Rent controls - good or bad?

[psynuk]

The problem for some is greed, they are happy to buy at a lower price but unwilling to sell for less than they paid.

 

It's not really greed thats the problem, it's lack of supply.

with most other things you can buy and sell if there's demand someone supplies to fulfil it.

 

The greed is just a reaction to an opportunity. The problem is that the opportunity is being artificially created, it stems from the royal family and the problems with ownership of the land.

certain places are going to 'always' increase in value due to rarity; coastline views, city center appts, historic town houses etc,

but for people who just want a house somewhere near somewhere the almost static expansion of the available means that practically everywhere is 'rare' and you get what we've got as a result.

[truman]

I wouldn't be in negative equity.

 

It's not all about you though is it? What about the people that would be if they sold for less than they owe? If prices went up would you sell for the higher price or what you paid for the house? (must be the third time I've asked this without an answer)

[geared]

If prices halved from the time I bought I would sell it for half what I paid and know that my next purchase would also be cheaper.

 

My House bought for £250,000, if it falls in value to £125,000 then the house that would have cost £500,000 at the time I bought will now only cost £250,000, saving me £125,000, so I would benefit from falling prices as would thousands of other property owners. The problem for some is greed, they are happy to buy at a lower price but unwilling to sell for less than they paid.

 

You'd only be able to do that if you had paid off your mortgage, or enough of your motgage.

If you had paid off little then you'd sell your current place for £125K and be left in debt for the remainder of the money, £125k.

 

You then couldn't borrow any money, as you would owe over a hundred grand.

[Justin Smith]

The law should protect good tenants from landlords and landlords from bad tenants.

 

I agree with that. Unfortunately it does the former rather better than the latter........

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 13:28 ----------

 

As true as all that is, and it is true. It paints a particularly downtrodden view of landlords which isn't entirely the case.

 

One of my prior landlords; I know how much she paid for the property, how much her mortgage was, I know how much she spent on it over the 7 years I lived there, I know how much rent I paid and how much she sold it for.

 

aside from the; initial deposit, arrangement fees and insurance she spent a grand total of......... £320 over 7 years. She got well over a £100k when all's told.

 

She didn't have to put more than a weeks worth of hours into that property over the duration of the tenancy. hardly dismay and effort on her behalf.

 

You make it sound like an easy way to make money, something which doesn`t exist of course. I can only say as a reluctant landlord, I wouldn`t advise anyone to go into "buy to let". As I`ve said before if you get a good tenant fine, but if you get a bad tenant it`ll ruin your life till you get them out, which will take months and cost a small fortune in legal fees.

[loraward]

It's not really greed thats the problem, it's lack of supply.

with most other things you can buy and sell if there's demand someone supplies to fulfil it.

 

The greed is just a reaction to an opportunity. The problem is that the opportunity is being artificially created, it stems from the royal family and the problems with ownership of the land.

certain places are going to 'always' increase in value due to rarity; coastline views, city center appts, historic town houses etc,

but for people who just want a house somewhere near somewhere the almost static expansion of the available means that practically everywhere is 'rare' and you get what we've got as a result.

 

And the lack of supply of affordable houses for sale was in part caused by buy to let.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 13:40 ----------

 

It's not all about you though is it? What about the people that would be if they sold for less than they owe? If prices went up would you sell for the higher price or what you paid for the house? (must be the third time I've asked this without an answer)

 

Its also not all about the minority that bought when the price was too high and then find themselves in negative equity.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 13:41 ----------

 

You'd only be able to do that if you had paid off your mortgage, or enough of your motgage.

If you had paid off little then you'd sell your current place for £125K and be left in debt for the remainder of the money, £125k.

 

You then couldn't borrow any money, as you would owe over a hundred grand.

 

Who in the right mind would borrow £250,000 to buy a £250,000 house?

[geared]

Who in the right mind would borrow £250,000 to buy a £250,000 house?

 

Fine, you put 10% down and you've paid off another 10%.

You still owe over 75K - you're unmortgagable and cannot buy a cardboard box under a bridge.

 

Do you understand why it's not good for house prices to crash like you would like???

[RonJeremy]

The tenets had asked the Landlord to fix the issues and asked if he could fit or get funding to insulate the house. He wasn't interested and as they had gone over their 6 month contract, he evicted them with 2 months notice.

 

Why would anyone want to live in an unsafe or unfit house? Presumably they were happy to leave and to move somewhere else?

[ubermaus]

In some respects these guys did the right things... they bought close to them, physically - always a good idea, they bought a specific type of house - usually a 2-up, 2-down, and they didn't agonise over the buying - quick-in, get it done.

 

What surprises me is that they went for new builds quite a lot. Everyone knows you pay a premium there, so they must have been able to beat up the developer in question, regularly, to get amazing off-plan deals.

 

New builds for Landlords are pretty good what with the warranties and all that, but you do expect to pay a premium... and the market has actually made it a lot more competitive - a Landlord can't just go in and snap up a deal because there are a lot of first time buyers with Help To Buy behind them ready to pay list.

 

In a way I'd look at the Wilsons as a bit olde skool... although I did note that only a portion of their properties had mortgages. Yes, they used leverage, but they weren't all owned just on paper with interest-only mortgages.

 

Anyway, I think we have all now concluded that rent controls are not a good thing, so this has been a very good thread to get that consensus.

 

Err i think its a good thing. We have to control the rental market somehow as so many people rent.

Surely increases by inflation is only sensible. I can understand landlords want to profit as much as possible though or at least not lose money. Its not one size fits all as some ll are clearly struggling.

 

Tbh only banks and lenders do alright out of the current scenario. More subsidies for btl will help.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 14:42 ----------

 

I agree with that. Unfortunately it does the former rather better than the latter........

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 13:28 ----------

 

 

You make it sound like an easy way to make money, something which doesn`t exist of course. I can only say as a reluctant landlord, I wouldn`t advise anyone to go into "buy to let". As I`ve said before if you get a good tenant fine, but if you get a bad tenant it`ll ruin your life till you get them out, which will take months and cost a small fortune in legal fees.

 

Yours is a common scenario. It seems for every 1 landlord coining it, there are 9 more struggling to make ends meet. Bad tennants are a problem.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 14:45 ----------

 

I dont understand this high deposit for btl business ..i mean not only do buyers have to sink capital initially, theres maintenace and all otjer costs to consider.

The rental market surely has to be made more fluid so landlords are getting a good deal and tennants are able to rent affordably.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 14:48 ----------

 

What im trying to say that for rental there has to be ownership. And ownership in the hands of stable landlords.

[Alan Ladd]

The law should protect good tenants from landlords and landlords from bad tenants.

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 17:07 ----------

 

 

No he doesn't, development would require planning permission that may not be granted. I wouldn't want the law to stop them selling, but I would want the law to stop them kicking a tenant out that hasn't breached the terms and conditions.

 

If the owner of any property makes the decision that he wishes to develop or demolish the property he should not be stopped from doing so, as long as reasonable notice is given whats the problem?

 

This would of course be a total non conversation if we had more social housing. The Tories have built more council houses in 5 years than Labour did in 13, hopefully that trend will continue if we get the Tories back.

[ubermaus]

If the owner of any property makes the decision that he wishes to develop or demolish the property he should not be stopped from doing so, as long as reasonable notice is given whats the problem?

 

This would of course be a total non conversation if we had more social housing. The Tories have built more council houses in 5 years than Labour did in 13, hopefully that trend will continue if we get the Tories back.

 

Thats sensible. More housing and social housing. 200k in the next 5 years.