Rent controls - good or bad?

[Slikkwiver]

Did you have anything to post that's actually about the topic we're discussing?

 

Are you saying that my post isn't related to rent control?

 

Why would you find it necessary to comment so negatively on a very interesting post? I wouldn't judge your posts in this way - as bland and uninteresting as they often are?

 

It wouldn't be that you've followed the joust between Hippogriff and myself would it - and feel confident enough now to comment so aggressively after seeing my posts and hippo's removed?

[Cyclone]

Well, yes, you didn't mention rent control nor anything concrete. Just some vague hand waving about evil landlords.

 

I reported your extremely aggressive rant at Hippogriff, so yes, I'm aware of it. You've reposted a cut down version without the personal attacks on him, but it still doesn't contain any content related to rent controls.

[Slikkwiver]

Well, yes, you didn't mention rent control nor anything concrete. Just some vague hand waving about evil landlords.

 

I reported your extremely aggressive rant at Hippogriff, so yes, I'm aware of it. You've reposted a cut down version without the personal attacks on him, but it still doesn't contain any content related to rent controls.

 

How loyal of you - I'm sure Hippo's indebted to you for defending him so dilligently.

 

However are you applying double standards here? For you seem quite happy to allow your hero to insult me as did the mod who removed my reply to Hippos sly insults after Hippo's insults had been 'ignored' for days......!

 

To say that my reply was 'extremely aggressive' is spiteful exaggeration - many others read my 'rant' and can confirm that fact.

 

Look back through the thread - many others including yourself - stray from the essential subject of 'rent control'.

 

However - as errant landlords are directly and obviously related to the matter of rent control I would say that my post is very relevent to the subject and that your sour grapes are influencing your judgement.

 

If you feel my post is contravening any rules (rather than merely offending your over-inflated ego) feel free to take your complaint to moderation.

[Hippogriff]

It wouldn't be that you've followed the joust between Hippogriff and myself would it - and feel confident enough now to comment so aggressively after seeing my posts and hippo's removed?

 

I enjoyed the post in its unedited form. I'm 5' 9", not balding and, yes, do carry a bit of extra weight, but "rotund" would be taking it a bit far. I'll go with "stocky" if you don't mind?

 

What I was saying about Rachman is that he was of a different time and it wasn't right for you to lump modern-day Landlords in that same bucket (as I felt you were doing). There just wasn't the legislation in place (on both sides of the coin) that there is now. If you believe it has teeth or not doesn't really matter, but I believe it encourages most Landlords to do the required things, whereas many already will be doing the right things (and above and beyond). I, and other Landlords I have personal knowledge of, consider my Tenants my customers - therefore they are treated in that manner. They are not my inferiors, my workers, my pets, my responsibility in any way... but, yes, I do believe there are Landlords out there who think unlike this, which is wrong.

 

A Landlord is just simply another type of business. We could be selling other things, like many people do, we're just selling [some] property for hire. I think the relationship between Tenant and Landlord can be more fraught than any other buyer / seller relationship because it's so emotive and people do think they should not have to pay [so much] rent. Tenants can sometimes seem to resent paying for a long-term roof over their head, but not when they book a [more expensive] B&B or a hotel.

 

I'm certainly not a Rachmanesque character; for me to describe him as "interesting" does not mean that I think Landlords would look up to him. No. I was not aware of him at all before your post, so I thank you for that, at least.

 

31 days in May... a modest rent of £500 is £16.13 per day (quite realistic for property in Sheffield, I think). You can't get many B&Bs or hotels for that (obviously you get your bed made and there will be other facilities - of course, there'd be a check-out time too) but renting is still not a bad deal, mathematically. It can feel like it is though for those people who can't buy or can't save to get a mortgage and feel 'trapped'.

 

I genuinely don't think that kind of scenario needs controlling.

 

Maybe Labour will soon introduce Right To Buy for properties owned by private Landlords, at a significant discount from the market value, of course. That'd be a real winning policy as there are obviously more Tenants than Landlords.

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2015 at 09:39 ----------

 

How loyal of you - I'm sure Hippo's indebted to you for defending him so dilligently.

 

The cheque is already in the post.

[Slikkwiver]

I enjoyed the post in its unedited form. I'm 5' 9", not balding and, yes, do carry a bit of extra weight, but "rotund" would be taking it a bit far. I'll go with "stocky" if you don't mind?

