Mortgage rates / interest etc

[Thingybob]

So now you have all the facts Kev what yer gonna do about that mortgage

 

[Fergie 307]

It is true, however, that he's not elected by anyone, and has nothing interesting to say. Two out of three ain't bad.

You cant have a meaningful debate without people from different viewpoints. Often people like Farage just reveal what unpleasant individuals they are, happy to give him a little airtime to do that.

 

[deema]

There are good and bad landlords, pretending otherwise is a bit silly.

Your absolutely right, there are good and bad landlords, and a level of regulation is required to protect the vulnerable.
The sector had a terrible reputation at one stage which was well deserved, however, one thing that is forgotten about is that rent control had a major impact on rental housing stock. It literally became a loss making exercise to be a landlord, and the sector wasn’t able to invest or carry out repairs effectively. It was only after 15 January 1989, the Housing Act 1988, that rent control in the private sector was abolished that we have seen high quality properties return to the sector, this coupled with much tighter regulation.
We are now seeing the signs of rental control coming back in, the effect is only going to be like last time and we will see landlords selling up and the remaining housing stock deteriorate in its quality. Without private rental properties there would be a huge housing crisis. I know that it will be suggested that it will free up more houses for people to buy / prices will reduce. However, house prices have fluctuated dramatically, from the days I recall that you could buy a whole street in Manchester for £1 to today, where houses are over valued. Throughout there has always been a demand for rental properties. Some people are just unsuitable for mortgages, can’t save, don’t want to own a house, or other factors. Social housing has always been oversubscribed for instance.

 

[Ozi]

Yes good for landlords. Not good for anybody else.

I have a very simple business model, I buy houses in need of repair, I renovate then rent. The aim is to make what I have to offer better than the average of it's kind in the area. That means good quality windows, loft insulation, the same grade of appliances I use in my own home. That allows me to set a rent above average. Doing that attracts tenants who can afford to pay the extra and who have noticed the difference. The theory is that a person choosing to pay a little more for something nice will keep it nice, there are exceptions but not many. This keeps my maintenance costs down and I split that saving with my tenants, I tell them I'm doing that when their rent goes down after a year due to their taking good care of my property and importantly letting me know if something needs fixing before it needs replacing. My average tenant stays just under 8 years, only once have I evicted a tenant who was harassing other vulnerable residents to borrow money. I'm sure that doesn't fit your political agenda, you don't like people owning other peoples homes, do you feel the same way about people owning food production or shops. I assume you make a living, who does that exploit?

Looking forward to your explanation of how my business is doing anyone any harm.

I know folks "do not feed the troll"

 

[Blackswanwood]

I have a very simple business model, I buy houses in need of repair, I renovate then rent. The aim is to make what I have to offer better than the average of it's kind in the area. That means good quality windows, loft insulation, the same grade of appliances I use in my own home. That allows me to set a rent above average. Doing that attracts tenants who can afford to pay the extra and who have noticed the difference. The theory is that a person choosing to pay a little more for something nice will keep it nice, there are exceptions but not many. This keeps my maintenance costs down and I split that saving with my tenants, I tell them I'm doing that when their rent goes down after a year due to their taking good care of my property and importantly letting me know if something needs fixing before it needs replacing. My average tenant stays just under 8 years, only once have I evicted a tenant who was harassing other vulnerable residents to borrow money. I'm sure that doesn't fit your political agenda, you don't like people owning other peoples homes, do you feel the same way about people owning food production or shops. I assume you make a living, who does that exploit?

Looking forward to your explanation of how my business is doing anyone any harm.

I know folks "do not feed the troll"

We have a similar approach with our rental properties. Treating tenants well makes good business sense.

I suspect a certain forum member believes "property is theft" though and will be along shortly with some random wikipedia and news articles to show how what we are doing makes us the sperm of the devil

 

[Jameshow]

We have a similar approach with our rental properties. Treating tenants well makes good business sense.

I suspect a certain forum member believes "property is theft" though and will be along shortly with some random wikipedia and news articles to show how what we are doing makes us the sperm of the devil

I have a holiday rental ... What does that make me?!

