advice please on landlord selling my rented house

scorpio_princess

Snooze wrote: »

Give me an example of where someone has no option but to rent.

Rob

Erm, i'm a living example!

On my salary, I would only be able to get a mortgage for 50k max. That would buy me a... garage :rolleyes:

I can't live at my parents' house because it is too small (they downgraded when us kids all left), I can't get a council place because I don't qualify, and I don't have a secret stash of money that I can dip into to buy anywhere. I'd say I don't have a choice but to rent, wouldn't you?

Get real!!

ejh18

Snooze wrote: »

Is that your jealousy rearing its head again? Let's be honest, if you'd had the money when the market last boomed are you telling me you wouldn't have done the same? Regardless of ones morals etc, you'd have been foolish to turn down the opportunity to make some fast cash when all you had to do was sit on your property(ies) and flog them all at 50% more in 7 years time. I made a very tidy profit out of it which will nicely cover my retirement; call it 'business sense' if you like.

I have admitted I am a bit jealous of you, but then I want to buy. If you don't want to/can't buy the rental market is a poor option. This is particularly true at the moment as LL's get cold feet and want to sell up.You agree that we need more social housing. That was only point I was trying to make. More social housing or a more equitable rental market would improve things greatly. I don't think anyone who bought in 2000 and sold at a profit did a bad thing, that was the market. LLs who exploited that are not bad people, yes I may have done the same thing. However more regulation of the BTL market, with a more long term approach and less AST's, would have put off some of the less experienced investors and the OP may not be in the position he is in now. The blame for the unstable BTL market lies solely at the hands of central government. But policies can change and we do not need to put up with the status quo. On the continent renting is viable and more similar to owning your own home, it could be here too.

Snooze wrote: »

Give me an example of where someone has no option but to rent.

See my post above (#33). If you earn £25,000 but average prices are £250,000 how do you buy? Or if you earn £15,000 but the cheapest 1 bed !!!! hole is £100,000, how do you buy? Ok so you move, you have some choice. But the entire city that you live in is way out of your price range. That's very common in London, and not uncommon in other areas. But you still decide to move, even though you may have to leave your job, family, friends, everything. Then there's not a single nurse living inside the M25. Ok, so literally everyone could afford to buy if they changed jobs or move. But is that the best we can do? I don't think everyone should be able to buy. I just think where people live and housing in general should not be entirely dependant on market forces, and thus solely in the hands of profiteers.

scorpio_princess

Snooze wrote: »

Of course it is. How else do you expect to afford one? :rolleyes: It's not going to be handed to you on a plate is it?!! :rolleyes:



And who's fault is this? Simple solution is to move. Oh yes, really simple solution. Give up my job with no guarantee of getting another (and in this climate where redundancies are happening left right and centre, it might be a while before I'd even get one), move hundreds of miles north where everything is (allegedly) cheaper, away from my friends and family, completely on my own. Nice one :rolleyes:



Thousands of very successful and wealthy people with disabilities of various forms in the world. I'm not disputing that, and like I said, it's not an excuse. But you cannot deny that people with disabilities are at a disadvantage. Not anyone's fault, but the job market is limited if you're not able to, say, stand on your feet all day, use your hands for anything manual, etc etc. It's not impossible for disabled people to do well, far from it, but there are more obstacles in their way than if you are able bodied.



But no-one in their right mind would be buying right now, that is the point. We all know the house prices are vastly inflated above their true values and the only reason they've stayed so high is because people have kept buying them. A house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and the late-comer's when common sense was being handed out have now seemingly woken up to this fact hence why the prices are falling cos no-one's buying.



Move then. No-one's forcing you to live where you live. See above comment



In 99% of cases it's true. Really? And you have hard evidence of this do you?



Get a better job. Take night classes to get better qualifications if you have none. Jobs are getting thinner on the ground, especially if you're unskilled. I have qualifications, and I am studying for more. The point is, as someone else mentioned, it doesn't matter how hard you work, how much overtime you put in, how much you save, it's impossible to catch up to what house prices have become. You make it sound like I could jack in my job and get one that pays double the salary overnight! I wish!



