Rules for non UK citizens buying houses in the UK?

[MIGNAL]

Oh I get it. You are still sore from when I said you complained a lot!!
It's not a matter of me believing. He admits it. What part of that don't you understand? I'm shocked you aren't absolutely furious, indignant about what was going on. I'm sure the Blue rinse brigade were.

Here Wrodger, read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3478635.stm

It's only from February of 2004!! Do keep up Wodger!!!

And to cap it all. . . I read it in the. . . Daily Mail!! (LOL!!! Classic!!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... loans.html

 

[pebbles]

The uk housing situation is complex and requires a multi-solution response. It won’t only be solved by building more houses, though more will help in some areas. Equally important is bringing back into use vacant properties that became vacant for a multitude of reasons. In some areas inventive schemes are already appearing to do just that - can’t remember exactly but is Liverpool one place where houses can be bought for £1 with inexpensive loans available to renovate them? Imaginative and very sensible.

But as has been said before, bringing work into the (typically but not exclusively, northern) depressed areas is the only sustainable way of ensuring housing is where it’s needed. There is still a significant number of houses costing less than £20k available to buy in such areas for those who can finance a deposit.

It’s too easy and lazy to blame btl landlords absolutely. For sure - just as in any business - there are the good and the bad. Where it does go wrong - i.e. the reason for many of the vacant properties, it’s mostly naivety which causes some landlords to underestimate how much to keep in reserve to cover void periods or general repairs, or potentially dealing with break-ins or arson attacks.

Just as equally there are good and bad tenants. Landlords may be parents to their own children, but they are not parents to the tenant. Arrears can be a massive problem for some landlords, as is the wilful neglect or trashing of properties. The system is weighted heavily in favour of the tenant with the landlord rarely being able to recoup what has been lost.

The majority of landlords will be decent people running a decent business, as the majority of tenants are decent people keeping up their end of the contract. For it is a legal contract with responsibilities on both sides.

I’m not really sure why it’s such an emotive subject, other than Britain has had a longer history than elsewhere in Europe of home-ownership. Elsewhere, there’s less of a stigma attached to renting at all professional levels, tenancies are often for far longer and with the tenant being responsible for far more by way of general maintenance. A vested interest in their own home (even if the house bricks and mortar belong to someone else) brings about a completely different mindset to the one which too often exists in the uk. Healthier and beneficial for all.

The reason I’m uncomfortable with the notion of large tracts of - say - London being bought up by foreign oligarchs is that I feel there’s a significant danger of creating a Pottersville (that’s Henry rather than Harry) which would in no way benefit the country.

I have less of an issue with migrant work/new life seekers. The uk has been created from many nationalities, over the millennia. Go back far enough, all of us originated from somewhere else. It’s not so much that the country is overcrowded, just that the distribution needs shifting. One thing that struck me driving up from the tunnel to Yorkshire the last time, was how much green there is as far as the eye can see either side of the motorways, rarely punctuated by significantly built up areas.

I’m not suggesting it should all be instantly built upon, but accurate, balanced perception is critical in any situation.

 

[devonwoody]

To be honest I have not read all the posts above, got the gist from the first few.

But I can honestly state this point.

My granddad was offered his rented property in North London as a sitting tenant for £550 around 1952, he would not buy, looking on the internet at the same property today it was sold for £750,000 recently.

So buy buy buy.

 

[Jacob]

........
I’m not really sure why it’s such an emotive subject, .......

1 Because the quality of one's home is a major factor in the quality of life.
2 because there's a very artificial bubble inflating prices - my first house (1974) cost £3000, 6 times what it had been a few years earlier, now worth 1/4 million - ridiculous - it's still a dump!
3 The mad prices means that for most people property takes up 1/3 to 1/2 of their income and dominates their lives - for no good reason except inflation.
4 Self employed also have to find work space which is very pricy and near impossible for start ups, so it's bad for business. This affects all of us - small businesses can't pay High St or town centre prices so we have estate agents, charity shops and supermarkets instead.
5 The community as a whole suffers from the rentier economy which limits our access to land and property and the things we might do with them if we could.
could be a very long list!

