Cut the private landlords out and let Councils take control of social housing again.
Why are these mutually exclusive?
Are you arguing that the only reason councils cannot "take control of social housing" is because of all those pesky landlords? Only I'm fairly certain that's not their main barrier to entry here.
A while back I asked "why is BIL so vilified?" and I've had a big long list of problems which, whilst most are genuine problems which need addressing, none of them seem to me to actually be the fault of private landlords. The only valid gripe seems to be an objection to capitalism.
Brilliant, move away so we can carry on profiteering from people trying to access the most basic amenitie.
Or how about the landlord takes a little less profit – outrageous I know. Look at @5lab numbers if you are unsure if this is possible.
this is happening. In the last 5 years the following tax rules have come in :
20% tax on mortgage payments for (most) BTL
3% additional stamp duty for BTL
increase in tax you pay if you owned a house, lived in it, then flogged it
there have also been changes to make it harder to evict tenants, and other costs lumped onto the landlord (right to live in the UK, no fees chargable, etc etc)
there has been almost zero complaints about this - I think the taxes will continue rising until the total number of privately rented properties stops rising, or starts falling - its an easy way to pull more money into the treasury and help lives of FTBers. I don't disagree with this, it is a good thing to balance the market
Or how about the landlord takes a little less profit – outrageous I know. Look at @5lab numbers if you are unsure if this is possible.
check mattoab's tale from a few pages back. Struggling to evict people, who pay no rent for months. Landlord needs to make some money to account for scum like this. And people who have done nothing wrong (future renters) are paying for it.
Completely unworkable, pie in the sky suggestion:
Each month, (and by agreement of both parties) some of your rent goes into a pot which is returned to you when you move out, as long as you dont fail to pay the rent and dont trash the place.
This could then serve as the deposit to buy, you and a mortgage lender would know what is in your pot.
Would need an independent party to hold the money, much like the damage deposit scheme. Hopefully it could pay a paltry bit of interest too.
that already exists. You pay CGT on any property you own that is not your primary property, and if you live in a property then rent it, you pay CGT on a sliding scale based on how long you lived there.
Think he means you'd pay CGT on your primary residence as well. Seems fair to me and would definitely slow down the market. Maybe you could ring fence that money and put it back into social housing. So as BTL pull out as it becomes an illogical investment, these properties could come back into public ownership.
And the stamp duty bung, maybe stop doing stuff like that?
Also, think its fair to criticise the shit landlords, but ultimately govt policy is to blame for btl
Brilliant, move away so we can carry on profiteering from people trying to access the most basic amenitie.
Or choose to stay and suck up the fact that you're living in the most expensive part of the country.
I'd love to live 200 miles South of where I am currently. Know why I don't? I can't afford it.
Ooh, I know, you could move to Burnley and become a landlord. (-:
I'm in my thirties now and during my twenties 70% of my pay went on rent and associated bills before I even ate. Thankfully in my late twenties I changed careers and got a promotion to a wage above the previously discussed average and could really start saving enabling me to buy a few years ago.
It's only been mentioned briefly, but the availability of 100% or more than 100% mortgages pre 2008 allowed a few of my older friends to get mortgages in those days, I would have done it but couldn't get the couple of grand it required for the associated fees together in a short enough space of time. Even a 100% mortgage back then would have been cheaper then my rent! Even though mortgage rates are lower now but property prices are much higher, my first few years of mortgage payments were more than what pre 2008 100% would have been due to the increase in property prices.
So where do you draw the line? What house price makes it fair to the poor? Make all first time buyers houses £50k? Even at that level there would be hundreds of thousands who still couldn’t afford a house.
£50K would be a mortgage of what £250 a month, i.e. a quarter of one persons minimum wage. Are you sure there wouldn't be loads of people who could not afford to buy that £50k house.
The only valid gripe seems to be an objection to capitalism.
Nonsense, it's an objection to a warped version of predatory capitalism applied to a basic human right.
Ooh, I know, you could move to Burnley and become a landlord. (-:
This problem is heading your way, then will you be suggesting moving out the country ?
check mattoab’s tale from a few pages back. Struggling to evict people, who pay no rent for months. Landlord needs to make some money to account for scum like this. And people who have done nothing wrong (future renters) are paying for it.
I've been working in the refurbishment of social housing for the majority of the last 20 years and i'd confidently wager that there are way more bad tenants in the world than there are evil landlords.
I wouldn't risk being a landlord after i've seen some of the devastation caused by some people to rented properties.
