House prices rose 7.3% this year, average now almost £250k

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eurofighter said:
Homelessness is a huge problem. You dont get benefits without a house. I think that needs to change.

I would like to visit California. Including LA. Not sure if I would like to live there but if I could find a nice area that wasn't too expensive.
Click to expand...

Plenty of nice areas not too expensive (relatively). I live in Signal Hill, which is a super small city next to Long Beach. It is south and just at the edge of LA county. Pre-covid the traffic to work in Santa Monica was about 1hr 30min drive (which is the same as my old train journey in the UK). My house would be $3-4mil if it were in Santa Monica, but it is substantially less where I am.

https://www.redfin.com/city/18347/CA/Signal-Hill

Long beach can be very cheap, but you have to know the area to avoid ghettos or gang areas:
https://www.redfin.com/city/10940/CA/Long-Beach

Lots to see and do here no matter your interest. You can surf in the morning and ski in the afternoon. Hike beautiful mountain trails, then hang at a brewery. Avoid Hollywood Blvd, or at least visit once with expectations set appropriately. Downtown LA is best as a night time location, bar and club hopping. But it would be best if you had a local guide. It is easy to stumble into something grotty.

I would be happy to supply ideas depending on tastes.

North of LA is Ventura county, an exceptionally nice area. House pricing is far more "normal" and you are still in easy reach of the main LA cities (downtown, Santa Monica, Culver City, Burbank etc.). Schools are better outside of LA county and sales tax is lower in Ventura.

https://www.redfin.com/city/19798/CA/Thousand-Oaks

Psycho Sonny said:
LA outwith the absolute best parts is a complete dump including Hollywood.

Obviously the beach is nice and Santa Monica pier, Beverly hills, rodeo drive and a few other places. But the place is absolutely massive so obviously it's going to have good parts dotted about.

Universal studios is a full day out best to get there half an hour before the park opens and pay extra for the premium parking right next to the entrance.

You will need to hire a car to get around. It's not a cheap place to visit either. It's much like London where everything is expensive, there's lots of traffic and even more bad drivers especially when you add legal weed into the mix. I was amazed how many luxury cars there were driving about with serious amount of damage to them as if cars getting pranged is a regular occurrence and some people after a while don't even bother fixing their own and wait for someone to crash into them before getting it fixed.

Hotels are expensive and you may think Airbnb is cheaper and it can be if more than 1 family sharing costs but the cheap option on those is usually always is areas where there's a lot of dodgy characters about or extreme amounts of traffic or both. Like it's cheap because it's right on top of a busy intersection where all you will here is traffic all night long because the house is made of wood.

If you do rent a car pay the extra for the best insurance option available. You want to be covered for everything and anything.

Personally I'd avoid going altogether. Visit Canada instead it's 1000 times better than America.
Click to expand...

Hollywood Blvd is a known dump to the locals, but there are great areas of Hollywood. I've been driving in LA for 6 years now and have not had a single accident. There are idiots on the road, no different than the M25. Like any unfamiliar place, it is best to get someone who knows the area. There are huge cultural differences, and it is easy to stumble into a genuine ghetto.

Arsonist said:
I'll be honest, LA was ab absolute dump. I travelled around the USfor a month, and it was the only place I wanted to leave after the first day.
Santa Barbra was lovel though, just down the road. Stayed out in a fantastic yurt in the mountains with views across the sea. I'd recommend going there!
Click to expand...

What do you consider "LA"? Downtown LA, LA county? You may as well judge all of London by Thorton Heath.
 
JBod said:
Plenty of nice areas not too expensive (relatively). I live in Signal Hill, which is a super small city next to Long Beach. It is south and just at the edge of LA county. Pre-covid the traffic to work in Santa Monica was about 1hr 30min drive (which is the same as my old train journey in the UK). My house would be $3-4mil if it were in Santa Monica, but it is substantially less where I am.

https://www.redfin.com/city/18347/CA/Signal-Hill

Long beach can be very cheap, but you have to know the area to avoid ghettos or gang areas:
https://www.redfin.com/city/10940/CA/Long-Beach

Lots to see and do here no matter your interest. You can surf in the morning and ski in the afternoon. Hike beautiful mountain trails, then hang at a brewery. Avoid Hollywood Blvd, or at least visit once with expectations set appropriately. Downtown LA is best as a night time location, bar and club hopping. But it would be best if you had a local guide. It is easy to stumble into something grotty.

