El Cid Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Well I'm sure we would all be happy to rent if, like those on the Continent you paid peppercorn rent and had 10 year or even life-time tenancies. But the people that rent out properties, must make a profit, over and above house prices. So like for like, in the same country, own a house should be cheaper. Unless its social house, where the organisations that build the houses, often get the land for free. Afterall, we own the land, or maybe the Queen does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 1/3 income to the mortgage does seem high but it's not unusual these days. Although it's affordable depending on what other outgoings they have. Issues arise though if borrowers then go and get loans and credit cards as effectively they can become a mortgage prisoner or be in a bad situation when rates do go up as they haven't budgeted for it. It's also important to consider what happens if one of those salaries suddenly goes bye bye through unemployment, illness or death. Important, but not part of the affordability criteria that the bank consider. We always thought that insurance against unemployment or death was a reasonable thing to take with our mortgage. And indeed my wife was unemployed for 6 months and the mortgage protection insurance paid the entire mortgage plus a bit for that 6 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 We have a rapidly rising population, increasing demand, and high and rising regulatory compliance costs for home-building. What did we think was going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 But the people that rent out properties, must make a profit, over and above house prices. So like for like, in the same country, own a house should be cheaper. Unless its social house, where the organisations that build the houses, often get the land for free. Afterall, we own the land, or maybe the Queen does. Landlords did make a profit, under the old 1977 tenancies, only they were restricted as to just how much profit they could make!!! When Thatcher brought in the unregulated 1988 tenancies, landlords were allowed to charge whatever the market could get away with. Naturally every landlord wanted the highest rent for the most profit. Because of these new unregulated rents, Landlords bought loads of property which in turn increased the price of ALL property, hence the high price of all properties. Inflation rose, interest rates went over 15% and record number of home owners lost their properties. These people then had no option but to rent with the help of housing benefit. The difference is, land is not as expensive on the continent as it is here, look at France for example, more space for your buck. Most Cities however are always the exception whichever country you are in. In the UK it is purely supply and demand now, as a result of lack of social houses being built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Landlords did make a profit, under the old 1977 tenancies, only they were restricted as to just how much profit they could make!!! When Thatcher brought in the unregulated 1988 tenancies, landlords were allowed to charge whatever the market could get away with. Naturally every landlord wanted the highest rent for the most profit. Because of these new unregulated rents, Landlords bought loads of property which in turn increased the price of ALL property, hence the high price of all properties. Inflation rose, interest rates went over 15% and record number of home owners lost their properties. These people then had no option but to rent with the help of housing benefit. The difference is, land is not as expensive on the continent as it is here, look at France for example, more space for your buck. Most Cities however are always the exception whichever country you are in. In the UK it is purely supply and demand now, as a result of lack of social houses being built. Rent control leads (as it did before deregulation) to a shortage of houses available to rent. You left that out. All price controls have that effect. You cannot regulate your way around supply and demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) Rent control leads (as it did before deregulation) to a shortage of houses available to rent. You left that out. All price controls have that effect. You cannot regulate your way around supply and demand. People applied to the council for property if private housing was difficult to come by. In those days you had more choice as to were to rent in your borough, private or council. There were not long council waiting lists like there are today and not only could you get a council property in a matter of weeks, but you also had a choice of three properties to choose from!!! I know of neighbour's who rented privately under the old 1977 rent act, and yet the same council house next door cost more to rent than the private accomodation. Re. Regulating supply and demand. Isn't that exactly what the government is now trying to do by introducing the extra 3% SDLT aimed at mainly landlords, to prevent them purchasing BTL properties? Also, the other rules for BTL landlords next year? Edited August 16, 2016 by poppet2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Well I'm sure we would all be happy to rent if, like those on the Continent you paid peppercorn rent and had 10 year or even life-time tenancies. We used to have that here and there are still some around, see 1977 protected tenancies Act. Rents less than council and HA rents and are just as secure. The big difference is you can actually afford to save while renting. Oh and guess who abolished these tenancies in 1989? You guessed it, The Conservatives, Thatcher's government. What a surprise!!!. The same people who decided to sell off council housing whilst not allowing councils to build more with the money from these sales. How rediculous a policy was that?!!! Now look at the mess were in! Short sighted or what?!!! That's what happens when you don't get people that live in the real world making policy for the majority. I bet none of their children will ever want for housing. It's worse than that Poppet: Son of Thatcher’s ‘right-to-buy’ housing minister now owns 40 ex-council homes https://tompride.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/son-of-thatchers-right-to-buy-housing-minister-now-owns-40-ex-council-homes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Rent control leads (as it did before deregulation) to a shortage of houses available to rent. You left that out. All price controls have that effect. You cannot regulate your way around supply and demand. Is that how it works in Germany then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 He's not the only MP that has profited from being a landlord. A THIRD of MPs have profited. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/16/blair-rental-profits-mps-landlords Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted August 16, 2016 Author Share Posted August 16, 2016 So are all landlords bad? You are blaming landlords for investing their money? Are they expected to be a charity? 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