I'd estimate that most large social housing providers, at any given time, have at least 5% to 10% of their properties void awaiting repairs to make them habitable.
Are you sure there wouldn’t be loads of people who could not afford to buy that £50k house.
They might be able to afford it but they wouldn't be able to buy one on the south coast. If a decent house did cost anything like that then nobody would build new ones, nobody would sell the one they own and if one did somehow come on the market there would be thousands of people trying to buy it.
The whole system needs a massive shake up, starting with a load more social housing but that won't happen anytime soon.
this is happening. In the last 5 years the following tax rules have come in :
20% tax on mortgage payments for (most) BTL
3% additional stamp duty for BTL
increase in tax you pay if you owned a house, lived in it, then flogged itthere have also been changes to make it harder to evict tenants, and other costs lumped onto the landlord (right to live in the UK, no fees chargable, etc etc)
Agreed, these are good steps, but I suspect that rents have also risen to balance some of it out.
Or choose to stay and suck up the fact that you’re living in the most expensive part of the country.
I’d love to live 200 miles South of where I am currently. Know why I don’t? I can’t afford it.
Not quite as simple as that though is it? Where you live isn't an easy choice for lots of people, heavily influenced by family, friends and work. Seem legitimate to seek correction for some of these things. In the same way it's legitimate for some areas to seek correction in underinvestment in their economies.
ah yes, renters are scum was waiting for this. - is it possible you are only seeing the worse cases as this is your job?
The new changes outlined by 5lab are very welcome, but rents still raise year on year.
Why would you give stamp duty tax breaks at a time like this, while ignoring 3 million people that were not covered by any furlough scheme. We are getting towards the tipping point where the majority of people will be renting - things will change then
This problem is heading your way, then will you be suggesting moving out the country ?
...have you every been to Burnley! 🙂
I’ve been working in the refurbishment of social housing for the majority of the last 20 years and i’d confidently wager that there are way more bad tenants in the world than there are evil landlords.
But working in social housing means you're working with a decent landlord all the time, and tenants statistically more likely to be a problem. Think this is probably going to cloud your judgement?
I suspect that rents have also risen to balance some of it out.
perhaps - in particular the fees (which is kinda fair - the total cost to a tenant doesn't need to change, just the nature of them being hidden). In general though, rental property prices are driven by what the local market can afford and not by costs to the landlord - mortgage rates dropped hugely in the past 10-15 years (from ~6% to ~2% for btl mortgages) and none of that was passed onto the tenants.
We are getting towards the tipping point where the majority of people will be renting – things will change then
I think the tipping point will only be when the majority of voters are renting - and this will lag by a significant amount as younger folks tend not to vote as much
^ exactly and the rental market is held up by small subset of the population being given btl mortgages. Easily fixed, but some people would have to lose some (pretty much unearned) money to do so.
ah yes, renters are scum was waiting for this. – is it possible you are only seeing the worse cases as this is your job?
No. Some renters are scum, a minority who by their actions, prevent other people gaining access to decent social housing and prevent investment in more social housing.
It's not just a landlord problem
is it possible you are only seeing the worse cases as this is your job?
I've seen all the cases, good and bad. I once did two surveys in the same street in Paisley. One guy refused to have his kitchen replaced beacuse he had fitted out his own kitchen in italian marble. It was a £30k kitchen in a £30k council flat that he didn't own. One of his neighbours had ripped up and burned 90% of his floorboards as he was cold and had already stripped and sold the central heating system for scrap.
I'd like to think that gives me a feel for the balance of good tenants to bad.
I’d like to think that gives me a feel for the balance of good tenants to bad.
But you only deal with social housing tenants?
But you only deal with social housing tenants?
Are they different form "normal" tenants?
Are are they just people who want somewhare to live?
People are people. Some will care for a property that they don't own but have the use of. Some won't.
A deeper question here is wether or not society should exist to help people enjoy their lives, or is it just a framework for moving money around?
A deeper question here is wether or not society should exist to help people enjoy their lives, or is it just a framework for moving money around?
Originally, you spent most of your waking hours hunting and foraging for food, and getting yourself shelter.
It then progressed to the peron who was good at making huts made huts, and the peron who could make clothes made clothes, for the entire village, while they all worked farming, and the builder and clothier got food as payment.