 

[pebbles]

People have always moved to go where the work is, why should that be any different today? Much of what you're saying is area specific, for there are grants and help available for start-ups in a great number of areas. Maybe just not where you'd want to be.

There's a different attitude towards disposable income these days, with people not wanting to spend as high a proportion of their income on the roof over their head. But with many northern rents pegged at something like £10-£12 per day you can hardly suggest that's a large percentage of an income! How much is a packet of cigarettes these days?!

Inflation is a fact of life which rises and falls according to many factors - many outside of the uk's control - i.e. early 70's oil crisis - which largely affected your house price of 1974. What year did you sell the house, or if you still have it - haven't you benefitted from the increase? Could you not sell it to move to a less expensive area...? There are always - always - choices - even if it means we can't always have exactly what we want when we want it.

The quality of your home is not determined by outside factors but rather what you put into it by way of personal investment (not only financial)

 

[RogerS]

Oh I get it. You are still sore from when I said you complained a lot!!
It's not a matter of me believing. He admits it. What part of that don't you understand? I'm shocked you aren't absolutely furious, indignant about what was going on. I'm sure the Blue rinse brigade were.

Here Wrodger, read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3478635.stm

It's only from February of 2004!! Do keep up Wodger!!!

And to cap it all. . . I read it in the. . . Daily Mail!! (LOL!!! Classic!!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... loans.html

Calm down, dear, calm down. You'll give yourself a heart attack the way you're hammering those keys. I can hear them from here.

I dunno....your posts are getting more and more splenetic. I think the best thing to do is to put you with Jacob on the Ignore list. You should get on very well with each other. You can share your bowl of gruel together and mither about the nasty Tories to your heart's content.

 

[RogerS]

Very well said, pebbles. Unfortunately, you will find that Jacob will not accept your very sound reasoning as he will be on his usual bandwagon.

 

[pebbles]

That's alright... everyone's entitled to their opinion. Every word I've written, is only my view to be taken or left as someone sees fit. I'm not out to convert anyone :lol:

 

[Jacob]

.....
There's a different attitude towards disposable income these days, with people not wanting to spend as high a proportion of their income on the roof over their head. But with many northern rents pegged at something like £10-£12 per day you can hardly suggest that's a large percentage of an income! ........

What rents where? Pegged by whom? £10 a day wouldn't get you a one bedroom terrace around here - starts at about £400 a month at the bottom. 3 beds would be £1000 ish. People are having to spend a higher proportion of their income on property nowadays than they ever did. Property prices going up at about 10% pa at the moment, incomes aren't!
You might be a bit out of touch in "a middle bit of France".

 

[pebbles]

:lol: Pegged by market forces. Prices may be rising at that rate, but in localised areas. Elsewhere they remain static, or are even falling further.

It seems evident that you live in a more exclusive part of the country, but the majority of 2-3 bed houses in the real-world northern areas I am very familiar with (Hull, Doncaster, Burnley etc etc etc), rent for around £75-£80 per week. Today. Trust me, I'm not out of touch :lol:

 

[MIGNAL]

I don't doubt that you can find some 2 bed houses that rent out at that level but there aren't many. To call it 'a majority' is far from the truth. It will be a very tiny minority at those prices. They are almost certainly located in run down parts of the inner city. Of course you will find endless flats and sharing schemes at 300 - 350 pcm.
Even in the atrocious area that I live in a typical 2 bed terrace will be a minimum of £100 per week and that's in one of the poorest areas in one of the poorest cities in the UK. Just go on Rightmove, the rental rates for all the grim northern towns are all on there. Just put in a limit of 350 pcm, filter out the Flats. See how many you can find at 300 - 350 pcm. Very few.
400 - 450 pcm produces much more results. Unfortunately they are still in run down parts of the City. When you are on near minimum wage (likely for those areas) £100 - £120 pw takes a fair chunk of that wage.

 

[Jacob]

.....
It seems evident that you live in a more exclusive part of the country, ....:

The point is - very large parts of the country have become exclusive - virtually the whole of the countryside and also many towns and villages. Even bloody Doncaster is expensive!