 

What I was saying about Rachman is that he was of a different time and it wasn't right for you to lump modern-day Landlords in that same bucket (as I felt you were doing). There just wasn't the legislation in place (on both sides of the coin) that there is now. If you believe it has teeth or not doesn't really matter, but I believe it encourages most Landlords to do the required things, whereas many already will be doing the right things (and above and beyond). I, and other Landlords I have personal knowledge of, consider my Tenants my customers - therefore they are treated in that manner. They are not my inferiors, my workers, my pets, my responsibility in any way... but, yes, I do believe there are Landlords out there who think unlike this, which is wrong.

 

A Landlord is just simply another type of business. We could be selling other things, like many people do, we're just selling [some] property for hire. I think the relationship between Tenant and Landlord can be more fraught than any other buyer / seller relationship because it's so emotive and people do think they should not have to pay [so much] rent. Tenants can sometimes seem to resent paying for a long-term roof over their head, but not when they book a [more expensive] B&B or a hotel.

 

I'm certainly not a Rachmanesque character; for me to describe him as "interesting" does not mean that I think Landlords would look up to him. No. I was not aware of him at all before your post, so I thank you for that, at least.

 

31 days in May... a modest rent of £500 is £16.13 per day (quite realistic for property in Sheffield, I think). You can't get many B&Bs or hotels for that (obviously you get your bed made and there will be other facilities - of course, there'd be a check-out time too) but renting is still not a bad deal, mathematically. It can feel like it is though for those people who can't buy or can't save to get a mortgage and feel 'trapped'.

 

I genuinely don't think that kind of scenario needs controlling.

 

Maybe Labour will soon introduce Right To Buy for properties owned by private Landlords, at a significant discount from the market value, of course. That'd be a real winning policy as there are obviously more Tenants than Landlords.

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2015 at 09:39 ----------

 

 

 

Appreciate your enlightening post Hippogriff - and I can't really disagree with any of it. Drat!

 

But - - we'll meet again on the duelling lawn!! Ha!

[loraward]

You're confused about the timeline. Interest rates were dropped after the crash to try to stimulate a recovery.

The crash was preceded by a bubble that was driven by easy credit, but the crash then caused all the things I listed.

 

In 1975 interest rates was 11.25%, for most of the next two decades interest rates stayed in double figure, the lowest dip was 1988 7.3750% the highest was in 17% 1979. Interest rates went into single figure in 1998 going up and down between 5% and 7% until 2001. In 2003 they had dropped to 3.5%.

These low interest rates stimulated a credit bubble which stimulated a property bubble which resulted in the crash. Why before the crash the government was being warned about the credit bubble and property bubble. As early as 2003 people were getting worried about the consequences of a property crash.

 

2003

Booming house prices over the last two years have shut out a growing number of first-time buyers - but could they fare better in 2004? Will it be good news for homeowners or will the housing bubble finally burst?

 

The Great House Price Crash 2005

 

The same thing was happening in the USA and around the world, low interest rates stimulating a massive credit and property bubble which eventually came crashing down taking several banks with it.

 

Low interest rates were the cause of global economic growth for the decade running up to the crash as well as the eventual crash. Artificial growth was always going to result in a crash.

[truman]

No, those houses don't just disappear, but they could get bought up by people wanting to buy,

 

All homes get bought by someone wanting to buy...how much difference to price do you reckon it makes if some of those are BTL landlords? Genuine question..

[chem1st]

Wheres chem1st ? I would have thought this would be right up his street.

 

Ridiculously busy these days and seldom come on SF anymore for myriad reasons. There are extra rules (not specified in forum terms and conditions I might add - so these aren't widely know) in place on the forum specific to me, banning me from having an opinion and posting on matters relating to housing (and these hidden rules are very subjective and have been used to censor me considerably), there has also been systematic removal of my posts, where decent information relating to housing has been shared by myself, thus I have lost interest and cannot participate freely. I am essentially a political prisoner of/on SF, and unable to share my opinion and important information with others.

 

My post count should be much higher than it is, and some of the best things I've posted have been removed.

 

Rent controls exist on my street. The only problem is the government force the rents upwards above inflation.

 

Everyone is forced onto benefits in due course, most are already, and the landlord gets rich, the problem with our landlord is that it is a social one, instead of the increased rent being used to build homes, it is being used to reward usurers and idle CEOs.

