what if, everyone is only allowed to buy their own home, no more buy to let, what happen then?

[happyfishcoco]

just a hypothetical question.

I am very curious.
as some people cannot afford a house and blame the landlords.
And they are very happy that nowadays landlords are selling up their houses because of the interest rate going up. They think this will make house prices go down and become affordable.

SO, is that true?
from an economic perspective how would it be, if the UK government do not allow people buy to let?
(also not allow the company to do so.)

where do people live?
Why gov cannot have more affordable houses for people?

"Accidental landlord" seems to be a pleading self justification. Own your financial choices.

I have posted this before but when I’m prime minister everyone will be able to have one house they can let out at any price they want.
Two to five rentals can only be rented out at HA prices ie 80% of local private rent.
Over five and it’s HA rent and you have to take tenants off the housing waiting list.

I think one problem that can be more eadily sorted is foreign jnvestment and the sheer number of empty home lying about partly as a result of this. Foreign investors using UK property as some kind of bank and leaving them to lie empty. Some of these people are laundering money from criminal enterprises, especially in the City of London. Uou font need to ban people from buy to let ( people still need and want to rent, some people are good landlords and use btl as an income stream, like any other job. But we shouldn't be allowing foreign investors buy up property and leave it empty. I'm sure this happens elsewhere in the world.

I'm not a landlord but I don't judge those that are. I rented for many years so I needed those landlords.

You are the ideal I suppose. And a minority.
It’s not even the rack and stack rents it’s that the property itself is hyper inflated.

You say they cover the mortgage yet can’t afford a mortgage. Surely this is the problem? Are they on housing benefit?

So you honestly can't see a single situation where someone has to rent out their property? They're all money grabbing in your eyes?

The whole system is a mess.

Longer term stable rented accomodation is needed for people who prefer not to buy or for whom home ownership is not suitable. I think there is a role for pension funds and oher institutional investors to provide this sort of thing. Government should look at in entivising this.

There is also a role for short term rentals.

A big problem we have at te moment is the marlet is over run by small time, amateur investor. Many of whom has mistakenly tied up their assets in something very illiquid and frequently lack the expertise and funds to deliver the kind of service tenants should expect. TBH we really need to get those people out of the rental market. They add very little value and the properties they buy or retain are the kind that FtBs often want, so releasing them back on to the market should make the bottom end of the market more affordable.

When I first left home, renting a home was on average 30% cheaper than having a mortgage (controlled for deposit etc). Nowadays that's simply not the case and means that those on lower incomes living in rented accommodation are often spending more of their income on their housing than those more comfortably off buying their homes. This actively works against them getting out of that situation too because it makes saving for a deposit more difficult.

I don't know what the solution is other than a complete legal overhaul of the rental market. Other posters have suggested that BTL LLs trying to charge a rent that covers the mortgage plus making a profit is the problem. I have some sympathy with this as personal wealth creation that comes at the expense of an affordable roof over other people's head doesn't sit right with me, particularly given the UKs unique situation regarding housing. However, this would also act to keep property ownership the preserve of the rich, so it's not a perfect solution by any means. Likewise, like others I've had the misfortune of seeing professional landlords with large portfolios wring ever last penny out of their property, and despite huge profits and minimal costs, refuse to invest in property upgrades or enhance their tenant's experience.

I think rent regulation and control, following extensive consultation with all stakeholders (to guard against the law of unintended consequences) is the only way forward.

Of course this is the problem. And yes they're on HB. I detest the housing market and would love nothing more than to sell my house to my brother and his family for a reasonable rate. But ultimately he can't get a mortgage so what can I do??

Some people I imagine are "accidental LL" whereby if they can't sell their property (either no one buying that type of property or they would be in negative equity if they could only sell for less than what they paid) then the options are leave it empty or rent it out. I'm not sure that leaving it empty is any better...?

I have a feeling that the above poster would rather everyone who has an extra house to either sell at a large loss or "give it away", while still paying the mortgage on it.

It's not always the LL that are greedy.

I strongly believe that all rental accommodation should be owned by the state that way fair rents can be set and regulated, all repairs etc would be guaranteed to be done because they would have thousands of builders available working for one Central office, and any profit would go back into the system and be used for repairs and rebuilding and building new properties to let.

LOL at the thought that state-owned rental properties would be properly repaired and maintained:

www.itv.com/news/2021-05-07/croydon-council-lacked-care-and-respect-for-tenants-report-finds-following-itv-news-housing-mould-investigation

I agree with you.

Rental property isn't the issue, it's the lack of regulation on it. And a generation who view property like a money box.

I'd effectively ban 'ave a go LLs. I'd make security of tenure much stronger, given that as a private tenant you have precisely 60 days' security before having to move jobs, schools, neighbourhoods. And you have some pimply youth judging a scum ring in your bath every 3 months.

There should be rent controls, and minimum standards of facilities.

Yep.

There should be a heavy tax on an empty house.

Desirable touristy areas should have caps on the allowable number of AirB'n'Bs.