Guest blog: Shelter's Chief Exec on the rise of unaffordable housing

[JessMumsnet]

This week, to highlight the fact that housing is increasingly unaffordable for many, Shelter published research which showed what our weekly shop would cost if food prices had risen to the degree that housing costs have done over the last decade.

In this guest blog, Shelter's Chief Exec Campbell Robb warns that unless something changes, the next generation will find it even tougher to get a stable and affordable home.

What do you think? Are you struggling to get on the property ladder, with rising rents making it increasingly difficult to save for a deposit - or are you worried for your children's prospects? How do you think the situation could be improved? Post your URLs here if you blog on the subject, or tell us what you think here on the thread.

and more care in lending leads to lower prices because mortgages HAVE to reflect earnings.

incidentally my mortgage lender has never chased me for my mortgage shortfall. i think they know full well that i don't have the money now and if they push things to a head they'll get nothing because they'll just force me to go bankrupt and get it written off. i'm confident that they know damn well that my parents own property and have responsible investments and that i will inherit enough to cover the shortfall at some point and they'll be watching ready to swoop. apologies if that sounds paranoid but the collection of financial data (especially given i had student loans and you had to put your parents names, addresses etc down) is very comprehensive and accessible to lenders.

i have to weigh up whether to voluntarily go bankrupt sometime soon or wait and see what happens. last time i contacted them they wouldn't even tell me what i 'owed' weirdly enough.

i honestly thought getting repossessed would make the sky fall in. i felt like it was some immoral deed or sign of terribleness - thus we are conditioned. the reality when i broke it down was that they had made a fortune out of me over the 6 years i paid that mortgage (and i had whenever possible thrown in cash lump sums to the balance) and that there was no way on earth they were going to make a net loss from me not continuing with the mortgage. i also had to realise that these people were bookies essentially - they make their money from gambling on people's lives going well. when they get it right they make vast profits. a part of that way of making a living is accepting you get it wrong sometimes and make a loss but realistically the odds are massively stacked in their favour as with any casino or bookie in the land.

does that entitle the 'poor' to disrespect other people's property though and trash places.

No it doesn't, but I understand where the anger comes from, buy to let people are ruining peoples lives they can't expect there to be no reaction to that on occasion.

It is an immoral activity, they all know it deep down. If this continues as it has done they should all expect to get some reaction eventually, they bring it on themselves.

btl landlords are also bookies. they gamble that someone else will pay their mortgage for them so they can buy a house for free and make an income from it along the way. sometimes that gamble doesn't pay off and you end up with a few months where shock horror you have to pay your own mortgage!

diddums! their gambling should be risk free and 100% profitable every single month right?

monday - grow up. not everyone wants to buy a house - some people prefer to rent. the housing situation has not been cause by BTL. prices are actually stagnating or dropping in large areas of the country at the moment. the area where they are rising most rapidly is london and thats put down to people from abroad buying places. Do you never read or watch the news on TV?

where i live someone on a minimum wage supporting children could never have afforded to buy a property - even 30 years ago they would have been too expensive. sometimes you just have to cut your cloth and stop winging.

SaF - creditors cannot generally pursue you after 6 years.

See this link on statute barred debts.

Do not acknowledge a debt if a debt agency contacts you after 6 years because the clock starts again. Take legal advice and do NOT reply.

"If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or makes a part payment within the original limitation period, then the time limits start to run again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment.

Even though the lender may be barred from pursuing recovery, a debtor may decide to pay the debt after the expiry of the time limits. Because of this you should allow a debt which is otherwise statute-barred if the personal representatives pay the debt and you receive evidence that the payment has been made.

These instructions do not apply to debts in Scotland.

I have a friend who defaulted on her mortgage in the 1990s and was repossessed and a debt agency contacted her many years later. Luckily her husband knew the law and she did not acknowledge the debt.

mortgage shortfall is an exception morebeta - they have something like 20yrs (a convenient generational gap to have the chance to grab inheritances). i haven't spoken to them since summer 2010 but from what i've researched the normal rules do not apply and they can swoop in in 2030 and claim their money if they so desire.

it is confusing to know what to do.

i've never replied to a letter at this house (and they literally send one every 2 years) and it's never been sent recorded delivery so other than that short phonecall nothing. but seriously check out mortgage shortfalls and you'll find that they are exempted from the normal credit consumer act regulations sadly.

but isn't trashing a house immoral too - 2 wrongs don't make a right. don't know the story but could it just be that they were not nice people who had no respect for anyone regardless of what they were given.

I

OOOps, what I was going to see is that I worry about our children's futures with regards to housing and student loans and can't see a way forward. I worry about government trying to sort this out by allowing rampant building projects, which only serve to line builders' pockets even further. I have seen our village triple in size on greenbelt and prices keep going up - so not an alternative really.

It's essential that councils take firm control of the rental sector. Beyond mandatory licensing they should be checking and policing upkeep and they must set district rent levels and defining security of tenure. In countries with a stable rental sector, Germany, for example: In Berlin the tenant may remain in a property as long as they need it making it suitable for families with schooling and local work commitments. Secure tenure is vital in any housing. Their rents are set by the town halls and cannot be raised at-will by landlords.

Landlords unable to offer suitable property on stipulated terms are thus dissuaded from operating in the sector. In the UK removal of such inadequate landlords would release much needed property for sale. Those remaining would provide fairly priced, maintained properties with secure tenure and be welcome in the market.

In our village there are retired couples living in huge 5 bedroom houses and professional couples with 2 or 3 children living in cramped townhouses and struggling. It just doesn't feel fair at all. We are lucky because we bought young and had children older but it still really upsets me.

roneik is right. It has never been really easy. My grandfather had it hard and could not marry until about 40 as so expensive to buy etc. Then they had the 1929 crash to cope with which was much much worse than this recession. Then in my lifetime I remember the dire position of people in the 70s, savings wiped out, massive inflation and no advantage that your house price might go up and huge huge property crash in the 70s too.

Then move into my era and we did not have it good in 84. Prices in London were double where we came from, I won't lay it on thick but things most of you have today people would not dream of having, even stuff like hair conditioner and orange juice. You cut right back, every item of babywear was second hand etc. Not east at all and then the day interest rates rose to 18% I think it was or 12% - gosh that was hard, mortgage 5x your income. Very very hard.

Then the 90s crash - we had two flat we sold at £40k we bought for £60k. No there was no golden era and those who bought then had golden easy lovely times with property. The only certainty is that if you buy as young as you can even if it means no holidays or meals out and work hard for 30 years to pay off the debt you may well have more security than those who rent. That is all there is to it and it remains as risky as ever. however if you intend to stay in it for the long haul over 40 years of owning you will probablyi do okay as things tend to iron out.

So what we think is the right % of people to own? Back in 1900 it was about 10% I think. It had a peak at some stage. Is there a most desirable %? Communists would say no one should own property ever of course. Not my view.

As for landlords most make very little. I think my daughter who bought to let as cannot live in it will make no money so of course there she is taking a massive gamble that over the next 40 y ears it will pay off to have bought. Some won't take the gamble and will drink their money and buy shoes so let us hope those spending on their holidays instead are not jealous in 20 years' time.

sometimes you just have to cut your cloth and stop winging

Another one! You sound ridiculous. I'd like to see someone cut their cloth to negative proportions, would that create a worm hole?

The housing market is crazy in London right now. We have just bought our first home, and despite being on a very high (six figure) joint income with a large deposit of 40%, we can only afford a two-bed flat with no outdoor space. We were looking last year and could probably have stretched to a 3-bed then, but prices have been rocketing. We were looking in city centre locations and need to be close to a tube, so I think that what we have is better than most FTBs in London/SE can afford, but it really is staggering that we can't afford a house when we are very high-earning professionals.

In other parts of the country we could buy a large detached house. We both know colleagues who do a long commute into London after buying a house in one of the commuter towns, but that wouldn't suit our lifestyle as we spend a lot of time socialising in central London in the evenings, and wouldn't want to be restricted by the timings of the last trains.

It has an impact on our family plans, as we won't have more than one child, if any at all. Almost everyone we know has moved out to the suburbs (or at least zone 4/5, which feels very suburban to me) when they have started their families, but it's more of a priority for us that we can stay living in town.

Ah. Penny finally drops. It's all a fiendish plan to stop people having babies.

Elephant in room moment (for me). If there weren't so many people ...

SaF - I would check that out with a lawyer if I were you. My friend's husband works in commercial property and the people chasing his wife never came after her again.

Even a 'short phone call' is enough to start the clock again. These people will note and record every communication with you and they will keep contacting you.

As for landlords most make very little.

Now the period of rising prices is well and truly over all most of them do is provide a housing service for tenants whilst 'waiting for prices to recover', and for things to 'get back to normal'

So not only have they priced out the young by paying more than was reasonable, they themselves aren't even making any money with it either.

What a collection of utter muppets.

The banks giving them all that credit was like giving a gun to a 5 year old. Not only do they shoot their neighbours they shoot themselves as well.

Well done amateur buy to letters! The banks are laughing their socks off at you.

You keep on waiting, im sure it will come good eventually.

In 2005 we sold our 2 bed flat in Earls Court / S Ken borders for £425K (joint income of roughly 110K), now it is worth £700k at least. So in 8 years it has increased in price by £275k, however our income would not have increased by the same proportion.

Sorry Xenia it might have been tough in the past but at least one would have known that the price of what you are trying to save for would not accelerate in value out of all recognition. Glad we are out of London now and yes we were very lucky, with family support and good incomes. At least I can say we were lucky and not put forward this idea that its no tougher now than it used to be. Don't buy that, as an ex lawyer I can track the salaries that I had and what a trainee, qualified solicitor at the same firm would get now and the properties that I bought.

i.e.: 1997 NQ £35,000 2011 £59,000
Flat £95,000 Now £275,000
Ratio 2.7 Ratio 4.6

Hmmm - slight problem

dedum - thats just over 30k a year it increased by. when i first started looking at buying property in 1985 it was doing much the same - going up in price about the equivalent of someone's salary each year. it was so manic that there was no point waiting for property details to be sent out as anything decent would have gone by the time you read them and arranged a visit.

of course that is one solution that no-ones mentioned on here. encourage people to move to cheaper areas. you may be struggling to buy in the south, but some areas you can get a 3 bed house for 70k or less. regionalise some of the benefits/pay levels and think of some other imaginative ways to move the population out of the south.

dreamingofsun Super. I'm from London, I now live in a small, cheap northern town like you suggest. There's no work now, not for 100 miles or so. I have a daughter at secondary school who is settled now... All employers have laid off massively. I can't afford to move. I still can't afford to buy.

So, anywhere you can afford to live, there's no work.

I have been blogging about how the irresponsible actions of the banks and how they have impacted on the UK's most vulnerable. Our government constantly talks about kick starting the economy but while people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads there is little chance of economic growth if so many can not even manage to afford the basics. lifeafterdebts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/philosopher-lawyer-and-political.html