I should have the right to buy from my my to let landlord after 6 years here

[chocolatekatie]

No government will ever do it as loads of them are into buy to let hence why they do all they can to prop up the bubble.

My landlord thinks he's some businessman doing me a favour by letting me live here. Actually he's the problem, he just had money so can afford to buy up property - push up the price and force people like me to rent.

Yeah yeah, on mumsnet all the high earners got there with sheer hard graft, and luck never had anything to do with it. I've not heard anyone in daily life with this sort of attitude maybe I just hang around more humble people

We have worked very hard to own our house, but by god, there's no way we could have achieved it without a massive dose of good luck.

TheChandler - as I've said, I'm laying no claim to be terribly knowledgeable about economics or statistics - though I like to do my research before I make statements.

I worry you have confused me with someone else. I have propounded no policy preferences nor suggested solutions.

What I have done is:

• Shared statistics on relative affordability of house purchasing over the last three decades.

• Pointed out that there is dissonance between stating that private rental property is sacrosanct but housing association property is fair game.

• Said I think RTB private rental property and HA property are equally absurd.

• Said that HB and tax breaks are essentially a subsidy to private landlords.

• Talked about deposits and how rises in house prices out of sync with incomes made deposits more unaffordable.

• Talked about the Australian policy of restricting foreign housing ownership to certain property types.

• Suggested that if landlords weren't making profits, and that was a problem for them, they needed to question whether they were running a sustainable business model. (which is when you called me misinformed, and I responded politely.)

*Explained why people may choose to live in London.

• Discussed the definition of communism.

• Said I'd prefer a more tightly regulated private rental sector. (I admit, this is a policy position, but not terribly detailed. Happy to go into this further after bathtime).

*Expressed a view that we need a private rental sector.

• Entered a discussion of whether harder work is matched by the market with commensurate financial reward, and argued strongly against the idea that higher wages are driven by the difficulty or effort put into the work, rather than other drivers such as scarcity of skills. (which is where you had mid-level recruiters 'groaning' at me)

• We disagreed on what constituted harder work.

• I again shared statistics on house price and purchase affordability.

• I pointed out that the proportion of HB recipients in private rental is slightly higher than the national average in London, despite Lotus's assertion that HB is not relevant in London.

• I wondered whether I was a striver or a moaner.

• I unfairly drew you in to my frustration with Lotus's patronising offer of 'help' to the unfortuante, which was unfair and for which I apologise.

• I pointed out to Lotus that the BoE didn't say what she claimed it had, and that productivity was not quite what she portrayed it as.

• You suggested I was unemployable and had social problems.

I think we're all caught up now. Whereabouts did you think I was advocating a certain course of action, or claiming I had all the answers? Which suggestion ignored the ECHR, competition law constraints and public procurement rules?

For the record - and briefly, the child is very dirty - I don't disagree with much of what you've proposed. I favour greater regulation of private rental properties, particularly around tenancy lengths and energy efficiency (the latter of which has already been regulated for), but in particular of letting agents.

But I'm terribly interested to know what you think I've proposed. Hell, it might be quite good and I didn't even realise it.

The bottom line is that the hardest workers on this thread seem to be the ones who have been able to buy so it would probably do others well if they want to buy to listen to our advice or at least ensure their children follow it.

It is not rude for a few of us to express a view that deferring gratification, working hard at school, putting off things today by saving hard for tomorrow. You can disagree. You can go back to my bibilical quote above that it's better to wait for God or the state to provide or say pursuing money or an owned home is a wicker perfidy of the grasping and that those who pursue mamon in that way will get their comeuppance either in the after life or on earth and die like King Midas drowned in our own gold..... However we can all express our views.

Mark Carney on Radio 4 certainly said we have a UK productivity issue and it will be bound to be linked to the number of people who are now working very short hours compared to the old days. However if you don't want to work or work smart ignore the advice of those of us on the thread and go your own way - no one says renting does not bring happiness or not having little money over is going to mean you get depressed. Money doesn 't link to happiness so what does it matter if someone has a lot and someone else doesn't.

What is fairly clear on the thread (apart from the well off bleeding heart liberals) is that the more educated you are the higher your earnings and the more likely you will buy a property so perhaps the best thing you can all do is read to your children every night, make them pick sensible GCSE, A level and university courses and careers.