 

The rise in pay of CEOs of HAs and other social landlords mirrors the rise in pay of building society managers in the 1930s.

 

Not even social housing is affordable by definition now.

 

I'll try to respond later properly. I'd also request the rules specific to me are inserted into the sites terms and conditions so they can be seen by all in the interest of transparency.

 

This post will no doubt be removed for mentioning the hidden rules and I'll probably be banned. - then you will understand why I don't bother much, even when I do find the time.

 

You'll also notice I seldom spend 20 hours behind the scenes on a post anymore to include referenced links, quotes etc. - as when this is removed without reason, it puts me off of trying to have serious debate on here. Thus, one is best avoiding reasoned debate and providing references and detailed information on here and is instead better off being a troll, pedant, infantile idiot etc. - as intelligent debate is actively punished and censored.

[Cyclone]

How loyal of you - I'm sure Hippo's indebted to you for defending him so dilligently.

 

However are you applying double standards here? For you seem quite happy to allow your hero to insult me as did the mod who removed my reply to Hippos sly insults after Hippo's insults had been 'ignored' for days......!

Feel free to report his post if you think he was attacking you.

The rules of the forum allow you to an attack and idea or an opinion, not a poster.

 

 

If you feel my post is contravening any rules (rather than merely offending your over-inflated ego) feel free to take your complaint to moderation.

 

You don't seem to be able to avoid attacking the poster instead of the content. We're not in the playground you know.

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2015 at 11:21 ----------

 

In 1975 interest rates was 11.25%, for most of the next two decades interest rates stayed in double figure, the lowest dip was 1988 7.3750% the highest was in 17% 1979. Interest rates went into single figure in 1998 going up and down between 5% and 7% until 2001. In 2003 they had dropped to 3.5%.

These low interest rates stimulated a credit bubble which stimulated a property bubble which resulted in the crash. Why before the crash the government was being warned about the credit bubble and property bubble. As early as 2003 people were getting worried about the consequences of a property crash.

 

2003

Booming house prices over the last two years have shut out a growing number of first-time buyers - but could they fare better in 2004? Will it be good news for homeowners or will the housing bubble finally burst?

 

The Great House Price Crash 2005

 

The same thing was happening in the USA and around the world, low interest rates stimulating a massive credit and property bubble which eventually came crashing down taking several banks with it.

 

Low interest rates were the cause of global economic growth for the decade running up to the crash as well as the eventual crash. Artificial growth was always going to result in a crash.

 

The price peaked in 2007, not 5.

 

It looks to me like interest rates went into single figures in 1993. The housing bubble didn't start until 2000/2001, interest rates didn't trigger it.

 

What changed were the rules about mortgages, this did over stimulate the market and cause a bubble.

Subsequent to the crash which started in mid 2007 interest rates were dropped to a historic low (early to mid 2009 to be precise). This has created ongoing pain for savers.

The stock market crash which followed the housing crash has crushed the values of annuities, making life very difficult for those who've retired since 2007 with a money purchase pension.

 

The housing market crash and subsequent double dip recession has caused hardship for millions of people. To deny that is, well, ridiculous, you might as well argue that the sky is green and not blue.

[loraward]

 

The price peaked in 2007, not 5.

 

It looks to me like interest rates went into single figures in 1993. The housing bubble didn't start until 2000/2001, interest rates didn't trigger it.

 

What changed were the rules about mortgages, this did over stimulate the market and cause a bubble.

Subsequent to the crash which started in mid 2007 interest rates were dropped to a historic low (early to mid 2009 to be precise). This has created ongoing pain for savers.

The stock market crash which followed the housing crash has crushed the values of annuities, making life very difficult for those who've retired since 2007 with a money purchase pension.

 

The housing market crash and subsequent double dip recession has caused hardship for millions of people. To deny that is, well, ridiculous, you might as well argue that the sky is green and not blue.

 

Yes I know when they peaked, I was talking about the prediction of a crash, which started in 2003.

 

Sorry yes it was 1992 and they fluctuated between 9% and 5% until 2001 eventually hitting an all time low in 2003.

 

There was pain for savers before the crash, also people were saving for the deposit on an house but house price inflation was well about the rate of interest they could get, their deposits were falling an value day after day.

 

I haven't said the crash and subsequent double dip recession hasn't caused hardship for millions of people.

 

Without the very low interest rates house prices wouldn't have got out of control and its very likley the crash would have been avoided.