MrSmith Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 While everyone is glad the shyster in the OP got what was coming what is your problem with good landlords? I've rented properties in the past and have always been perfectly happy with my landlords. I rent my office and am perfectly happy with my landlord. You object to lack of affordable housing but then whine when people with spare capital buy houses which likely as not the typical occupier would not be able to get a mortgage on and then rent them out at affordable rates? If you got your way and banned private rental you'd have millions homeless overnight. That’s not strictly correct, if investors weren't allowed to buy the cheaper houses and first time couldn’t afford to buy the cheaper houses. The house would inevitably reduce in value until a first time buy could afford them, the result would be that the more expensive houses would also reduce in vale making them more affordable. If more houses were built and supply exceeded demand again house prices would fall making them more affordable for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 From memory, homes are at their most affordable for 12 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 From memory, homes are at their most affordable for 12 years. Only when unusually low interest rates are taken into consideration, and we all know what happens to interest rates. 12/09/2011 8, Viewlands Close, Bramley, £170,000 17/12/2001 8, Viewlands Close, Bramley, £79,950 29/09/2000 8, Viewlands Close, Bramley, £72,750 £100,000 more expensive than 11 years ago, I don't think wages have increased enough to make them more affordable than 11 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I assume his tenants are now homeless ? You mean slumless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 If they are so pig ignorant as to be unaware of their exploitation of others, then they should neither be punished or ostracised. The system is at fault! Most landlords would have a Buy to Let mortgage, so are you suggesting the only rental property available should be from the state, and the state the only landlord? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 That’s not strictly correct, if investors weren't allowed to buy the cheaper houses and first time couldn’t afford to buy the cheaper houses. The house would inevitably reduce in value until a first time buy could afford them, the result would be that the more expensive houses would also reduce in vale making them more affordable. If more houses were built and supply exceeded demand again house prices would fall making them more affordable for everyone. It would certainly create a downward pressure on affordable house prices. However lets say a £80K house drops to £60K over a couple of years, the odds are the people who would have rented it from a landlord for £500 a month still won't be able to afford a 25% deposit on the £60K house. In a market where the general price trend is downwards lenders would naturally expect more collateral so deposits would rise. In the meantime as i suggested, millions would be homeless. Only a maniac would countenance such a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 It would certainly create a downward pressure on affordable house prices. However lets say a £80K house drops to £60K over a couple of years, the odds are the people who would have rented it from a landlord for £500 a month still won't be able to afford a 25% deposit on the £60K house. In a market where the general price trend is downwards lenders would naturally expect more collateral so deposits would rise. In the meantime as i suggested, millions would be homeless. Only a maniac would countenance such a plan. It wouldn't take two years if landlords were forced to sell because house prices would crash, but if the landlords had say two years to sell obviously the tenants would stay until the sale, so no one would be homeless. Obviously it would have been better if the upward pressure hadn't occurred in the first place, what’s done is done and forcing landlords to sell up isn't a viable option. I think a private rental market is a good thing, but I do think that houses should be built for rent not bought for rent. A landlords business model should be to build houses and rent them out and not buy the only houses that first time buyer are able to afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molly44 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 That’s not strictly correct, if investors weren't allowed to buy the cheaper houses and first time couldn’t afford to buy the cheaper houses. The house would inevitably reduce in value until a first time buy could afford them, the result would be that the more expensive houses would also reduce in vale making them more affordable. If more houses were built and supply exceeded demand again house prices would fall making them more affordable for everyone. i think for that to happen it would take ten years or more of building 700 - 800 k new homes a year that type of expansion would just not take place. not with planning laws protecting so called green belt, i cant believe that in this country we live in 8% of the total available area. why do we have to save 92% of the so called green and pleasant land for sheep and cattle and the privileged few who live in idyllic villages? and are the nimbys of any sort of development ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 While everyone is glad the shyster in the OP got what was coming what is your problem with good landlords? I've rented properties in the past and have always been perfectly happy with my landlords. I rent my office and am perfectly happy with my landlord. You object to lack of affordable housing but then whine when people with spare capital buy houses which likely as not the typical occupier would not be able to get a mortgage on and then rent them out at affordable rates? If you got your way and banned private rental you'd have millions homeless overnight. I'm glad too. The man in the article should never have been a landlord. He sounded far too unscrupulous and greedy and certainly hasn't come out as a winner. I have nothing against private landlords, as long as their tenants get value for money and don't get ripped off. Local authorities do have some powers and bad landlords must be reported. As you say you've had good landlords and thats really what everyone should have. Private rental can offer people different choices. For example, I have a friend who gave up a council house in S5 to rent a flat in S10 from a private landlord. She wanted to be near family, but had no chance of social housing in that area. Her son can now go to his grandparents after school while she works to support him. She could have stayed where she was and had to pay for after school childcare. Financially it works out about the same as paying the extra rent. Not everyone has the same priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 i think for that to happen it would take ten years or more of building 700 - 800 k new homes a year that type of expansion would just not take place. not with planning laws protecting so called green belt, i cant believe that in this country we live in 8% of the total available area. why do we have to save 92% of the so called green and pleasant land for sheep and cattle and the privileged few who live in idyllic villages? and are the nimbys of any sort of development ? It's a cunning plan to keep the unwashed 300ft of the ground. At least they have a view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.