Jassy Suggested that if landlords weren't making profits, and that was a problem for them, they needed to question whether they were running a sustainable business model. (which is when you called me misinformed, and I responded politely.)*

Ah yes, I remember that one. I was a bit surprised that you assumed that all businesses were profitable, particularly in the early years. And also that you hadn't considered that making a loss might be tax effective, and with a longer term goal in mind.

I agree letting agents need regulation (strange to regulated properties but not agents - there is nothing to stop anyone setting up as a letting agent even though they have no relevant qualifications or experience). I disagree on further regulation, particularly energy efficiency, which cost would simply be passed onto tenants and is unachievable in many older properties - thus leading eventually to yet more market dominance by large housing developers of the new build market. I actually think there is a danger of a loss of balance over too much and ever increasing regulation, which leads to a loss of legal certainty overall.

I apologise for jumping down your throat(s) after the arrogant remarks. I recently had to work alongside an utter twat at work, who tended towards the insulting remarks, despite being an unqualified intern and not being very good at his job. We were very patient with him (goodness knows why), but he was asked to leave last week, after which were subjected to another round of yet more abusive emails. He is the type of unemployable arrogant idiot who is all too good at telling other people how stupid they are and cannot make anything of the chances offered to him. Its incredibly easy to be one of those people on the internet, where there are no consequences, but it doesn't mean that the silent majority are necessarily in agreement.

I'd love to discuss further, but I actually do have to work tonight, and do some research into public procurement, which is a different market analysis altogether.

Mark Carney on Radio 4 certainly said we have a UK productivity issue and it will be bound to be linked to the number of people who are now working very short hours compared to the old days.

That's really, really not what he said. Maybe do the man the courtesy of looking up what he said and what the report said?

I'll help a bit. Here's a summary from his press conference. The report goes into more detail, if you're interested.

• first, the report talks about productivity growth, particularly compared to before the crisis.

• two of the three factors he cites as contributing to the markdown in productivity growth he says as cyclical. First is compositional effects - the nature of both the jobs and the people filling them. The upturn in employment has been disproportionately driven by low-pay, low-skilled jobs which tend to be less productive by their nature. He sees this as cyclical but as a current weight on productivity.

• the second cyclical factor is also related to the recovery and the upturn in employment. A larger-than-usual number of people are new to their jobs, and people tend to be less productive when new to a job, and their productivity increases.

• the third factor is not cyclical, and it's what he calls a slowness in recycling capital from low productivity to high productivity firms. Possible causes are record low interest rates, and increased creditor forebearance due to the downturn and recovery, where previously firms would have been wiped out they are currently continuing to operate. He also talks about lower investment as a possible part of this.

Ben Broadbent went on to talk about causes for optimism in future productivity.

This is all from Carney's press conference transcript.

How are we objectively measuring hard work, by the way?

I was being rather facetious in the comment about landlord profitability, which was silly and I expnained later. It was more about those saying or implying that they wanted both the security of capital appreciation and asset ownership for long-term security and immediate return on investment (and profit over mortgage repayments) at the same time, whereas approaching the situation from a business perspective you would balance both gains and the short-term pain against the long-term goal, and indeed run at a loss.

I think there is a real problem when people overextend themselves to get into BTL with deposits as small as possible, then find themselves with either wafer-thin margins between rent and mortgage payments and struggle to meet other costs, or push up rents where property is scarce to give them the immediate return to which they think they're entitled. They're a problem, because they're not thinking of it as a business or really as a long-term investment.

Enjoy public procurement, which seems increasingly, not less, arcane. And sorry you had a shit day, I can sympathise to an extent.

Energy efficiency regs (only for F and G properties) come into effect in 2018.

lotus - a sizeable number of people working shorter hours would much prefer to be working full-time. Their hours are for the benefit of their employers, not a personal choice by them.

Whenever we have an update on the employment figures, this fact is regularly pointed out by commentators.

You still haven't addressed the problem of housing those who, no matter how hard they work, will never gain the qualifications needed to earn decent salaries in well-rewarded careers.

(And I really do apologise for the impolite/arrogant remarks. I'll admit to being stung by some of yours, and responded unhelpfully.)

