Soldato
I was looking at 3 bed semi's in Lincolnshire today, nothing special, but prices start from under 50k...
Weird country we live in.
Weird country we live in.
Rant - London rent prices...
- Thread starter wire-screw
- Start date
Soldato
You are getting ripped off mate.
Soldato
A Crash is really what we need so almost all mortgaged property owners end up in negative equity
So you expect a landlord to let a tenant live there @ a loss to themselves?
Last edited:
Not if it makes all the hobbyist landlords realise that it's not a guaranteed money making scheme anymore. They start to sell up, then we get many more homes on the market. Much more supply means prices will go down. Whether that actually happens, who knows.
Really? http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/pro....25&price_frequency=per_month&page_size=&pn=1 The ones under £1600 are either on horrible roads or the high street itself (above shops). Look how many are advertised nearer £2000. But I don't pay that anyway (and never did), I don't live there any more.
I don't want anyone to end up in negative equity out of spite but to be honest if that has to happen then it will happen. Talking to a lot of my friends and colleagues most seem to have hit the point where they simply are not prepared to pay that much for their first home. Even if the bank would lend me £450k I wouldn't pay £500k for a crummy 2 bed flat in zone 3. Most of my peers agree. The problem we have are investors that dive in and buy that because they can make a killing from renting it.
Advocating negative equity crashes... a housing market crash would see a massive economic crash throughout London, dramatically effecting employers and their employees. The global financial crisis of 2008 caused a plateau in the London property market, and the crisis was largely based upon real estate, so I can't see a financial crisis of other sorts having any significant affect on London property.
The property market started rising sharply due to the compensation increases of the bankers; salaries started to go north of £100,000 in the early 2000's and bonuses were multiple levels. Mortgage lenders liked this, and other industries had to try to keep up in a similar vein in order to retain staff (these industries didn't necessarily raise their compensation levels as high as banking, but they increased salaries nonetheless). It wasn't unusual for a banker to get paid £125,000 salary plus a £400,000 bonus prior to the credit crisis.
After the crunch, the banks were persuaded to do away with large bonus cultures, however they still wanted to retain talent. Therefore instead of paying an employee £125k + £400k, they'll now pay them £250k + £250k (as an example, not the case for all of them...). Mortgage lenders like this even more, as there's more security in an applicant's salary being higher and the bonus lower that vice versa. Again, other industries have had to follow suit and raise their salaries in order to keep up (investment management, law, fin tech, marketing, etc.) and although they offer nowhere near what the banks do, those industries are still increasing compensation as a result. As such, with base salaries hitting such a high level, it's highly unlikely that a house price correction is going to happen any time soon. In fact, it's likely to keep on going up and up.
Man of Honour
That's nice of you.
You need to come back as an eu migrant and live 20 to a house and do a minimum wage job and claim all in work benefits from a system you've never paid in to.
Living in your own space is a thing of the past if you don't have a medium to high income.This is why they introduced a housing benefit cap they want all working class british out of london and replaced by eu migrants living in dickensian conditions.
Living in your own space is a thing of the past if you don't have a medium to high income.This is why they introduced a housing benefit cap they want all working class british out of london and replaced by eu migrants living in dickensian conditions.
Last edited:
Soldato
Permabanned
It is a bit unfair that they have now cracked down on buy to let mortgages. So not only did the previous generation get to buy houses for super cheap but they also had a super easy chance at getting buy to let.
Now its impossible to get a buy to let for first time buyers or people starting out as property investors. While people that already have a property portfolio can afford the 40% down requirement, so once again they are at an advantage.
They had it easy in every way and they continue to have it easy. These chumps that got free houses from the state then purchased them for next to nothing and now sell them on for 10 times as much or rent them out for £3000 per month should be lined up and shot.
Now its impossible to get a buy to let for first time buyers or people starting out as property investors. While people that already have a property portfolio can afford the 40% down requirement, so once again they are at an advantage.
They had it easy in every way and they continue to have it easy. These chumps that got free houses from the state then purchased them for next to nothing and now sell them on for 10 times as much or rent them out for £3000 per month should be lined up and shot.
Caporegime
Ha, as if any of us wouldn't have done the same had the opportunity arose.
*Insert some pun about wine and sour grapes.*
The second advert is amusing, this is the problem with some parts of London - you're lucky if the local newsagent, GP receptionist or estate agent even speaks English.
So are you angry at BTL landlords because you perceive them to be acting unfairly and making huge profits or are you angry because you can't join them too?
Soldato
Ooops, that came across all wrong. Was meant to be a sarcastic comment to another post
Permabanned
I am angry that the generation before me had cheaper property, easier mortgage terms and less limits on buy to let.
Say I want to buy a house outside of London and rent it out because that is only place I can afford. I can't because it won't qualify for first time buyer non sense and banks will requires 40% down if I don't live in it. So I am stuffed either way.
Associate
This doesn't make much sense. First of all, anyone who pays £500k for a flat and gets £20k / year in rent makes at most 4% on the equity.
Assuming the property isn't made of indestructible unobtanium and it sits on land that is actually not owned by the property owner, he has additional costs from maintaining it, lowering the returns by quite a bit.
It is far from "making a killing".
As of legislation: Any worsening of the tax credits for BTL or mortgages means that profit from owning the house goes down -> reduces demand for house at current price -> causes downwards pressure on price.
This is how markets works and this is why for example increasing tax credits for mortgages makes no sense what so ever, because it won't lower the cost of accommodation for future buyers. Increase tax credit or lower effective interest rates -> people can afford to pay more -> prices increase.
When you talk of easier mortgage terms, ask your fathers what were the normal interest rates for mortgages back in the "good old days". I'd guess people used to pay rates up to 15% per annum for mortgages in 70's! Yes, the housing prices were low, but money was ten times as expensive as now...
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Well it would save us paying them their final salary pensions when they retire at 55
Man of Honour
40% deposit? Lots of banks are happy with an LTV of 80%. Some even offer 85%.
Permabanned
Not for buy to let, do you have examples?
Also, i can't get an interest only mortgage without an income of £75k
I assume any LVT would not increase durning your owning the land? Ie the yearly cost would only be reassessed when you bought the land and not be based on the price your neighbours sold their land for?
If it doesn't its fundamentally flawed as it ignores the fact people may spend years in the same place and not have any influence on the price of their land increasing significantly during their time living there.
Last edited: