Should minions be the instrument of rich people?

Because that worked so well before?

The socialist (as in actually socialist, common means of ownership of means of production) countries of eastern Europe were renowned for the quality of their state mandated accomodation, as well as their human rights...

It did actually work, it got stopped out of ideological choice to promote home ownership.

Are you trying to say access to housing was worse in the 60s and 70s?

I posted data earlier to show how much of GDP the private rental market has grown to and also the 10s of billions moved from public money to private hands, it seems a well thought out plan by Thatcher who started it all.

Curious do you have issues with how tenancy works in Germany?
 
Are you trying to say access to housing was worse in the 60s and 70s?
I know that question wasn't aimed at me. But yes it absolutely was. The rental housing in the 60's was often awful quality and I'm pretty sure that home ownership was far lower than it is today.

A really popular song in the 80's even uses it as part of the background to the song lyrics.

We moved into a basement
With thoughts of our engagement
We stayed in by the telly
Although the room was smelly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQciegmLPAo
 
Landlords have to be officially registered in Scotland and therefore legally held responsible if the property isn't up to scratch.

Same for Wales - Rent Smart Wales

Rules are really quite in favour of the tenant.

I'm surprised some in here feel that the whole "being a landlord" thing should be banned in some way. How would those who can't afford to buy a home live? Local government couldn't afford it so how would it work??
 
I know that question wasn't aimed at me. But yes it absolutely was. The rental housing in the 60's was often awful quality and I'm pretty sure that home ownership was far lower than it is today.

A really popular song in the 80's even uses it as part of the background to the song lyrics.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQciegmLPAo

Is home ownership the right way to measure access to Housing, thats the Tory Ideology I dont agree with, we are overly obsessed with home ownership.

Quality lower maybe, but more affordable and more security.
 
Same for Wales - Rent Smart Wales

Rules are really quite in favour of the tenant.

I'm surprised some in here feel that the whole "being a landlord" thing should be banned in some way. How would those who can't afford to buy a home live? Local government couldn't afford it so how would it work??

If you read the earlier posts, social housing would largely replace private renting, going back in time to how it was pre Thatcher.

Private renting would just be for the luxury market.
 
If you read the earlier posts, social housing would largely replace private renting, going back in time to how it was pre Thatcher.

Private renting would just be for the luxury market.

Back to wonderful 60s tower blocks and the like?

That was the solution then.
 
Back to wonderful 60s tower blocks and the like?

That was the solution then.

Funny my city has houses not tower blocks. Also there is private Tower blocks as well. Are you becoming a MP? you are good at spin.

Evading questions, and misleading soundbites at its best.
 
I dont think anyone has said every single landlord is bad.

If the police turn up at your door can they protect the tenant from revenge eviction as well? Its not really good enough if you can force repair work to be done, and then your tenancy doesnt get renewed as a consequence.

I forced my LL to repair my kitchen floor via the council, and since then they have been very how do I describe, it, evasive in any correspondence, I expect I will be forced to move next year, but will see.

How long are the tenancies you give out?

At least Scotland appears to be a bit better than England for renting.

We have an agent who deals with that side of things. My agent can also carry out any and all repairs without seeking approval from me under a set amount. So I Don't even know about majority of repairs made tbh. The agent is authorised to just get them done as soon as they are advised by the tenant. The agent comes to me when it's over the set threshold and then I am aware of it. We do have spreadsheets set up so I can run a pivot table and make graphs to easy analyse if something fishy is going on.

The agent deals with everything for me bar tax which is my accountants job. It will vary per property. But the majority will depend on what the tenant wants as well. I've told the agent not to get anyone in for no less than 1 year. Not interested in short term tenants though the longer the better because then I don't have to do yearly carpet or cooker changes.

Commercial properties usually go for 25 year lease. But the smaller ones we usually take whatever we can just to get them rented because of rates and standing charges when they are empty.
 
Is home ownership the right way to measure access to Housing, thats the Tory Ideology I dont agree with, we are overly obsessed with home ownership.

Quality lower maybe, but more affordable and more security.
There should be a smorgasbord of different options. Some people want to buy and can afford it. Some people want to rent privately for the flexibility, or can't afford to buy. Some people need the safety net of publicly owned council housing. All of those options should be available. I see the big issue being that social housing has been allowed to wither. Bringing in more such housing would prevent private rents being so high as it lowers demand for the private sector.

What's happening here is that there is high demand because social housing has been left to wither, and private landlords have adapted to that built up demand.

But back in the 60's there were some awful slums in some very dodgy areas. I really don't think people want to go back to those golden years..
 
Funny my city has houses not tower blocks. Also there is private Tower blocks as well. Are you becoming a MP? you are good at spin.

Evading questions, and misleading soundbites at its best.

How else do you propose the state gaining the required accomodation volume to nearly totally replace the private rental market?

Or is the state going to start redistributing population to meet the housing right?

This is the problem with positions driven by irrational hatreds.
 
There should be a smorgasbord of different options. Some people want to buy and can afford it. Some people want to rent privately for the flexibility, or can't afford to buy. Some people need the safety net of publicly owned council housing. All of those options should be available. I see the big issue being that social housing has been allowed to wither. Bringing in more such housing would prevent private rents being so high as it lowers demand for the private sector.

What's happening here is that there is high demand because social housing has been left to wither, and private landlords have adapted to that built up demand.

But back in the 60's there were some awful slums in some very dodgy areas. I really don't think people want to go back to those golden years..

I agree on there should be multiple options, thats one benefit of social housing it frees up the properties currently been let out so is more available to buy as well.

The demand has gone up because social homes have effectively ground to a halt and are even been sold off, is that what you meant by wither?
 
How else do you propose the state gaining the required accomodation volume to nearly totally replace the private rental market?

Or is the state going to start redistributing population to meet the housing right?

This is the problem with positions driven by irrational hatreds.

They build the houses and flats, I never said it would be done over night, and to point out I never said LL's should be banned either.

My proposal was basically a second home tax that would vary based on available housing stock. (second homes not BTL).

For renting my proposal is we gradually phase in more social housing it would clearly take decades to get to the end game, well past a 5 year tenure in government. The end game would be more properties to buy, mortgages easier to get (via legislation if required), more social properties to rent so those unable to buy have affordability and security, these wouldnt be luxury properties, but the basic requirements would be met.

I think the German private rental market is good, but the reason I am not proposing it here, is landlords here would clearly not accept it, there is landlords where who already think the UK market is unfavourable to them, the German laws would give them a heart attack.

Put yourself in the tenants shoes, can you call a place you have only 6-12 months security "home"? can you call a place home you not allowed to decorate or get what broadband supplier you want (wayleave), you totally reliant on the LL/agent to get repairs done, power is minimal, cant pay someone to do it and take out rent, if you get council to force it, LL can revenge evict after a few months. Think of this morally and tell me this isnt broken. Some landlords are different, but in terms of what the law offers and what many landlords offer thats not the real world. I have had my LL's office tell me straight up over the phone they are happy enough just to meet minimal legal requirements.

Then on top of all that you have the rent increases which are nowhere near inflation reality. We even now have letting agents interviewing (potential) tenants like for a job and putting them in bidding wars with each other, just for a place to live, its madness.

Its gone way past the point of a successful competitive market. Some things just arent right for a for profit venture.

Psycho interestingly replied he isnt aware of all this as he basically lets the letting agent handle it all, I expect thats how it is for most landlords who shield themselves from it, but is nice to hear he prefers long term tenants.

I do wonder how much of the letting problem is down to letting agents, logically a landlord would prefer a long term tenant, it makes sense. But letting agents have to justify their existence, and a high turnover of tenants does that.

I do think things would be better if landlords did things directly.
 
Last edited:
My proposal was basically a second home tax that would vary based on available housing stock. (second homes not BTL).
That's very hard to enforce. For example many rich people don't "own" their houses. They own 100% of shares in an offshore company which owns the property. When they sell the house they actually sell the shares. If a second home tax becomes significant enough then "ordinary" people will just start doing that too.
 
That's very hard to enforce. For example many rich people don't "own" their houses. They own 100% of shares in an offshore company which owns the property. When they sell the house they actually sell the shares. If a second home tax becomes significant enough then "ordinary" people will just start doing that too.

Ban offshore/company ownership (at least for properties that are not let out)? I think someone already proposed that in the last few pages?
 
Ban offshore/company ownership (at least for properties that are not let out)? I think someone already proposed that in the last few pages?