I would be happy to supply ideas depending on tastes.

North of LA is Ventura county, an exceptionally nice area. House pricing is far more "normal" and you are still in easy reach of the main LA cities (downtown, Santa Monica, Culver City, Burbank etc.). Schools are better outside of LA county and sales tax is lower in Ventura.

https://www.redfin.com/city/19798/CA/Thousand-Oaks



Hollywood Blvd is a known dump to the locals, but there are great areas of Hollywood. I've been driving in LA for 6 years now and have not had a single accident. There are idiots on the road, no different than the M25. Like any unfamiliar place, it is best to get someone who knows the area. There are huge cultural differences, and it is easy to stumble into a genuine ghetto.



What do you consider "LA"? Downtown LA, LA county? You may as well judge all of London by Thorton Heath.
Click to expand...
Well I travelled around for several days throughout a good chunk of LA. I saw Pasedena, Compton, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Newport and also central areas like Huntington Park. Most places I saw were not nice. Perhaps the subburbs are OK, but in terms of LA the city, yeah, it was grim.
 
dowie said:
Saw this and thought of this thread - quite amusing the BBC spun it this way, anyway I'm sure you guys will appreciate the story and feel terribly sorry for the BTL landlord:

What an awful situation they must be in now the government has..... extended a ban on evictions.
Click to expand...

The government are already supporting the markets and landlords through direct fiscal stimulus. Furlough, along with whatever other welfare exists.
 
dowie said:
Saw this and thought of this thread - quite amusing the BBC spun it this way, anyway I'm sure you guys will appreciate the story and feel terribly sorry for the BTL landlord:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56055019?


What an awful situation they must be in now the government has..... extended a ban on evictions.
Click to expand...

Really hate this attitude, it is rife across BTL. Investments can go down aswell as up, end of story. You took on risk for reward, it's not a guarantee and we're breaking the whole bloody market by propping it up. Scumbags.
 
dowie said:
Saw this and thought of this thread - quite amusing the BBC spun it this way, anyway I'm sure you guys will appreciate the story and feel terribly sorry for the BTL landlord:

What an awful situation they must be in now the government has..... extended a ban on evictions.
Click to expand...

Buying a property as an investment is little different to buying shares. It carries risk, although people seem to imagine it carries none. The risk is the tenant doesn't pay their rent or you can't find tenants or the tenants trash your property or property prices drop and you are forced to sell at that time. You can insure against at least 2 of those. Yeah it sucks when tenants either can't afford their rent because of an income problem perhaps caused by the pandemic or they choose not to pay because they know you can't evict them. It also sucks when the shares you bought drop because of actions outside your control.

I used to work in an industry that had dealings with evictions. The amount of horror stories of landlords taking the rent and not paying the mortgage was shocking. So then the county court bailiffs arrive to take possession and evict them when they've been paying their rent. Had a fair few cases where the landlord would ask them for another couple of months rent in advance a week before the eviction, giving some excuse that they were going abroad for a while so wouldn't be around. Yeah they might have been naive to pay it but they were still homeless and would never get their money or deposit back.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Saw this and thought of this thread - quite amusing the BBC spun it this way, anyway I'm sure you guys will appreciate the story and feel terribly sorry for the BTL landlord:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56055019?


What an awful situation they must be in now the government has..... extended a ban on evictions.
Click to expand...

I've little sympathy for her either, yes she claims that she's like most other landlords and only has the one BTL, but that fuels the problem.

I am assuming her BTL is mortgaged, because if it wasn't, then it would be less of an issue - yes she wouldn't be getting any income from it, but at least she also wouldn't be owing money on it.

She's gotta accept some responsibility in that if you want a mortgaged BTL property, then you've gotta consider how it'll be paid for if you lose your job and you don't current have any tenants.
 
dowie said:
Saw this and thought of this thread - quite amusing the BBC spun it this way, anyway I'm sure you guys will appreciate the story and feel terribly sorry for the BTL landlord:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56055019?


What an awful situation they must be in now the government has..... extended a ban on evictions.
Click to expand...