These days we have jobs - which provide usefulness to somebody - and recieve money for it. While my ancestors toiled every daylight hour to avoid starvation, I can feed myself (on all manner of varied, balanced diets) for less than one hours work at minimum wage a day, and can even get it delivered to my door if I wanted. Its far more efficient to outsource my food aquisition to Mr Sainsbury, than it is to hunt and farm myself.
Those extra hours in the day give me time for both productivity (earning money) and leisure (spending it); both of which create more and better jobs for other people in society, who then get more leisure, and so on
which is all well and good, but now we have the situation where some people can do absolutely nothing and make money from simply having access to credit.
The definition of patronising
Think he means you’d pay CGT on your primary residence as well. Seems fair to me and would definitely slow down the market.
Cant see how it would though. If your house value rises by £Xk and theres a 20% tax on that, you're not going to take a hit on the asking price (unless the tax is >100%).
Stamp duty does do that though. About 25% of our deposit went to the government which stings bit! But doesnt really work except to stop short term investments in expensive houses. Probably why homes under the hammer is never in the SE, you cant make a proffit with some laminate flooring and an Ikea kitchen if theres stamp duty.
Personally I think council tax should double/treble/quadrupole. Encourage people to actually live in the house they need. No point in some 50+ people telling youngsters who cant afford a house that the solution is for more tax on buying a house.
Cant see how it would though. If your house value rises by £Xk and theres a 20% tax on that, you’re not going to take a hit on the asking price (unless the tax is >100%).
it gives the person who is selling their first house less cash to buy their second house, thus depressing the market (as everyone else looking to buy is in the same boat). I would wager that the majority of the deposit most people have for their second/third house purchase is made up of inflation from the first one/two
Personally I think council tax should double/treble/quadrupole. Encourage people to actually live in the house they need. No point in some 50+ people telling youngsters who cant afford a house that the solution is for more tax on buying a house.
I don't disagree but it'll never happen politically as it puts a significant squeeze on retirees (who no longer have the income they had before) and they're very likely to vote.
The definition of patronising
Do you even understand what patronising means? I can explain it to you in really simple words that you and everyone else might just about understand if you all concentrate. 😉
Are they different form “normal” tenants?
Yes, statistically I believe so, and probably in ways which make significant property damage more likely. Please note, I'm not saying social tenants are scum. That would be ridiculous. Just that, by only working with social tenants, you will see a higher proportion of poverty, poor mental health and other issues.
Nonsense, it’s an objection to a warped version of predatory capitalism applied to a basic human right.
Owning your own house is not a "basic human right." Compared to other countries the UK is relatively unusual in having so many people who whose homes are privately owned by those living in them.
This problem is heading your way, then will you be suggesting moving out the country ?
You reckon?
A basic human right, yesterday:
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-83522155.html
Or, if you want to get in on the capitalist pig market yourself:
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-83800114.html
Why would you give stamp duty tax breaks at a time like this
That's exactly what happened about a month ago.
now we have the situation where some people can do absolutely nothing and make money from simply having access to credit.
Do you have access to credit? Why not make some money yourself?
Yes, statistically I believe so, and probably in ways which make significant property damage more likely. Please note, I’m not saying social tenants are scum. That would be ridiculous. Just that, by only working with social tenants, you will see a higher proportion of poverty, poor mental health and other issues.
As the person who brought the scum word to the thread, remember I was referencing MAOB's previous private tennants.
Sorry, wasn't poking at you mate, just used it subconsciously.
As per 5lab that is what I suggested CGT or even more punitive tax on house value inflation , suppressing the market , there might be a sliding scale depending on how long the property was owned tapering the tax over 25 years.
Too much house price inflation has only really benefited the banks and lenders , taking money out of other parts of the economy.
Is it though, really?
Yes.
Compared to other countries the UK is relatively unusual in having so many people who whose homes are privately owned by those living in them.
True. But private rental in the UK is nothing like renting in any other European country. Nothing inherently wrong with renting, but in the UK it is a financial trap without rights or security.
Owning your own house is not a “basic human right.”
Perhaps not the best use of that term, but I do believe everyone who is employed full time should be able to have the option to own their own home - why can we not aim for that? It's just a reallocation of credit.
Do you have access to credit? Why not make some money yourself?
Yes, now I do - but I don't tend to exploit people to make my money.
Not quite as simple as that though is it? Where you live isn’t an easy choice for lots of people, heavily influenced by family, friends and work.