 

[Jacob]

I have a very simple business model, I buy houses in need of repair, I renovate then rent. The aim is to make what I have to offer better than the average of it's kind in the area. That means good quality windows, loft insulation, the same grade of appliances I use in my own home. That allows me to set a rent above average. Doing that attracts tenants who can afford to pay the extra and who have noticed the difference. The theory is that a person choosing to pay a little more for something nice will keep it nice, there are exceptions but not many. This keeps my maintenance costs down and I split that saving with my tenants, I tell them I'm doing that when their rent goes down after a year due to their taking good care of my property and importantly letting me know if something needs fixing before it needs replacing. My average tenant stays just under 8 years, only once have I evicted a tenant who was harassing other vulnerable residents to borrow money. I'm sure that doesn't fit your political agenda, you don't like people owning other peoples homes, do you feel the same way about people owning food production or shops. I assume you make a living, who does that exploit?

Looking forward to your explanation of how my business is doing anyone any harm.

I know folks "do not feed the troll"

No argument about building services and property management being useful/essential services which have to be paid for.
But we have housing problems and the system is not working for a large number of people, who may never get on the housing ladder, or be able to afford rents, especially in London and other places.
The cost of housing has been leveraged higher than incomes. The main responsibility for this is government policy, or absence thereof, particularly the sale of council housing and non replacement.
Private landlords are another feature. It's too easy. High rents are subsidised by housing benefit and house prices go up to match so they profit twice. Needs constraint by taxation, rent controls, minimum standards, licensing, more rights/security to tenants and so on.
2nd homes is another. This should not be possible when there is a desperate shortage.
Housing is a basic human right but house price to earnings ratio are at record high.
How would you suggest housing problem should be addressed, short or long term?

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/

 

[Jacob]

I have a holiday rental ... What does that make me?!

In a time of housing shortages it makes you highly privileged.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/

 

[deema]

Needs constraint by taxation, rent controls, minimum standards, licensing, more rights/security to tenants and so on.

This is the socialist mantra that created the last rental housing crisis in the 70’s were the private rental stock was abysmal. One of the reasons the social housing stock was sold off by Thatcher was that councils were not able to maintain it and standards were falling. Like me I believe you are if an age were you should be able to remember the social (council) housing estates that were literally slums, that after being sold off became highly desirable.

 

[deema]

In a time of housing shortages it makes you highly privileged.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/

Well, this is a bit misleading. For instance I believe in Liverpool you can still buy properties from the council for £1 each.
https://liverpool.gov.uk/housing/homes-for-a-pound/
There is a large part about where people want to live rather than where they could live.

 

[Dibs-h]

There is a large part about where people want to live rather than where they could live.

And times change - in some cities, what were once highly undesirable areas, are now so desirable prices are insane. I suppose the converse is true as well.

 

[johna.clements]

Your absolutely right, there are good and bad landlords, and a level of regulation is required to protect the vulnerable.
The sector had a terrible reputation at one stage which was well deserved, however, one thing that is forgotten about is that rent control had a major impact on rental housing stock. It literally became a loss making exercise to be a landlord, and the sector wasn’t able to invest or carry out repairs effectively. It was only after 15 January 1989, the Housing Act 1988, that rent control in the private sector was abolished that we have seen high quality properties return to the sector, this coupled with much tighter regulation.
We are now seeing the signs of rental control coming back in, the effect is only going to be like last time and we will see landlords selling up and the remaining housing stock deteriorate in its quality. Without private rental properties there would be a huge housing crisis. I know that it will be suggested that it will free up more houses for people to buy / prices will reduce. However, house prices have fluctuated dramatically, from the days I recall that you could buy a whole street in Manchester for £1 to today, where houses are over valued. Throughout there has always been a demand for rental properties. Some people are just unsuitable for mortgages, can’t save, don’t want to own a house, or other factors. Social housing has always been oversubscribed for instance.

The whole housing market is dysfunctional.

Successive governments have mostly adopted polices that drive up house prices. This makes people feel rich but they can only benefit if they downsize. The higher prices make it hard or impossible for many to buy.