If they bought a property and can't afford to pay the mortgage, then they should sell the property or the lender should liquidate the asset to recover their loan. Simple as that.
 
HACO said:
Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically speaking, yes. But she'd struggle to sell it with a tenant in situ, and current laws prevent her starting legal proceeding to evict the tenant.

As i said above, i've not got any sympathy for her, but unfortunately it's not easy for her to get out of her situation.
 
Semple said:
Hypothetically speaking, yes. But she'd struggle to sell it with a tenant in situ, and current laws prevent her starting legal proceeding to evict the tenant.

As i said above, i've not got any sympathy for her, but unfortunately it's not easy for her to get out of her situation.
Click to expand...

‍Who cares about her struggles to sell? She can reduce the price until she can sell. Or the foreclosure process will do that for her. She made the wrong investment and does not deserve to be bailed out, nor does she deserve any sympathy. Her entitlement that she believes she deserves to get universal credit when she's a BTL landlord is absurd.
 
HACO said:
‍Who cares about her struggles to sell? She can reduce the price until she can sell. Or the foreclosure process will do that for her. She made the wrong investment and does not deserve to be bailed out, nor does she deserve any sympathy. Her entitlement that she believes she deserves to get universal credit when she's a BTL landlord is absurd.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.
 
BTLers need to get used to the idea that having an income from BTL isn't a guarantee

For too long BTL has seen a near guaranteed income. House price rises, welfare payments effectively being paid to landlords, plenty of rent.
How many other investments offer that guarantee?

This seems to have produced an idea of entitlement to help that no one else gets.
If my s&s isa falls I don't expect the government to bail me out.

It's ludicrous to suggest that renters bail landlords out. Because that's effectively what is being suggested. Just because you have a physical asset, doesn't mean it's not just another investment.
 
Many people on housing benefit are long term disabled and should be able to own their house.

I have experience of the benefit system. If you are unable to work you can get about £400 a month for rent. But if you have a mortgage you used to get a bit of money towards it but since the Tories came in you get some money but you have to pay it back when you sell your house. It's the benefit system that is propping up BTL. Allow disabled people to own thier own homes by giving people £400 a month to do what they want with. By the time they are 50 or so they will have paid off the mortgage making them richer. No more housing benefit is needed for the rest of thier lives and perhaps their children's lives as it will be inherited.

Problem is housing benefit.
 
Eurofighter said:
Many people on housing benefit are long term disabled and should be able to own their house.

I have experience of the benefit system. If you are unable to work you can get about £400 a month for rent. But if you have a mortgage you used to get a bit of money towards it but since the Tories came in you get some money but you have to pay it back when you sell your house. It's the benefit system that is propping up BTL. Allow disabled people to own thier own homes by giving people £400 a month to do what they want with. By the time they are 50 or so they will have paid off the mortgage making them richer. No more housing benefit is needed for the rest of thier lives and perhaps their children's lives as it will be inherited.

Problem is housing benefit.
Click to expand...

How do you propose that disabled people will be able to buy homes with only a £400 a month income? That would barely cover the monthly mortgage payment on a 100k property with 95% LTV.

How do they then afford the dozen or so other bills that come with property ownership?
 
I am on disability benefit at the moment and rent my home. But I have a part time job. I could afford to buy if I didnt have to spend the money on rent as I have some savings I had before I became I'll. I do live up north where you can get a 2 bedroom house for 70k. But there are flats down south people could buy. If you are long term disabled and even on universal credit and pip it is possible. I would be able to do it if I was on motability and didnt have to pay for my car.

Also. How do people rent on 400 a month. Well they dont live alone.

And increase minimum wage. Stop subsidising slave wages with universal credit.

Either way there are a lot of people on housing benefit. Some of which would be better off in council housing and some buying. But they cant.

Either way. Vote labour if you want the housing situation to get any better.
 
Eurofighter said:
Either way there are a lot of people on housing benefit. Some of which would be better off in council housing and some buying. But they cant.
Click to expand...
Private landlords get £9bn/year in housing benefit from taxpayers. So yes I agree with this.