No, of course it isn't, I was being gently facetious. Everyone's situation is different of course, I could work from the surface of the moon for the difference it makes but other people aren't so lucky. I too have friends and family (for some value of, it's just my mum) locally so moving to the other end of the country would have cons rather than pros.
I just rather think the blame here is misplaced.
True. But private rental in the UK is nothing like renting in any other European country. Nothing inherently wrong with renting, but in the UK it is a financial trap without rights or security.
I looked this up, and we're not the outlier in Europe, Germany is. We're about on a par with France in terms of ownership, well behind Spain and Italy.
Yes, now I do – but I don’t tend to exploit people to make my money.
Could I ask your view on farmers?
If we're taking issue with basic human rights, surely food is in the same pot.
everyone who is employed full time should be able to have the option to own their own home – why can we not aim for that
it costs more than £60k (4x the minimum wage - seems like a reasonable figure to work with) to build a home in many parts of the country, even if you excluded the cost of land (by building it on land already publicly owned, or whatever..). even if you did figure out a way of doing that, it means your minimum wage earner would have to save 12k (deposit) whilst paying all other costs on minimum wage. its just not viable, which is where social housing should pick up those who cant.
Perhaps not the best use of that term, but I do believe everyone who is employed full time should be able to have the option to own their own home – why can we not aim for that?
You have the option, you just need to manage your expectations. If you're on minimum wage you shouldn't be astonished to discover that you can't afford a 4-bed detached in Surrey.
The government recently started a scheme which will basically loan you your deposit for first-time buyers, and there are other options too.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/help-to-buy-homebuy-and-other-housing-schemes
Yes, now I do – but I don’t tend to exploit people to make my money.
You do like to use disingenuously emotive language, don't you. It won't wash.
Repackaging that: you could use your superior buying power to purchase a house and then rent it out to someone who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford anywhere to live. You could turn a modest profit for your troubles rather than price-gouging or just aim to break even if you were so morally compelled and who knows, if you undercut other landlords then you might end up influencing the market bringing prices down in other properties in the area.
That property I linked to above is up for £50k and comes with boil-in-the-bag long-term tenants who will be there for at least another year. Do they sound "exploited" to you?
And sixth time lucky. What's the alternative? Someone cannot afford to buy, you want to shut down the rental market, what are you proposing instead? A sudden uptick in tent sales?
It's not the fault of BTL landlords that mortgage lenders currently want a 20% deposit, take that up with the lenders. It's actually a response to a sudden increase in buying during the CV crisis. Affordable 100% mortgages would likely kill the BTL market stone dead.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/feb/10/home-ownership-ons-rent
What’s the alternative?
All the alternatives would make buy to let unfeasible*, so I doubt you genuinely want to hear about them. Rent controls and caps for instance. Anyway, if you happy to see that the current situation creates problems for a lot of people, that’s a great start. The current system is very complex, as would anything better be, and would be hard to outline in a post here, no? And landlords really aren’t the problem here… the system is.
[ *not really true… perfectly feasible, just that such changes are resisted with claims that that they would make it so hard for landlords, that they’d all leave the market… which has never seemed plausible ]
If the farmer was renting me a chicken for £1, while selling to others for 25p, yeah I would have a problem with it.
Food is a highly competitive market with lots of choice for any budget, I can also grow my own food and use a food bank if I really need it ... not sure what comparison you are trying to make.
I just got a full survey done of a property I am hoping to buy. And then 2 independent builders and damp proofing professionals to assess cost.
Ex rental property near a hospital. The landlords are also doctors but living out in the nice villages.
The survey shows high levels of damp and insect infestation and a more dilapidated state than I noticed on my first inspection. The central heating is deamed unsafe due to a blocked flue. Looking at photos from its last sale 5 years ago it looks better than now.
How do landlords get away with doing nothing and just taking in rental cash.
we’re not the outlier in Europe, Germany is
We’re the outlier in terms of protection and tenure for people renting their home, that was my point.
Home ownership patterns differ across Europe… super high in Eastern and Southern countries. Surprised about France to be honest, I thought they had a higher proportion of renters than us… but perhaps that’s a Paris bias I have. I think the Scandy countries and Switzerland have far more renters than we do… I could look I suppose…
And sixth time lucky. What’s the alternative? Someone cannot afford to buy, you want to shut down the rental market, what are you proposing instead? A sudden uptick in tent sales?
You are describing the problem - house prices need to fall. To do this the BTL sector needs to shrink and at the same time the quality of rental properties needs to increase. This means people will make less money from property, horrifying I know.
