders wagon pulled in to convert the space released into a granny flat. 

Mine sold the house and moved to a different country during my first year (with my blessing and understanding it meant I got several cheap holidays out of it before they moved back to the UK a couple of years ago)

But even if I hadn't gone to uni, staying at home would never have been a realistic option - the nearest large employer was nearly an hour away, with poor rural public transport links meaning shifts were out of the question, and the entry level jobs would have barely paid to keep a car on the road. 

Much more realistic to consider the whole country and move to where there are jobs that pay enough to cover rent, working up from there to jobs that allow for rent AND deposit saving. 

theartfullodger

There have always been landlords retiring: Often for reasons nothing to do with legislation & tax changes.  There have always been new landlords coming into the B2L market.  There always will be. 

As it happens I've been getting rid of property 500+ miles away as due to my age (75, brain not what it was) and health issues (nothing serious but makes travel etc much much harder...) but not due to tax & law changes. 2 sold during lockdown, another under offer now. 

The current fuss over the impending doom of Buy2Let is hugely exaggerated... 

Little story: In November 1979 under Thatcher's Iron handbag Bank of England base rates hit 17% (!) - Seventeen percent.  Had a for then large mortgage.  It was painful - although my building society (remember them..??) only wanted 15%,.  You young folk ain't seen nothing yet... 

Best wishes to all.