 

[pebbles]

I was being very specific only to the areas I have first hand knowledge of, and haven't personally found it to be a tiny majority, but typical of extensive areas I'm familiar with.

There have always been exclusivity differences countrywide, nothing new there, just shifting economies. Think back to the industrial revolution - a significant proportion of the country's wealth was northern based with the poor agricultural south bearing the brunt of hardship.

That's quite possibly true for some parts of Doncaster, but the other side to that is that many other parts are no-go areas with boarded properties the police have a hard time effectively policing.

 

[finneyb]

2 because there's a very artificial bubble inflating prices - my first house (1974) cost £3000, 6 times what it had been a few years earlier, now worth 1/4 million -

And in 1974 if you had a mortgage the interest rate doubled from 8% to 16% between June and December - the repayment increased every month from memory. So I a little sceptical about saying the young have it hard now with interest rates at less than 5%.

The BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27441009 gives good advice on saving money - most of which I did, and I assume a lot of others did at that time, with the exception of the mobile phone tariff of course.

Savings based: 30 year-old, working till 68

Cut out one take-away coffee a week: £11,800
Switch mobile phone tariff: £16,100
Cut out one packet of cigarettes a week: £31,400
Cut out a take-away: £50,900
Take a packed lunch to work: £63,700

 

[devonwoody]

Finneyb
The last three cars I have owned, first kept 7 years, second 13 years, present one 7 years so I have also learnt were the money goes.

 

[doorframe]

Savings based: 30 year-old, working till 68

Cut out one take-away coffee a week: £11,800
Don't drink take-away coffee.

Switch mobile phone tariff: £16,100
Haven't got a mobile phone.

Cut out one packet of cigarettes a week: £31,400
Don't smoke.

Cut out a take-away: £50,900
Don't have take-aways.

Take a packed lunch to work: £63,700
Already take cheap supermarket soup to work.



Damm. With nothing to make savings against, it looks like I'm destined to stay poor. #-o

 

[MIGNAL]

Don't buy any woodworking tools.

Saving: £960,000

Sit in the middle of a field for 55 years.

Saving: £1,686,208

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The price of property is simply a function of demand and supply - more people want property than there is available in some regions (mainly but not exclusively the South East and London). Homes in some parts of the UK are still readily affordable - the main problem is lack of job opportunities.

Prices are helped up by lending high multiples of income making both banks and borrowers vulnerable if interest rates increase or incomes stagnate or fall. I strongly support the increased financial testing of borrowers rather than walk into a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis started in US with the savings and loans companies. It's also worth noting that 60%+ of households owns their own properties - there would be a very limited appetite for policies to materially reduce prices.

The solution is either to build more houses where people want them (green belt under threat) or job creation in more deprived areas (to move demand for property away from South East. Politicians of all parties are touting the high speed rail line as a (partial) solution - there are far, far more effective ways to invest for the public good.

A "mansion tax" would ensure that the taxpayer benefits from the number of expensive properties bought by overseas investors. Low income little old ladies living in ££million houses who may also be similarly taxed get limited sympathy - they are denying others from living there. However I suspect this would have little impact on property prices generally.

I am also a "rapacious" landlord who bought a flat to rent out with a legacy. This adds to my pension and seemed more reliable than alternative investments (low annuity rates, iffy investment funds) or spending it - new car, holiday apartment etc. Some people who at times in their lives will find rental preferable to ownership - particularly the young or mobile. Buy to let does not increase house prices generally - the prices paid by landlords is mainly a function of the rental return - a greater supply of property would reduce both prices and rents charged.

Rgds

Terry

 

[RogerS]

..... Low income little old ladies living in ££million houses who may also be similarly taxed get limited sympathy - they are denying others from living there. .....

Terry

Jesus! Hitler lives.

 

[Jacob]

T...... Buy to let does not increase house prices generally - the prices paid by landlords is mainly a function of the rental return ,,,,,

It increases prices. Every additional bidder at a sale pushes the price up.
Rent return has become a detail - capital value being a bigger return. So much so that keeping a property empty can make more economic sense - why bother with messy tenants when you have capital growth of 10% or more? Hence the boom in second homes - a very expensive way to have a holiday but not if you factor in the capital appreciation.