House price gravy train may have hit the buffers

[Highway Man]

Please sir to explain to me please.

You will go round in circles trying to converse with him, he has no concept of intellect.

 

[pete01]

You will go round in circles trying to converse with him, he has no concept of intellect.

Theres a few on here like that

 

[King Billy]

You have no clue who I vote for.

Fireman T nailed it:

you - including a tendency to use childish cliches, and vote for Racists

You'd vote for Trump, probably vote Reform or Restore.

 

[King Billy]

Please sir to explain to me please.

Your eyes will glaze over arnd you'll repeat your favourite comment:

Next stop, Woke Central, we hope you have enjoyed your journey on the Woke Express.

Choo choo, clickety clack clickety clack.

Wokey wokey choo choooooooooooo

Choo choooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Choo choo chooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Clickety clack ... clickety clack ... clickety clack

etc ad infinitum.

 

[Diver Fred]

is paying £1000 per month th in a shared house . He has a bedroom that he used also as his work from home station and shares a bathroom with one other.

How on earth do”normal” wage earners in >>London<< afford to rent? How can they possibly save for a mortgage deposit? My son earns a lot more than me but London Weighting does not transform a shop assistants salary into a mega wage.

Snipped a bit and highlighted London cause it just ain't London with the problems. Ignoring the popular belief that Landlords are in it for themselves with high rents etc which in my experience is not always true (yes there are some that do profiteer but there are many more that don't). With todays 'standards' on Let properties I'm not surprised that rents are escalating to ridiculous levels - either the costs involved with 'improvements' or the need to buy new properties that 'should' meet the decent homes standard.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Snipped a bit and highlighted London cause it just ain't London with the problems. Ignoring the popular belief that Landlords are in it for themselves with high rents etc which in my experience is not always true (yes there are some that do profiteer but there are many more that don't). With todays 'standards' on Let properties I'm not surprised that rents are escalating to ridiculous levels - either the costs involved with 'improvements' or the need to buy new properties that 'should' meet the decent homes standard.

The risk is this (it's already starting to happen in some areas).
More and more legislation for landlords to adhere to.
Less profit margin (shock horror, it's a business).
More hoops to jump through.
The parity in the landlord <> tenant relationship edging more and more in favour of the tenant.
Result? Landlords selling up and/or not adding to their portfolio.
Result? Less rental properties available.
Result? Increased rents.
Result? Less availability (or none) for those needing to rent.

Now, some of this might be mitigated if enough social housing is built, however government track record on this isn't great and not everyone needs or wants a social house.

I suspect what may well happen is this. On tv progs like QT in years to come, politicians will be blaming everyone but themselves for the distinct lack of private rental accommodation. Even though the industry is trying to make them see what their increased squeeze on landlords is doing.

There again, why should we be surprised. It's the same as small business trying to say 'we're really struggling here!' with increasing taxes etc. Do government listen?

 

[aveatry]

The risk is this (it's already starting to happen in some areas).
More and more legislation for landlords to adhere to.
Less profit margin (shock horror, it's a business).
More hoops to jump through.
The parity in the landlord <> tenant relationship edging more and more in favour of the tenant.
Result? Landlords selling up and/or not adding to their portfolio.
Result? Less rental properties available.
Result? Increased rents.
Result? Less availability (or none) for those needing to rent.

Now, some of this might be mitigated if enough social housing is built, however government track record on this isn't great and not everyone needs or wants a social house.

I suspect what may well happen is this. On tv progs like QT in years to come, politicians will be blaming everyone but themselves for the distinct lack of private rental accommodation. Even though the industry is trying to make them see what their increased squeeze on landlords is doing.

There again, why should we be surprised. It's the same as small business trying to say 'we're really struggling here!' with increasing taxes etc. Do government listen?

And now the government are changing how the EPC is calculated so any property with a gas boiler will never be able to reach a level C when it comes in. Currently there are 2m rented properties that already do not meet level C - so that's 2M less rental properties less to rent - wonder if that will mean lower rents - this government needs getting rid of and a sensible one putting in.

 

[FiremanT]

And now the government are changing how the EPC is calculated so any property with a gas boiler will never be able to reach a level C when it comes in. Currently there are 2m rented properties that already do not meet level C - so that's 2M less rental properties less to rent - wonder if that will mean lower rents - this government needs getting rid of and a sensible one putting in.

Landlords are entitled to expect a profit .

Your eyes will glaze over arnd you'll repeat your favourite comment:




etc ad infinitum.

