MrSmith Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 To what end? Do you particularly want to force people to live on the street? They wouldn't be forced to live on the street; they would buy the houses at an affordable price, something that was possible before the madness of the past decade. Everyone that I know in private rental accommodation was forced to rent because greedy people bought the houses they could once afford and drove the price out of their reach. If they are forced to sell prices will fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 You think that destroying the rental market will magically mean that everyone a) wants to and b) can, buy a house. Wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I wouldn't make it instant, ban new Buy To Let, encourage Build to Let and give the Buy To Let landlords 10 years to sell up. Who is going to fund Build to Let? Housebuilders? Unlikely. Councils? Even more unlikely. Registered Social Landlords? Perhaps, but as well I'd like to see them buy up neglected houses and renovate them. Cheaper to do and it lifts the neighbourhood. With the change in household demographics, ie a sizeable and growing increase in single person households, it is hardly surprising there has been an increase in the need for rented housing. Buying a house is more affordable on low wages for a couple who pool their income than for a single person. Money pooled within a family home stretches further than when it is expected to support two separate homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I'm hundred percent with SmIth on this. The housing market is completely and utterly broken in do many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Destroying the rental market isn't a way to fix it though, it's a way to make it even more broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I wouldn't make it instant, ban new Buy To Let, encourage Build to Let and give the Buy To Let landlords 10 years to sell up. Are you suggesting landlords build houses?How about insisting all further BTLs are new build? PS Hypothecation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 How do you define new build? Are you saying that a house could only be let if the current owner were the first person to ever purchase it? Built-to-let might be a fine headline, but the entire self build market is minuscule in this country because it's strangled by oppressive planning laws. No other country in Europe builds in the way we do, entire estates being built by a single builder speculatively and generally for a large profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 You think that destroying the rental market will magically mean that everyone a) wants to and b) can, buy a house. Wishful thinking. There will still be a rental market but it will involve building houses and not buying the cheapest houses from under the feet of first time buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 How do you define new build? Are you saying that a house could only be let if the current owner were the first person to ever purchase it? Built-to-let might be a fine headline, but the entire self build market is minuscule in this country because it's strangled by oppressive planning laws. No other country in Europe builds in the way we do, entire estates being built by a single builder speculatively and generally for a large profit. I should ask Smithy-i was trying to pin the man down as he is quite good at avoiding direct questions,such as explaining hypothecation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Who is going to fund Build to Let? Housebuilders? Unlikely. Councils? Even more unlikely. Registered Social Landlords? Perhaps, but as well I'd like to see them buy up neglected houses and renovate them. Cheaper to do and it lifts the neighbourhood. I wouldn't want to stop anyone buying rundown properties and renovating them for rental, but competing to buy first time buyer houses in unfair on the younger generation and should be discouraged. With the change in household demographics, ie a sizeable and growing increase in single person households, it is hardly surprising there has been an increase in the need for rented housing. Buying a house is more affordable on low wages for a couple who pool their income than for a single person. Money pooled within a family home stretches further than when it is expected to support two separate homes. The increased need for rental properties was caused by the housing bubble which was caused by government policy, cheap credit, immigration and Buy to Let. I doubt you will find many renter saying they would rather rent than buy an affordable house. ---------- Post added 13-03-2013 at 20:40 ---------- Are you suggesting landlords build houses?How about insisting all further BTLs are new build? PS Hypothecation? I would prefer something in planning law in which some properties can only be bought for the owner to live in and some can be used for let. As it stands many low priced houses coming onto the market are snapped up by BTL because they have a better access to funds and can out bid first time buyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.