Move. :rolleyes:

Rob

Same closing reply as my last one - life isn't fair, get used to it. So you keep saying. Doesn't mean you can't feel compassion towards those less fortunate than yourself - and recognise that not everything is as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Snooze

@ ejh18 & scorpion princess -

I'm not talking about buying a house right now. No-one's buying at the moment, even people who can afford to, unless they're stupid or need to move (due to work relocation, for example) because we all know the prices are well above what they're actually worth and hence why they're now falling like a piano out of a tower block window.

Even when the prices have dropped, unless you've got a good income and a big pot full of savings you're still not going to be able to afford your own house - that is my point.

Both of your arguments just prove what I said right at the start of this - life is about choices :

You can live in a rented gaff in the picture-postcard village of your choice with all your pals and family living round the corner and your £10k a year job where you'll never have enough money to afford a place of your own

or

You can make sacrifices and live in a 1 bed shoebox flat in a city away from your friends and family but with a £40k per year job enabling you to save up enough to buy the place of your dreams in the location you want.

(Not the best examples, I admit, but you get the picture)

You can't have it all unless you're prepared to make sacrifices, at least in the short-term anyway. Sorry... Life sucks...

Rob

ejh18

Snooze,
My main points weren't even about buying, but the problems in the rental market, which is the point of this thread. Why should everyone have to buy, and "sacrifice" so much, just so they can live securely in their home? People are perfectly willing to work hard and pay rent etc, but the terms of rental agreements should be changed drastically, so that asperations to buy need not be so high.

And I know life's hard and its not fair - I have no idea why you seem to repeat this so much, I'm well aware of this fact - I see it everyday. Everyone makes different choices about their life, but for some reason we seem as a society to be more accomodating of some than others, and more willing to back some policies and not others. If you choose to drink or eat !!!! eventually the NHS will sort you out and the public will pick up the tab. Why shouldn't access to adequate housing be a similar right? I'm not talking about the right to buy, or the right to live in a nice area, but the right to live in your home with some security. The situation could be improved with better regulation of the private rental sector that need not cost the tax payer too much. But of course everyone could live happily in their homes (i.e. buy) if they only made some different choices.

I interpret your point as this: if you choose to live in London but can't afford £100,000 for a !!!! hole you should be happy to live in fear of being evicted. Well by that argument , if you choose to eat those burgers and you can't afford the medical bill you should be happy to live in fear of untreated heart disease. Or should the south-east be full of bankers and the supposed "cheap" north be full of bin men?
I give up. I'm repeating myself.

Snooze

ejh18 wrote: »

Snooze,
My main points weren't even about buying, but the problems in the rental market, which is the point of this thread. Why should everyone have to buy, and "sacrifice" so much, just so they can live securely in their home? People are perfectly willing to work hard and pay rent etc, but the terms of rental agreements should be changed drastically, so that asperations to buy need not be so high.

Right, okay. You've gone off on a bit of a tangent here though. :cool:

I agree with you on this and am all for it :T , but it wouldn't be simple to implement. If you bring in rules and regs for tenants saying that they have a minimum 5 year tenancy (for example) then the LLs would - quite rightly - be up in arms over it and want similar protection from tenants who don't pay and trash properties when they don't get their own way.

I see what you're saying now though and if this already existed then it may have prevented the OP from having to move, but then again would it? If the house doesn't belong to the LL outright (ie. they're still paying mortgage off) then I think no matter what regs were in force to protect the tenant, the bank would still have the final say and it'd be up to them whether they let the tenant stay or not (unlikely imho).

Rob

ejh18

Snooze wrote: »

Right, okay. You've gone off on a bit of a tangent here though. :cool:

I agree with you on this and am all for it :T , but it wouldn't be simple to implement. If you bring in rules and regs for tenants saying that they have a minimum 5 year tenancy (for example) then the LLs would - quite rightly - be up in arms over it and want similar protection from tenants who don't pay and trash properties when they don't get their own way.

Too right. Both LLs and tenants have responsibilities, and the actions of both have serious consequences on peoples lives. Legislation should be in place to protect both parties. As for how a different system would work, to be honest I don't know. But, our rental market in the UK is quite unusual, and renting is the norm in other countries where tenancies are long-term. Does anyone know how this works e.g. in Germany? Alternatively, how DID it used to work in this country before the AST? I'm sure I've read somewhere that there are still some people with long-term tenancy agreements, where the LL, bank or whatever can't get rid of them for love nor money, as long as they pay their rent, they're fine.