The moment someone uses “woke” as an insult, I pretty much give up.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

The risk is this (it's already starting to happen in some areas).
More and more legislation for landlords to adhere to.
Less profit margin (shock horror, it's a business).
More hoops to jump through.
The parity in the landlord <> tenant relationship edging more and more in favour of the tenant.
Result? Landlords selling up and/or not adding to their portfolio.
Result? Less rental properties available.
Result? Increased rents.
Result? Less availability (or none) for those needing to rent.

It sounds logical on the surface, but your false assumption is that an exiting landlord burns the place down. They don't, they sell it. To someone who needs a house or another landlord. Either way it continues to house one household, exactly as it did when they owned it. There is no loss to the nation as a whole, and the price pressure will be reduced as a result of another house going on the market.

That buyer may be a first-time buyer who previously rented. So one less house to rent, but also one less tenant needing a home. All remains as-was, except that there's no longer a landlord taking someone's money to pay their mortgage.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

It sounds logical on the surface, but your false assumption is that an exiting landlord burns the place down. They don't, they sell it. To someone who needs a house or another landlord. Either way it continues to house one household, exactly as it did when they owned it. There is no loss to the nation as a whole, and the price pressure will be reduced as a result of another house going on the market.

That buyer may be a first-time buyer who previously rented. So one less house to rent, but also one less tenant needing a home. All remains as-was, except that there's no longer a landlord taking someone's money to pay their mortgage.

Don't necessarily disagree with some of that, however for those who need/want to rent privately, unless landlords are buying the stock that existing landlords are selling (which is increasingly not the position) there's less availability for those seeking to rent.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Don't necessarily disagree with some of that, however for those who need/want to rent privately, unless landlords are buying the stock that existing landlords are selling (which is increasingly not the position) there's less availability for those seeking to rent.

Yes... but someone buys the house. If they're not a landord then they're a tenant, or would be otherwise. So one less house to rent, but also one less tenant chasing the available houses.

Provided that the ex-landlord doesn't burn the place down then that house will revert to being someone's home, providing a roof over the heads of one household.

There will always be a core of tenants who couldn't or wouldn't ever buy a house. But we're a long way from them being all tenants, many currently renting will be itching to buy if the right house comes up at a tempting price.

 

[aveatry]

Yes... but someone buys the house. If they're not a landord then they're a tenant, or would be otherwise. So one less house to rent, but also one less tenant chasing the available houses.

If the tenant can not or will not buy a house before why would/ could they after, its going to be less rental properties and the same amount of tenants

Provided that the ex-landlord doesn't burn the place down then that house will revert to being someone's home, providing a roof over the heads of one household.

It was already doing that for the tenant that was forced out under labour
Also if that tenant was a long term one over many years its very likely that they are paying 100,s under current rental prices so when they get kicked out they will be faced with having to find 100s more a month as a new tenant in a new house.
Add on to that labour solving the migrant problem by empting hotels into private landlord homes - that kicked out tenant will be finding it very difficult to find another place

There will always be a core of tenants who couldn't or wouldn't ever buy a house. But we're a long way from them being all tenants, many currently renting will be itching to buy if the right house comes up at a tempting price.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

It may be bad for the landlord and their one tenant if they sell that house. But it's good for everyone else. The house remains, someone will live in it and it added one house to the supply of houses for sale, which will nudge the market price downwards. This will lead to lower selling prices and ultimately to lower rents, which are driven by selling prices.

So some short-term pain for one household but a gain for the economy as a whole.

If every landlord sold their house tomorrow then the UK would eventually be a better place for all tenants, after a period of turmoil.

 

[aveatry]

It may be bad for the landlord and their one tenant if they sell that house. But it's good for everyone else. The house remains, someone will live in it and it added one house to the supply of houses for sale, which will nudge the market price downwards. This will lead to lower selling prices and ultimately to lower rents, which are driven by selling prices.

So some short-term pain for one household but a gain for the economy as a whole.

If every landlord sold their house tomorrow then the UK would eventually be a better place for all tenants, after a period of turmoil.

Prices will not fall to that extent - but if they do then it will cost everyone more in tax as those lower value houses are sold to cover care in old age the shortfall will need to be raised in tax.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Prices will not fall to that extent - but if they do then it will cost everyone more in tax as those lower value houses are sold to cover care in old age the shortfall will need to be raised in tax.

That argument is a lot of a stretch!

Generally high housing costs are just a drain on an economy. The money obtained from selling an elderly person's valuable house ultimately comes from someone else buying it - they will probably have to take out a massive loan with big repayments that will vastly diminish their ability to spend on other things for the next 25 years.