Eurofighter said:
Either way. Vote labour if you want the housing situation to get any better.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Tony Bliar and Gordon Brown did nothing but perpetuate the housing bubble. Tony and Cherie *spit* seem perfectly happy with the 10 houses and 27 flats in their BTL empire (last counted 5 years ago so bound to be more now). Labour has just as many fingers in the property market, they're just more subtle about it for the most part.
 
D.P. said:
she can always sell the property
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, it's an illiquid asset and she has a tenant who isn't paying rent and who she can't currently evict... I mean arguably someone might buy it off her at a huge discount knowing there is a tenant they'll possibly need to spend thousands to evict at a later date and/or with some uncertainty re: how long protections might last/be extended and possible court backlogs etc.. but if that were to put her well into negative equity then it isn't necessarily a solution - she still owes the bank money... could end up bankrupt regardless depending on her personal situation.

It is silly to be pot committed to an illiquid asset like that if you don't have other assets - lots of BTL landlords have no business being BTL landlords, if you don't also have substantial savings, investments in bonds and equities or a substantial income that can cover things if they go wrong then you probably shouldn't be investing in liquid assets like that. I mean there is nothing stopping people from doing it beyond basic affordability requirements etc.. but it is their choice to take on the risk (or indeed blunder on in naive to the risks).

Chris1712 said:
Really hate this attitude, it is rife across BTL. Investments can go down aswell as up, end of story. You took on risk for reward, it's not a guarantee and we're breaking the whole bloody market by propping it up. Scumbags.
Click to expand...

Yup, we'll probably see plenty of stories like this if prices drop a bit too on top of rents being missed etc.. I mean people are free to take leveraged punts and they can get the rewards if they pay off but they don't get to cry about taking the loss too, it's not a one-way street - if they want safety they can stick to national savings accounts, bank accounts up to the deposit limit and government bonds etc...
 
dowie said:
Not necessarily, it's an illiquid asset and she has a tenant who isn't paying rent and who she can't currently evict... I mean arguably someone might buy it off her at a huge discount knowing there is a tenant they'll possibly need to spend thousands to evict at a later date and/or with some uncertainty re: how long protections might last/be extended and possible court backlogs etc.. but if that were to put her well into negative equity then it isn't necessarily a solution - she still owes the bank money... could end up bankrupt regardless depending on her personal situation.

It is silly to be pot committed to an illiquid asset like that if you don't have other assets - lots of BTL landlords have no business being BTL landlords, if you don't also have substantial savings, investments in bonds and equities or a substantial income that can cover things if they go wrong then you probably shouldn't be investing in liquid assets like that. I mean there is nothing stopping people from doing it beyond basic affordability requirements etc.. but it is their choice to take on the risk (or indeed blunder on in naive to the risks).



Yup, we'll probably see plenty of stories like this if prices drop a bit too on top of rents being missed etc.. I mean people are free to take leveraged punts and they can get the rewards if they pay off but they don't get to cry about taking the loss too, it's not a one-way street - if they want safety they can stick to national savings accounts, bank accounts up to the deposit limit and government bonds etc...
Click to expand...

Couldnt agree more , . All my BTL's are run as a buisness and if i make a loss then thats on me although with a non evictable tennant in situ it's not so liquid at the present time .

You will unfortuantley find a lot more sob stories such as this as the financial story evevolves and yes your right this person has no buinesss being a landlord. a lot of the hard luck stories in BTL will come down to bad tennant referencing in the first place , have a go landlords as i like to call them they arent strong enough to challenge a prospective tennant and use a letting agency that are about as useful as Ann Franks drum kit .
 
dowie said:
Not necessarily, it's an illiquid asset and she has a tenant who isn't paying rent and who she can't currently evict... I mean arguably someone might buy it off her at a huge discount knowing there is a tenant they'll possibly need to spend thousands to evict at a later date and/or with some uncertainty re: how long protections might last/be extended and possible court backlogs etc.. but if that were to put her well into negative equity then it isn't necessarily a solution - she still owes the bank money... could end up bankrupt regardless depending on her personal situation.
Click to expand...

So what? She borrowed money to make an investment and it didn't pay off, so she has to dig in and pay it back or declare bankruptcy.

This is exactly what she signed up for when she bought an investment on leverage. What do you think would happen if you borrow money to buy stocks and they go down?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom