mafya Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 The law has already changed to require properties to be brought up to the D level of EPA report hasn't it? Something that will be very difficult to achieve with older properties... Obviously safety concerns is something that people should be able to raise without being evicted, I'm not sure that this proposal at all helps though. ---------- Post added 27-04-2015 at 16:27 ---------- 5%, above the rate of inflation and way above wage inflation! Personally I only ever put the rent up between tenants. But then I only had 2 sets of tenants and have thankfully now sold the property. Being a landlord was something I never wanted to be, and it was far from the magic money spinner that a lot of people believe it to be. Epc law doesn't come in till 2016= http://www.property118.com/what-do-april-12-changes-to-epcs-mean-to-us-as-landlords/25256/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted April 27, 2015 Author Share Posted April 27, 2015 Good tenants don't get evicted for no reason. Why would they? It is a stupid proposal by a very stupid irresponsible populist leader. Grandstanding and proposing to wreck the economy again like they have every time they have ever governed. What about if the property ownership changes hands, or the owner himself is in financial difficulties? Then the tennant could lose his home through no fault of his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 What about if the property ownership changes hands, or the owner himself is in financial difficulties? Then the tennant could lose his home through no fault of his own. And this wouldn't change under the proposals being discussed. But it's a minority problem. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 07:29 ---------- Epc law doesn't come in till 2016= http://www.property118.com/what-do-april-12-changes-to-epcs-mean-to-us-as-landlords/25256/ Yeah, I know, it's changed, it hasn't come into force yet. But landlords will be thinking about it, I hope. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 07:31 ---------- It can and does happen, it's called greed. Er, have you ever lived in London? Happens regularly, when landlords discover they can get more rent in the local area with agents telling them they have tenants queuing up for rented accomodation. It still wouldn't happen as you suggest. Agents call up and say you can get "new, higher rental income of X". Landlord first speaks to existing good tenants and asks if they can pay when he puts the rent up to the new value. Still better for both parties than an eviction and replace with new unknown tenants. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 07:34 ---------- In that situation most people would be able to get their hands on another £1K, and that would get them a bigger house in the same area or an house in a nicer area without the need to extend the mortgage. You're assuming that the massive deflation hasn't applied to anything else. Like wages. What makes you think that tenants don't want to be home owners? What makes you think they do? When I rented it was because I didn't want to buy. I don't know any that are happy with that situation, how do you build an family home when your landlord can kick you out at a months notice? Never been the case that this could happen. Why would I want to remortgage? Perhaps because your fixed deal ended and went onto the SVR of the mortgage provider, and interest rates just went up to 21%, increasing your repayments by 4 times.... You really lack imagination if you couldn't think of any of these reasons yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 You're assuming that the massive deflation hasn't applied to anything else. Like wages.What makes you think they do? When I rented it was because I didn't want to buy. Never been the case that this could happen. Perhaps because your fixed deal ended and went onto the SVR of the mortgage provider, and interest rates just went up to 21%, increasing your repayments by 4 times.... You really lack imagination if you couldn't think of any of these reasons yourself. House prices aren't linked to inflation so they can go up and down without affecting wages, example, house prices were rising well into double figure but wages were not, so there is no reason to assume that wages would fall if the price of an house fell. Interest rates are linked to inflation so if interest rates went up to 21% it's very likley that inflation would be running out of control and wages would follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 It still wouldn't happen as you suggest. Agents call up and say you can get "new, higher rental income of X". Landlord first speaks to existing good tenants and asks if they can pay when he puts the rent up to the new value. Still better for both parties than an eviction and replace tenants. Eh!!! But this has been happening for years in London, due to supply and demand. The rents are higher there than anywhere else in the UK. Sitting tenants cannot afford the higher rents which is why they end up leaving. This benefits the landlords who gain a higher rent from the new tenants while such action increases the rent for everyone else in the area. In London it's all about getting rich quick whatever the means, it's called greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) And what difference would this proposal make? The Landlord would still evict with the 'intend to refurbish' reason. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 08:25 ---------- House prices aren't linked to inflation so they can go up and down without affecting wages, example, house prices were rising well into double figure but wages were not, so there is no reason to assume that wages would fall if the price of an house fell. Interest rates are linked to inflation so if interest rates went up to 21% it's very likley that inflation would be running out of control and wages would follow. I thought about this for a little bit more. Nobody would sell you a house for £1000, the market would become entirely illiquid. Much like it did more recently for a much smaller drop in prices. I notice you ignore the reasons to remortgage though... Edited April 28, 2015 by Cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 I thought about this for a little bit more. Nobody would sell you a house for £1000, the market would become entirely illiquid. Much like it did more recently for a much smaller drop in prices. I notice you ignore the reasons to remortgage though... Why do you believe that no one would sell an house for £1000 if that is all it is worth. I didn't ignore it, I responded to it. It didn't become illiquid, houses continued to sell to the people that were happy to buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Do you own your own home, you don't seem to be able to grasp the issues that would effect home owners and why they are not desirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 It was sub prime mortgages that caused the Depression, not Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Boomer- Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Unsure how such a policy would be enforced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now