to ask how we can sort out housing?

[Hullygully]

So. First time buyers largely priced out. Rents going up. No new building. HB cap. Little security of tenure for private renters. Landlords being stuffed.

When Right-to-Buy was introduced, both as cynical gerrymandering and vote gathering, and because the govt wanted rid of the responsibility for social housing, there was an encouraged explosion in Buy-to-Let to take up the slack.

Now we have a large number of landlords with a few properties operating on narrow margins who have little protection against rogue tenants (particularly those on HB who are told by their councils to wait it out until eviction) and who are able to pocket the first 8 weeks of rent before any action can be taken, and who are therefore understandably reluctant to take on HB tenants, plus, with the introduction of the Cap, HB tenants will be able to pay less than the market rent in large areas of the country.

Then renters have little security, they can be given two months' notice after six months, a nightmare particularly for families settled at schools etc. And of course there are some nightmare landlords around who don't carry out repairs etc.

Suggestions?
Solutions?

The flat thing is interesting Alouiseg. A lot of people who rent here rent flats not houses; it's not massively unusual to raise a family with 2 children in a flat with no garden here. However, I cannot see very many families in the UK being happy with that arrangement out of choice. Maybe that is a cultural difference that needs to change if you want a nation where renting is considered to be a perfectly good option. However,

there is a huge river of cash going through my social group at the moment from GPs & parents inheritance planning.

If house price inflation and social conditions add a million pounds to the price of a house in area "A" and not in area "B," is there a good reason why the offspring of people who bought a house in area "A" fifty years ago, should pocket a tax-free million?

But the offspring often want to live in these homes. And cant, if they dont have the money to pay the inheritance tax.

It is the people who inherit an estate (not just property!) that is worth over 325k who are liable, and that really is still a threshold that should be raised.

Raise the tax limit on the Governments Rent a Room scheme.

Re asses eligibility to Social housing.

Compulsory purchase of long term empty properties.

I'd do something more fundamental. What you describe e.g 'first time buyers priced out', are not universal problems but far more concentrated in the South East. Elsewhere in the country, properties can be found for far cheaper sums and far cheaper rents. There are 3-bed semis available in the North East for sub £100k, for example

A redistribution of population should underpin any house-building programme, therefore. Starts with jobs, obviously, as people need something to do when they get there. Relocating important organisations to the regions in the way that the BBC are currently doing to Salford and South Wales. Government departments could up sticks wholesale and expensive London offices could be sold off for a profit. Tax incentives could help create centres of excellence for particular types of business in the same way Manchester has become a hub for advertising and other creative industries. Germany operates in this way very successfully. A national effort to redistribute the population would also ease the pressure on the overcrowded S.E. in other ways.... water supplies, road congestion, crime-rates. All good.

Totally agree Cogito. Very good point.

1. Dreaming, yes - we would have been happy with one year break clause, but the tenants simply said: "well then one year contract will not make a difference".

1. Yes of course it depends on what the rental cap would be (and by the way, history shows that governments are notoriously bad at setting price caps of any sort). As a non professional landlord, with high managing fees and the tax I pay I have very thin margins so even a 10% reduction may make me think hard given the huge hassle that is being a landlord. A bad tenant could set me back thousands of pounds really easily. I am, however, lucky in that I would have the choice as I have almost paid my mortgage off.

Either way - I want to live in a house that I can call mine. Although I rented for a long time, a house to me is a "necessity" so I would not actively choose to be a forever rental anyway (unlike, say, Morebeta). This also means that I do not see a house as an "investment" iyswIm?

I'd like to see rules brought in to force the banks to pass on the low interest rates to people looking to take on new mortgages. The BofE have interest rates set at 0.5% but mortgage rates offered right now are higher than when DP and I bought back in 2007 when the BofE rate was 5.5%.

I also think longer fixed term deals should be made available to more people, so that people can have some confidence about the size of their largest outgoing beyond the 2 year mark. For example, if you could get a mortgage rate of 2.5% with a 10% deposit on a 5 or 10 year fix (or longer, as available in some other countries) then the bottom end of the market would start moving again as first time buyers could afford mortgages again. This would start the entire chain up, including allowing pensioners to move out of their too large properties and into retirement properties, or at least smaller ones!

I know this doesn't fix the insane prices (particularly in the south east) but it would bring home ownership back into reach for some people and hopefully bring some rents down as there is reduced demand for rental properties.

I also think right to buy should be scrapped and the rules around duration of tenancy, inheritance of council property etc need to be overhauled. Council housing should be a safety net for people who cannot afford a home any other way.

I'd also like to see brownfield sites used more to build new housing, but minimum room sizes should be brought in, so that the houses built are actually fit for purpose (bedrooms must have space for a wardrobe etc), planning permission should be dependent on space/buildings being provided for GPs surgerys etc, perhaps contributions from the developers towards the cost of extended public transport services out to any new developments (this is already done to some extent in some areas with the requirement for public transport policies and action in new developments) and green space must be included within the development so that communities can develop. I also think these sites should have to have a range of housing; houses, flats, social housing etc and 3 social housing flats in a development of hundreds is not sufficient, it must be a meaningful amount.

Finally there are an insane number of empty properties in the UK; some abandoned, some owned as "investments" by the super rich. Rules on bringing these back into use should be strengthened to give councils more powers to repossess them.

