Buy to let

Trail rat NYC has numerous different rental market segments, very few with any controls

In France (or around Paris at least) they have some enforcement of using spare/second properties for social housing for what price they deem appropriate.

Also if your looking to sell your property, they have first refusal. At what they think its worth. If you refuse their offer, you can’t sell for a set period after (1-2 years I think).

Sounds thoroughly crap, would hate to see enforced/limited rents here if they capped things.

I don’t really fancy going back to the feudal system it sounds pretty rubbish unless you are at the top

or the bottom

interesting because a quick google suggests otherwise – and that its already a very complex system depending on dates of occupation , build date , conversion date , which cycle of the moon they are in……

It was speaking to a few guys from NYC when i was last in the states(so appologies for not havign the exact details) that pointed it out to me that he bascially didnt dare move from his appartment as rent increase controls meant he was paying well under current market rate for a given appartment due to the time he had lived there.

SOunds shit for both the land lord and the tennent – as a land lord you cant charge market rate without evicting your tennent and your tennent doesnt have the social mobility that should be afforded by renting.

Lol social mobility.. Like I said -good for folk at the bottom
…

so its good to be forced by rent prices to be stuck in the house you have because its affordable purely by being there for along time and the market value has outstripped the rent controlled % increases ?

SOUNDS AWESOME – sign me up !

ITs the same shit cut a different way.

sounds like council houses for life, the stock that should be there for those who need it sold off or held onto because it’s a great deal even though you have done better…

The only solution to the problem is build a hell of a lot more houses. Added to that shifting a South East focussed economy/mindset which floods places that are already overfull and supporting sustainable house purchases, lower deposits and assistance to buy is what puts people at risk when it goes wrong.

You could tickle round the edges with things like tax breaks if you sell your BTL’s to first time buyers etc. but it’s just window dressing.

Council housing for life isn’t a problem, so long as the government builds enough of it, and doesn’t sell it off. That’s what council housing used to be, a huge stock of rental properties owned by the government. If you’re doing badly, then housing benefit pays for your rent, or, more realistically, the government just forgoes the rent. If you start doing better then you start paying rent to the government. If you’re doing well then you are essentially paying an extra tax, because you’re buying the government an asset. If you’re on housing benefit, then the government is buying itself an asset, rather than the current situation, where it is buying an asset for a rich private investor.

Councils can do this for much better value than developers/BTL because they own lots of land (or at least they did before they were forced to sell it all off), they have huge economies of scale, and they can borrow at much lower rates. They also just need to cover their costs, rather than making the 20% margin that a large professional developer will insist on. While it makes sense long term, unfortunately it would be expensive in the short term because the sector has been neglected for so long. Also, the current government are ideologically opposed to anything that doesn’t concentrate money in the hands of the rich.

Council housing for life isn’t a problem, so long as the government builds enough of it, and doesn’t sell it off. That’s what council housing used to be, a huge stock of rental properties owned by the government

It worked very well for decades and still would, just suffers from an image problem after Thatcher demonised it and set about destroying it (which Osbourne is now finishing).

It does seem silly that a developer can buy land from the council, build a few houses on it then rent them back to the council and make a tidy profit, yet the council can’t manage to do it themselves

yet the council can’t manage to do it themselves

Isn’t allowed to by law. The Tories won’t let councils build council houses.

Houses are just another asset class yeah.

The present landlord and tenant laws are far to lenient. We need some indentured servitude to stamp out the peasants and ne’er-do-wells lazy ways.

Titles for landlords would be a way of recognising the hard work of these important members of our society. Lord Dave, Sir Bob, (got a ring to it hasn’t it) saving Britain from certain destruction at the hands of the feckless rabble one terrace house at a time.

With enough concerted effort we can beat the laziness out of the poor and recognise the noble efforts of those who want to create a better Britain 😆

It’s not nuts though really Jambalaya.. It’s a radical idealistic idea would never become a reality, but it’s an extremely efficient and fair idea..
Which is what makes it a good idea..

Judging every idea by whether it has worked before suggests living in the past coupled with more than a twinge of some kind of moronic autism 🙂 (especially if you feel compelled to tenuously link every new idea to some failed, antiquated political ideology)

I’m not suggesting wholesale communism.. Just state controlled housing stock… Imagine the revenue
It could form part of the puzzle for a superb taxation system