Man of Honour
If someone does not qualify (or want to qualify) for social housing, and does not want to buy a house, what housing option do they have without private landlords?
If someone does not qualify (or want to qualify) for social housing, and does not want to buy a house, what housing option do they have without private landlords?
He doesn't really address that sort of thing, just pretends that everyone must want to buy their own house or live in council housing... the notion of young professionals in their 20s perhaps leaving their parent's home and moving in with say a partner or living with flatmates seems a bit alien to him.
Back in reality though we clearly have a supply issue in general and ranting at even the mere existence of BTL landlords + blaming all of this on them is just misplaced bitterness.
It is a thread about this very topic not a general thread about state of accommodation in the UK. You are already 3 or 4 clicks deep so not sure what you expected tbh.
Well if the government aren't going to do anything then all people can do is misplace bitterness until everyone is unhappy.
Nope, that isn't all people can do. Why can't people be bitter about the underlying cause here for example? The lack of supply?
Also just in general the planning system is in part reliant on local feedback, more people opposing nimbys = more chance of developments going through in your area. Central government has a big role to play here for sure but to ignore the issues that exist at a local level is rather naive.
Right ladies, prepare to clutch your pearls, wring your hands and generally have a mini breakdown...
I present to you JRM, and not only JRM, but JRM on GB News..
(I can already hear the frothing)
And @dLockers, if you're going to troll, at least make an effort this time eh?
I present to you JRM, and not only JRM, but JRM on GB News..
(I can already hear the frothing)
And @dLockers, if you're going to troll, at least make an effort this time eh?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 6,974
not often I say this but I (mostly) agree with Moggy here. 1 thing I don't is that " a month or 2" notice" is enough to give to a long term GOOD tenant. .... A couple of months is enough for a tenant to give a LL imo but I would personally double that for the notice given to a decent tenant (perhaps once beyond a 6 months initial contract).
all the rest however he is on the money imo.
something does.need to change however. I saw a .panorama a few months back Some of those landlords had people in houses barely fit for animals.
pretty sure however existing rules were not being followed. you can have all the rules and protection's in the world but if they are not enforced it's not worth squat
all the rest however he is on the money imo.
something does.need to change however. I saw a .panorama a few months back Some of those landlords had people in houses barely fit for animals.
pretty sure however existing rules were not being followed. you can have all the rules and protection's in the world but if they are not enforced it's not worth squat
Last edited:
Soldato
.
Last edited:
Soldato
Bless Mogg and his self-awareness 
Soldato
Silly move from Gove unless the plan is to transfer rental supply from the private to public sector.
It won't do anything to encourage more homes to be built although that is also in part down to economic governance. However, I've not seen anything from Gove on reducing the time builders can sit on acquired land before having to build on it.
We should really be seeing some policies to curtail foreign property investment, especially some higher costs on keeping dwellings empty.
It won't do anything to encourage more homes to be built although that is also in part down to economic governance. However, I've not seen anything from Gove on reducing the time builders can sit on acquired land before having to build on it.
We should really be seeing some policies to curtail foreign property investment, especially some higher costs on keeping dwellings empty.
There's plenty of houses to go round. They're just all owned by landlords.
I say it in every thread regarding housing, but the "build more houses" motto is complete nonsense. It's an easy get-out for politicians to hit their numbers and pretend to the public that they're doing something. Whereas in reality, if you're here on the ground in a big city like London, you know that for any new development there are pitiful numbers of "affordable" homes tacked on to any development, and "affordable" doesn't even mean that. Quite often none of them will go to those on the local council's waiting list, they will be expensive/dubious shared ownership schemes, or "affordable" rent - which is 80% of local market rents i.e. not genuinely affordable. In short, landlords are generally the only ones that can afford these new builds. Why do you think most London-based apartment developments are marketed in Singapore and Hong Kong? They buy them up, and rent them out at full market rent, thus perpetuating the housing crisis.
Why people can't see this I do not know.
Was going to say. I agree with some of it.
But renters need more than 1 or 2 months notice. That's a bit harsh. Should be 3-6 months to vacate.
I'd be wary on building on greenbelt land. In principle. Yes. Doing some of it is OK. But if brown field is available, this should come first.
Also, we need more Council houses and not to push so many landlords out.
Certainly not where the house is geared up to be a long term rental. Holiday rentals, yeah I agree with pushing that out.
Because these hobbyist landlords think they are in the same club as the institutional investors and add fuel to the pro-LL conversation.
That doesn't make any sense, unless they're free of tenants then they aren't available to anyone else, it's not just that they're owned by landlords, I mean if you fancy deporting a load of rental tenants then sure, you'd have freed up some housing by lowering the number of people needing it. Back in reality demand is increasing and you can't easily change that ergo the issue you're in denial of, the lack of supply.
Because it's not true, you're doing the housing equivalent of a Daily Mail immigrant take there tbh. blaming your inability to say get a job on some brown people because you saw some story about asylum seekers. In this case, you've seen that *some* overseas buyers will purchase London properties and come to the same sort of naive conclusion.
You understand how supply and demand curves work, right? Hint: it has two axis.
Go ahead... give your magical explanation for how we can fix this without increasing the supply of housing in general?
What does "the supply in general" mean versus not increasing supply "in general"? :S
You're missing a word there - re-read what you just quoted, the supply of housing i.e. houses, flats. You can increase the supply of housing by permitting more new developments, building more social housing etc.
Housing supply: net additional dwellings
This collection brings together all documents on housing supply: net additional dwellings (formerly known as ‘net supply of housing’).
Last edited:
There's two markets at play here. The landlords are keeping the purchase market too high for prospective buyers. If you remove landlords from the equation then the influx of availability can lead to cheaper (relatively) purchase prices, and more people will be able to buy. So you have eased that pent-up demand for purchasing.
Demand for rentals is high because people do not have a choice (because they cannot buy). Do the above, and it eases the strain on the rental market too because more people are in a position to buy and will not be interested in renting. With less interest in renting (because more people are buying), there is less demand for the existing supply of rental property.
Seriously, go and look round developments like Royal Wharf in docklands. They've biult 3,385 flats there. It's hideous, in an arguabiy terrible part of town. There's so much housing out there, it's just not affordable, or available to normal people. Rich and/or landlords need only apply.