Social housing used to be built to provide for families (mostly) to rent at cost. The majority of the social housing was sold off and replaced with short term rental which costs more. If social housing had continued to be built there would a million or two more houses in the country. This would have lowered the demand for buying and private renting which would have lowered house price increases, which would make some people feel less rich.

The government has introduced controls on private rents via caps on housing benefits. As I note above they would be better building social housing which would lower demand and prices.

 

[Jacob]

This is the socialist mantra that created the last rental housing crisis in the 70’s were the private rental stock was abysmal. One of the reasons the social housing stock was sold off by Thatcher was that councils were not able to maintain it and standards were falling.

Because of government underfunding

Like me I believe you are if an age were you should be able to remember the social (council) housing estates that were literally slums, that after being sold off became highly desirable.

I remember them well. They were nothing of the sort! They were a huge improvement on the private sector of the time, built to good standards to good sizes inside and out door spaces, and had a lively social mix. They went downhill after the sell offs. The better off used the discounted prices as a way out but the worse off couldn't do this.

 

[johna.clements]

This is the socialist mantra that created the last rental housing crisis in the 70’s were the private rental stock was abysmal. One of the reasons the social housing stock was sold off by Thatcher was that councils were not able to maintain it and standards were falling. Like me I believe you are if an age were you should be able to remember the social (council) housing estates that were literally slums, that after being sold off became highly desirable.

The council estate that I grew up on in the 60s and 70s was well maintained by the Conservative council it certainly was not a slum.

After the majority were sold at a discount in the 90s the neat front gardens are gone and the anti social behavior has increased.

 

[Jameshow]

In a time of housing shortages it makes you highly privileged.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/

It's mobile home lodge so not really applicable as it's holiday use only.

 

[deema]

I remember them well. They were nothing of the sort! They were a huge improvement on the private sector of the time, built to good standards to good sizes inside and out door spaces, and had a lively social mix. They went downhill after the sell offs. The better off used the discounted prices as a way out but the worse off couldn't do this.

The big push in the 70’s was for the ‘streets in the sky’s’ where large scale council flats were built in tower blocks In urbane areas. Terribly built, no community, massive crime issues, and rapidly became slums with huge numbers pulled down. Yes, fond memories.

 

[Jacob]

The big push in the 70’s was for the ‘streets in the sky’s’ where large scale council flats were built in tower blocks In urbane areas. Terribly built, no community, massive crime issues, and rapidly became slums with huge numbers pulled down. Yes, fond memories.

Downhill in the 70s yes. Lack of investment. I remember it well - some were so bad that they were demolished not long after.
The best were the post war brick built.

 

[Jacob]

It's mobile home lodge so not really applicable as it's holiday use only.

That's OK then we'll let you off!

 

[deema]

Downhill in the 70s yes. Lack of investment. I remember it well - some were so bad that they were demolished not long after.
The best were the post war brick built.

The war finished in 1945, Britain needed to rebuild and ‘create housing for the return soldiers’. Resources were scarce, and the UK was not in financial good shape. There were large numbers of prefab houses built, which is where the UK aversion to prefabricated housing came from as they were only ever intended as temporary accommodation, and were not well built or insulated and suffered from damp and being cold……..a great number are still with us. The high rise social housing movement started in the late 60’s, and the big council house sell off started in the 80’s.

 

[Jacob]

The war finished in 1945, Britain needed to rebuild and ‘create housing for the return soldiers’. Resources were scarce, and the UK was not in financial good shape. There were large numbers of prefab houses built, which is where the UK aversion to prefabricated housing came from as they were only ever intended as temporary accommodation, and were not well built or insulated and suffered from damp and being cold……..a great number are still with us. The high rise social housing movement started in the late 60’s, and the big council house sell off started in the 80’s.

I remember the prefab bungalows well. They were still around in the 60s. Good in terms of space and planning, low maintenance, well built, but cold, as you say. But coal was cheap.
High rise originally was idealistic but often done on the cheap. Now it's all done on the cheap.