How do you enforce that though? Future sales or existing properties? Do you have a big project where you'll need to do a load of valuations and then buy properties of all these companies. Luxury property can be quite an illiquid market and prices can e quite volatile, expect court cases for every attempted forced sale, they'll want to maximize their returns.

How will it be funded?
 
Ban offshore/company ownership (at least for properties that are not let out)? I think someone already proposed that in the last few pages?
So no-one from the UK is allowed to invest in stocks and shared on the NYSE, etc? That's a bit draconian don't you think?
 
They build the houses and flats, I never said it would be done over night, and to point out I never said LL's should be banned either.

My proposal was basically a second home tax that would vary based on available housing stock. (second homes not BTL).

For renting my proposal is we gradually phase in more social housing it would clearly take decades to get to the end game, well past a 5 year tenure in government. The end game would be more properties to buy, mortgages easier to get (via legislation if required), more social properties to rent so those unable to buy have affordability and security, these wouldnt be luxury properties, but the basic requirements would be met.

I think the German private rental market is good, but the reason I am not proposing it here, is landlords here would clearly not accept it, there is landlords where who already think the UK market is unfavourable to them, the German laws would give them a heart attack.

Put yourself in the tenants shoes, can you call a place you have only 6-12 months security "home"? can you call a place home you not allowed to decorate or get what broadband supplier you want (wayleave), you totally reliant on the LL/agent to get repairs done, power is minimal, cant pay someone to do it and take out rent, if you get council to force it, LL can revenge evict after a few months. Think of this morally and tell me this isnt broken. Some landlords are different, but in terms of what the law offers and what many landlords offer thats not the real world. I have had my LL's office tell me straight up over the phone they are happy enough just to meet minimal legal requirements.

Then on top of all that you have the rent increases which are nowhere near inflation reality. We even now have letting agents interviewing (potential) tenants like for a job and putting them in bidding wars with each other, just for a place to live, its madness.

Its gone way past the point of a successful competitive market. Some things just arent right for a for profit venture.

Psycho interestingly replied he isnt aware of all this as he basically lets the letting agent handle it all, I expect thats how it is for most landlords who shield themselves from it, but is nice to hear he prefers long term tenants.

I do wonder how much of the letting problem is down to letting agents, logically a landlord would prefer a long term tenant, it makes sense. But letting agents have to justify their existence, and a high turnover of tenants does that.

I do think things would be better if landlords did things directly.

Apologies, I was confusing you with cheesyboy.

If we're talking about a sensible rebuild of social housing capacity, with appropriate changes to the process (removal of right to buy, clarity on needs based provision and so on) then I suspect I'm a lot closer to you than you think.

I support reform of social housing, and reform of the rental market to address both poor landlords and poor tenants while protecting the good examples of both more than they are now.

Realistically, we also need to start having a more honest conversation about locations, and what can or should be done to improve the attractiveness of unattractive areas. We also need to have serious discussions about improving provision in high demand areas.
 
How do you enforce that though? Future sales or existing properties? Do you have a big project where you'll need to do a load of valuations and then buy properties of all these companies. Luxury property can be quite an illiquid market and prices can e quite volatile, expect court cases for every attempted forced sale, they'll want to maximize their returns.

How will it be funded?

This comes back to my original statement, houses shouldnt be a financial asset. If someone wants to maximise their returns on a "home" then something is broken. Letting I accept because we have to accept it for now, millions would be homeless otherwise.

But a company buying a empty house just sitting there, thats something different.

Original enforcement would be on future transactions, with potential future laws requiring the companies to sell up to individuals by XXXX date.

I agree it wouldnt be easy, it may just end up been on future transactions only.
 
I agree it wouldnt be easy, it may just end up been on future transactions only.

The problem with these though is once they're in that structure that's it, there aren't any future transactions as far as the UK is concerned. It would stop future properties from being put in such a wrapper but the existing ones can be bought and sold by buying and selling the respective offshore entities... which has nothing to do with the UK.

It's basically a sneaky stamp duty dodge that we've tried to crack down on by charging more stamp duty for companies than for individuals. It's charged at 15% these days for companies buying residential property worth more than 500k so an incentive against doing this in future is already there.
 
Back
Top Bottom