In an ideal world I'd personally ban ownership of more than two properties (two to allow for (e.g.) people in rural areas to take jobs in towns/cities if needs be without losing their homes in the country) - I think buy to let landlords owning hundreds of properties are immoral; these are homes, not vehicles for profit. But no government will ever do this.

Also agree with comments upthread about improving tenants rights. If other european countries can manage this, then why can't we?

TillyMint I think at the moment it is in the governments interest for property prices to realign which is why i suggested that developers should be "incentivised" to build rather than pressured to provide a new football stadium/village hall/road infrastructure.

When prices are so out of line with earnings it costs them in other areas.

Anyone else remember Police houses being provided? Other occupations might have had a home provided with an occupation.

For example, if you could get a mortgage rate of 2.5% with a 10% deposit on a 5 or 10 year fix (or longer, as available in some other countries)

But the BofE rate will likely be way higher than 2.5% in 10 years time, so no lender's going to go for that

Cogito, yes, but Germany has got a far longer history of "devolution" to its regions that facilitates this process - the federal state came "after" the regions so the starting position is very different from the comapratively centralised UK. Germans are also happy to pay far higher rates of tax for their government to "subsidise" the creation of hubs - new unis, new schools, more council housing. In my experience, I found British people far less willing to pay higher taxes for these purposes (it's a generalisation of course!).

Certainly, there is a lot to be said for moving "stuff" to Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, and the process has started already... God knows, if prices in London fell a bit I could even afford a house (I understand a crash would be disastrous for a lot of people, btw, this is tongue in cheek)

"But the offspring often want to live in these homes."

What's your definition of "often"? Maybe if you're the new Lord Cholmondelay-Warner, but in my, fairly extensive, experience the family want to sell up asap and split the profits.

Unless there is a single child to inherit then a house needs to be sold to split the proceeds, added to the fact that far fewer people live near their original family home, compounded by the fact that people tend to inherit in middle age so have their own homes.

Thanks Minerva, that's interesting.

I think Cogito's point is a good one but the process of redistributing population is extremely difficult and costly. Take the BBC move to Salford, it's costing what, a billion dollars overall? Is that worth it? And loads of people are quitting rather than moving, because their spouses have jobs in London, their kids are in school, etc.

I think it makes sense to set up new organisations or industries up north, but moving existing ones is tougher. It will always be hard to get people away from London, it's a world capital, it's close to the continent, the financial sector is there, etc.

And presumably, housing prices in the north would not stay low if there were an influx of southerners, increasing demand. They would then simply price out the people who have been living there all their lives.

The prices in the North West (of England) are now almost on par with London in certain areas.

Do join us on the property porn thread: Portofino has found us a house we can all live in.

I would like:

More building on greenbelt land. Controversial, but repeated use of 'brown belt' just means that urban areas are becoming massively overcrowded and parks and green spaces in urban areas built on. Which probably contributes to anti-social behaviour etc as there are limited places for young people to go and definately contributes to poorer air quality, traffic and overcrowding problems.

Good history of X no years paying rent in full and on time with no late payments being accepted instead of a deposit or as a way to negotiate a smaller deposit. Since a lot of people have the wage multiples required to buy (and pay their mortgage comfortably) but not the deposit they need.

Compulsory purchase of long term empty properties and restriction of local planning rules about zoning and use of buildings so more ex shops etc can be converted to houses.

caramelwaffle which areas of the NW and London?

reallifeisforwimps other european countries and the USA work primarily on long term fixed rate deals, old BBC article here. You can also get some in this country, but you usually have to have a large deposit, thereby putting the deals out of the reach of first time buyers. The independent have an article here with some information.

Yes banks still want to make a profit, but if other countries banks can manage to offer more long term deals, why can't UK banks do the same? It's a change in mindset for consumers, certainly, but if you view your house as a home, not an investment for 2-5 years, then longer term deals can make very good sense.

"God knows, if prices in London fell a bit I could even afford a house "

But why does everyone want to live in London? And why is everyone so reluctant to consider living elsewhere? That's the real problem. So many are content to complain that they are 'priced out' but are not prepared to move somewhere cheaper. There will be a few jobs that can only be done in one location but many more are portable. Jobs may not pay as well in other parts of the country but, offset that against cheaper accommodation, and you're quids in.

Yes, the Germans have been doing this redistribution, regional centres process longer and they pay more tax. That doesn't mean we should keep the status quo. The OP asked for solutions to the housing crisis. The housing crisis is largely in London and the S.E and not so much in the rest of the UK. Seems obvious.

The problem with your argument Squeaky, is that it is grossly unfair. In the most simplistic terms, if you have two babies, one born to a heroin-addicted mother existing in a sordid flat on a nasty crime-ridden estate, and one born to Mr and Mrs Banker who provide private schools, healthcare, nepotism, connections, foreign holidays etc, then they hardly have the same life chances and opportunities to make a success of their lives.

oh also:

when building new towns and settlements the developers MUST build the schools, shops, local amenities they say they will or be barred from selling any of the houses they have built

I can think of more than one new town in which the school never arrived

North East, East , South east, London (and suburbs) compared to say Aigburgh or Freshfield (Merseyside) or North Cheshire or South West Lancashire.

*Aigburth

i am familier with central E London & Widnes (the posh bit!?!). they are very different pricewise....