andygardener Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 You make a profit and get the mortgage paid, and benefit from any increase in property prices. Whilst the poor tenant pays your mortgage and profits and doesn’t benefit from any increase in property price. Ban buy to let and get banks lending to the people that need an home and your tenants will be much better off because now they just pay the mortgage and not your profits and they benefit from any price increases. You're missing out a few factors there. The landlord is responsible for all sorts of repairs to the property. If the tennant fails to pay the rent the landlord still has to pay the mortgage. If the tennant trashes the place and does a runner the landlord is left with the bill. If property prices fall or interest rates shoot up it's the landlord that is left with the bill. The tennant gets a fixed price fixed term roof over their head without having to worry about interest rates or property prices. The tennant cannot end up in negatie equity. There are plenty of houses for sale so if the tennant is willing and able to buy one they should do that. However if they are not and their is insufficient social housing available then surely it's better that the private sector provide a roof over their head for a fixed price fixed term than they just end up homeless till a council house comes vacant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The whole thread is a "bit naff" As usual, the SF resident Housing Mentalist is turning a meaningless soundbite from a desprate politician and into another rant about those "evil scumbag" landlords that we all know he despises so much. The fact is Millibland is soo desprate to get the attention of his socialist sheep that he forgets that all this "protection" already exists. There is already the Landord and Tenant Act, Occupiers Liability Act, Housing Act and numerous other sub laws and responsibilities that protect BOTH landlord and tenants and their properties. I assume labour just want an excuse to p*** away more public funds drafting all these new acts and regulations. Of course to do so they will need to set up a dedicated department with a couple of £100k plus chief executives and a couple of in house lawyers and a media advisor and a few faces on the street interacting with us public oh and a few dozen researchers and a load of admin staff.....etc ......etc ......etc ..... We can very easily say anything when you are not in power. Labour could sit there and pledge that every citizen will get to the Moon if re-elected. It means NOTHING. Its just a attention seeking soundbite to try and win a few votes. Less talk more action in my view. They still have hundreds of councils to run. They still have work to do even in opposition. Time to actually get on with it. So you're in denial about the problem? What would the tories do? Can you name five bits of legislation/ideas/policies, implemented by the tories in the last 100 years, which have a long-lasting beneficial effect to the UK and its people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francypants Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 You're missing out a few factors there. The landlord is responsible for all sorts of repairs to the property. If the tennant fails to pay the rent the landlord still has to pay the mortgage. If the tennant trashes the place and does a runner the landlord is left with the bill. If property prices fall or interest rates shoot up it's the landlord that is left with the bill. The tennant gets a fixed price fixed term roof over their head without having to worry about interest rates or property prices. The tennant cannot end up in negatie equity. There are plenty of houses for sale so if the tennant is willing and able to buy one they should do that. However if they are not and their is insufficient social housing available then surely it's better that the private sector provide a roof over their head for a fixed price fixed term than they just end up homeless till a council house comes vacant? Hear Hear...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 You're missing out a few factors there. The landlord is responsible for all sorts of repairs to the property. If the tennant fails to pay the rent the landlord still has to pay the mortgage. If the tennant trashes the place and does a runner the landlord is left with the bill. If property prices fall or interest rates shoot up it's the landlord that is left with the bill. The tennant gets a fixed price fixed term roof over their head without having to worry about interest rates or property prices. The tennant cannot end up in negatie equity. There are plenty of houses for sale so if the tennant is willing and able to buy one they should do that. However if they are not and their is insufficient social housing available then surely it's better that the private sector provide a roof over their head for a fixed price fixed term than they just end up homeless till a council house comes vacant? I would agree if these houses had been built for that purpose, but the only reason some people can't afford to buy an house now is because the banks wouldn't lend to them and preferred to lend to buy to let, buy to let was the primary reason for the housing bubble which inflated prices out of the reach of many. The greed of buy to let investors caused the problem so they can’t take the moral high ground by claiming to be doing people a favour. I don’t have a problem with greedy people looking after number one and exploiting other but to claim they are then doing everyone a favour is a tad hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francypants Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 These days there are far more decent private landlords around than rogue ones. There is so much competition nowadays. OK you'll always get the odd ones who don't care a damn about their tenants but the tenants are free to move on, there are that many houses/flats to rent at very reasonable rents. I'm not in a position to rent out anywhere but if I was, I certainly would. You can't trust any government with pensions so you've got to look after yourself. I say good luck to any decent private landlord. ---------- Post added 13-01-2013 at 12:51 ---------- I would agree if these houses had been built for that purpose, but the only reason some people can't afford to buy an house now is because the banks wouldn't lend to them and preferred to lend to buy to let, buy to let was the primary reason for the housing bubble which inflated prices out of the reach of many. The greed of buy to let investors caused the problem so they can’t take the moral high ground by claiming to be doing people a favour. I don’t have a problem with greedy people looking after number one and exploiting other but to claim they are then doing everyone a favour is a tad hypocritical. Don't you think job insecurity is another reason why people can't get mortgages, even if you do get a job, a lot are only temporary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 So you're in denial about the problem? What would the tories do? Can you name five bits of legislation/ideas/policies, implemented by the tories in the last 100 years, which have a long-lasting beneficial effect to the UK and its people? Where have I "denied" there is a problem exactly? What I am saying is the acts exist for people of both sides to use. We dont need a load of new ones. THEY ALREADY EXIST. If people dont know about them or dont get off their backsides to get advice from a relevant legal or community advisor that's their problem. Now im not going to stroke your ego by quoting government policy. Its not relevant to this thread. Go and look it up yourself if you are so interested and want to make an issue out of who did what for society. What I will give you on topic is this: Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - tory government in charge Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 - tory government in charge Housing Act 1988 - tory government in charge All of these acts are still used in legal work today for housing disrepair claims, unlawful eviction from problem landlords, accidents and injuries caused by landlord disrepair or negligence, accommodation standards and welfare and numerous other actions. Ohhhh, look who was in force when they got drawn up. You were saying...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I would agree if these houses had been built for that purpose, but the only reason some people can't afford to buy an house now is because the banks wouldn't lend to them and preferred to lend to buy to let, buy to let was the primary reason for the housing bubble which inflated prices out of the reach of many. The greed of buy to let investors caused the problem so they can’t take the moral high ground by claiming to be doing people a favour. I don’t have a problem with greedy people looking after number one and exploiting other but to claim they are then doing everyone a favour is a tad hypocritical. I don't think it's fair to blame the buy-to-let investors, the housing bubble was fuelled by cheap easily available credit, much like the rest of the economy at the time. I remember some banks doing 110% mortgages, not checking payslips etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Don't you think job insecurity is another reason why people can't get mortgages, even if you do get a job, a lot are only temporary. I would put that down to the stupidity of government policy. I think it’s a bit odd that the government will buy a house for a buy to let landlord and pay well over the odds for it, but they won’t buy it at a cheaper price for the tenant or the tax payer. This is the problem cause by housing benefits. The money used for housing benefits would build more houses than it currently pays for and the tax payer would own them as opposed to a private landlord. But whilst ever we have crap government policy, banks that are more concerned about profit than morality and greedy individuals that are happy to exploit people, property ownership will remain out of reach for many. ---------- Post added 13-01-2013 at 13:29 ---------- I don't think it's fair to blame the buy-to-let investors, the housing bubble was fuelled by cheap easily available credit, much like the rest of the economy at the time. I remember some banks doing 110% mortgages, not checking payslips etc. Which was supplied in many cases buy to let investors, without which the bubble could not have inflated. In the past when first time buyer have pulled out of the market, property inflation has been forced to slow down because of the lack of buyer. Banks and government are as much to blame because when they saw first time buyer pulling out of the market so encouraged buy to let to pick up the slack, this allowed the bubble to inflate to the point of economic collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Where have I "denied" there is a problem exactly? What I am saying is the acts exist for people of both sides to use. We dont need a load of new ones. THEY ALREADY EXIST. If people dont know about them or dont get off their backsides to get advice from a relevant legal or community advisor that's their problem. Now im not going to stroke your ego by quoting government policy. Its not relevant to this thread. Go and look it up yourself if you are so interested and want to make an issue out of who did what for society. What I will give you on topic is this: Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - tory government in charge Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 - tory government in charge Housing Act 1988 - tory government in charge All of these acts are still used in legal work today for housing disrepair claims, unlawful eviction from problem landlords, accidents and injuries caused by landlord disrepair or negligence, accommodation standards and welfare and numerous other actions. Ohhhh, look who was in force when they got drawn up. You were saying...... Everywhere you post you are in denial. Now answer the questions I set you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Where have I "denied" there is a problem exactly? What I am saying is the acts exist for people of both sides to use. We dont need a load of new ones. THEY ALREADY EXIST. If people dont know about them or dont get off their backsides to get advice from a relevant legal or community advisor that's their problem. Now im not going to stroke your ego by quoting government policy. Its not relevant to this thread. Go and look it up yourself if you are so interested and want to make an issue out of who did what for society. What I will give you on topic is this: Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - tory government in charge Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 - tory government in charge Housing Act 1988 - tory government in charge All of these acts are still used in legal work today for housing disrepair claims, unlawful eviction from problem landlords, accidents and injuries caused by landlord disrepair or negligence, accommodation standards and welfare and numerous other actions. Ohhhh, look who was in force when they got drawn up. You were saying...... Fair Rents Act 1977 - LABOUR government Fair Rents Act 1977 repealed 1989 - TORY government (giving landlords carte blanche on what to charge regardless of whether it's warranted) A return to the Fair Rent Act is what is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.