The Big Con

[Freddie]

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hold on a minute--my original post was because of an argument with someone regarding a housing shortage and this report shows that there actually isnt except for the odd place like London.

Property investers--well if you look at when property started to rise in the uk it was after the stock market crash so people had somewhere else to put their spare cash ( thats up to them no law against it ).

But this has been spurred on by a corrupt and failing goverment who have engineered things to give a feel good factor ( nothing new there ).

Eventually it will come to an end when something comes along unexpectantly and scuppers the market directly or indirectly.

All though it does cause hardship you cant blame people for making money or wanting to better theirselves even if it is at the expence of others cause it really is a s hitty world.

Communism was tried once and although ideal--it didnt work--sorry.

 

[WoodYouLike]

anyone who buys a house to keep it empty is a brick short of a hod load and i cant see many investors doing that to be honest. i dont know of many either (since my brother has a large residential and commercial property business in a large city i have some basis to go on) most investors will either do up a property and sell it on or rent it out, even if only in the short term. otherwise they are losing money and making no return on their investment.

Can only speak on commercial property, not sure if same might apply to residential property, but..

most commercial properties are rented/leased out with a personal guarantee from the tenant (even if tenant is a company). If that company goes bust, the property owner gets his/her money from the personal guarantee and isn't in a hurry to rent it our again.

Large town in our area is always 'full' of empty commercial properties, when on the same hand lots of companies are looking for commercial premisses.
It's getting a bit better now, since here the rent/lease amounts are going up cause of high demand and 'landlords' are making more haste to fill the empty properties cause new leases will create more profits now then letting them stay empty on this personal guarantee base.
(Hope I'm making sense)

 

[Softus]

Hi WoodYouLike

This is quite useful information - I can see you know your stuff regarding commercial property.

However, I think the debate was about residential property and effect of private investors using up housing stock at the more affordable end of the market.

At least that's what I think most of us were discussing; I doubt that anyone really knows what oilman is talking about.

S.

 

[Slogger]

most property developers albeit the amateurs wont pay any tax at all and will bodge the house they do up so they make more money on them time for more red tape me thinks to stop this racket


if you buy a house you should then be made to keep it for 5 years that should stop the buy it cheap and sell dear mob in there tracks and make more houses available for those that cant afford to pay high prices


and another would be a queue where young couples put there names down to buy houses in there areas and they get first choice at them make them keep there first house for at least 5 years

 

[oilman]

Hi WoodYouLike

This is quite useful information - I can see you know your stuff regarding commercial property.

However, I think the debate was about residential property and effect of private investors using up housing stock at the more affordable end of the market.

At least that's what I think most of us were discussing; I doubt that anyone really knows what oilman is talking about.

S.

I wonder what you get out of these continual snipes. Your post would be quite reasonable, except for the last sentence. I wonder what perception other people have of you.

There are many people buying properties to let, they are private purchasers. They see money to be made, but there a lot of the properties staying empty as they don't find tenants, and/or they use the services of an agent and there is little left for them after the agents fees have been deducted. These are not clued up commercial propertiy businesses, they are inexperienced or ill advised people who think there is easy money in property.

 

[Softus]

What happened oilman - did your asterisk key get worn out?

I wonder what perception other people have of you.

Feel free to wonder. However, invaluable as your contribution has been to this topic, your time would be better spent on getting your facts right, or on answering Thermo's question.

There are many people buying properties to let, they are private purchasers. They see money to be made, but there a lot of the properties staying empty as they don't find tenants, and/or they use the services of an agent and there is little left for them after the agents fees have been deducted. These are not clued up commercial propertiy businesses, they are inexperienced or ill advised people who think there is easy money in property.

Maybe I misterpreted Freddie's most recent posting, but he appears to have read a report that shows that there actually isn't a housing shortage "except for the odd place like London".

You have not even the vaguest statistics, but only the clumsiest prejudices to support your assertions. I can hardly wait for your next royal pronouncement...

 

[Freddie]

I can and have seen your point Oilman, but market forces will sort them out, it's just that the innocents get caught up in it aswell, perhaps Sloggers right when he says there should be a rule made to slow up the process of investors--perhaps buy to lets and other investments should have a 5 year ruling

 

[keyplayer]

So, Mary Whitehouse. Reincarnated as a DIYnot moderator or what?

 

[Mudster]

There should be a legal cap on the amount people are allowed to borrow, the only reason prices have reached such a high amount is the ease of finance available.

If the mechanisms weren't in place for people to be able to borrow such enormous multiples of their incomes then the house prices would be kept to a manageable level, this is simple economics.

Now this actually happened where many people hit a glass ceiling and mortgage companies needed to lend to people who now didn't fit their criteria.

Enter self certification, you got a big enough deposit, we'll lend you Mozabique's national debt equivalent. No questions asked.......

Slow down?

Soft landing?

I don't think so....wait for the biggest bang you've ever seen, for those of you like me that remember the last one, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[confidentincompetent]

Afraid your sooo right mudster.

 

[dg123]

In Oxford there are 5,000 empty city council owned properties (residential) yet there is continual talk of destroying the green areas due to the requirement for new homes. Homelessness is not a great problem in Oxford so why the need for new houses? Also, unemployment is virtually nil - the only ones not working are too idle to do so (I do not include the genuinely ill in this). Most of the need for development has been 'inspired' by the colleges as they own nearly all of the land in and around Oxford. Aided and abetted by the city councillors who have their noses stuck up rear ends they look to generate many more £millions for their coffers.

Oxford is seen as a nice place to live but there is no industry here, no major employers (other than BMW but many of these workers do not live in Oxford) - so, again, there is no real need for further housing.

Areas which are perceived as less than desirable to live in due to unemployment, lack of facilities, etc. should be the priorities for redevelopment. This should not stop at housing but also include incentives for businesses to move to these areas and provide employment. Why should all commerce centre around the south-east when there is a whole country to be put to work?