But I don't think anyone is disputing that to succeed you need to take some risk and secondly usually work hard. We probably all agree on those things. Also buying before you have children and as young as you can manage and working hard to pass good exams and perhaps not picking the worst paid work there is can help too.

Property prices are currently falling in London by the way.

notably, this doesn't make me unlucky, though there is clearly an element of luck if you weren't having to pay money to them and could save faster.

I was paying money to my parents and I was buying good on top of the board money but it was still a lot cheaper than full rent + bills + food.

Property prices are currently falling in London by the way.

What's your source for that - are you looking at monthly fluctuations or year on year?

Did you have an answer on measurement of hard work, out of interest? Hope you found the Carney stuff useful.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31839990 and been watching them very closely as was very very keen on a drop given Labour's plans for hard workers like I am - thankfully we are spared for 5 years. In my area prices are down 1.6% over last 6 months for a start. However I am certainly not suggesting they are cheap. Carney is always good, but I certainly believe if most people worked harder the nation would do better in reducing further the massive gap between what we spend and earn.

If people on the thread want the idle life of a lotus eater whilst on benefits or kept by a husband or their church or whatever I am not saying don't do that. It's a life choice. However if you want the path to security and success follow those of us who have managed that - the thread is jam packed with good advice on how to have your jam tomorrow. Go forth and deny yourself and the treasures of the world shalt be thine....

Thanks - I hadn't seen the RICS one which is directly contradicted by Halifax and others. The latest monthly ONS figures (actual, not user surveys) show variation since the highs of July and August last year, but certainly not month-on-month falls as reported to RICS by surveyors. Will be interesting to see what happens post-election, as the election just gone will have had a bigger impact on buyer behaviour than those in the past, particularly in London.

The rest of your post doesn't seem to be based on any evidence, and y'know, I've had success too but I don't think my path is universally follow able. That's my problem with your position. You are setting something up as either universally or even mostly achievable, based on individual experience that took place in circumstances that no longer exist.

I wouldn't dream of having the hubris to try to propound my individual experience and circumstances as possible or achievable for all, and I got into this home ownership lark relatively recently without the huge changes in affordability profiles and other relevant factors.

Worth noting the statistics (ONS again) that show that productivity increased steadily over the 40 years up to the financial crisis. Those workers of the 70s and 80s must have been sitting on their arses having a right laugh compared to today's workers, eh?

Still accusing others of being idle...

Any ideas how I can fit in a second job when I already do as much overtime as I can and work on call every other week (which has in the past meant working from Friday at 8am through to Monday at 8am. Grabbing only ten minutes of sleep here or there whilst waiting for a status bar to move or back up to restore).

As far as education goes I did try hard in school. Got varying amounts of above average grades, did well at university and have a good result.

Previously, in a job where I had shift work I'd work one job in the day before doing a night shift at a different one.

But if you look at the job market today, that's not possible. I don't know whether you actually listen to the news or not, but quie a lot has been said about zero hours contracts, forced exclusivity of them, or that if you have to turn down hours due to a second job that you're not likely to get any more hours!

As I keep saying your advice is out of date, it's not good and it's not relevant!

Obviously during this time I was not going out living a high life.
I'm genuinely interested to know when this hard work pays off?
Perhaps I've not worked hard or smart enough in your opinion, but I struggle to see how I could have cut back personally more!

As I said before, not every life turns out perfectly or the way in which you plan it, I don't feel like I've not worked hard enough.
I still feel that you have no idea what it is like to be a first time buyer today. No amount of bible quotes will convince me that you have any real empathy or compassion, or that you are in anyway greatful for what you have or the good fortune that has accompanied your hard work.

If you step out of your tiny insulated bubble and opened a paper then we wouldn't really need this discussion.

there you go again with your preserved fruit themed deferred gratification metaphors....

(that was in response to the latest in a long line of 'Jam tomorrow' suggestions from Lotuslight)

You can get jam for 29p, so you can have it today and tomorrow, and probably stretch to the 60 pence for six crumpets.

It's the butter that leads to financial ruin

yabu ffs why should he lose an income so you can buy his house he might be renting it out while he lives elsewhere and plans on coming home at a later date a friend of mine rented out his home while he worked in another country for two years its either that or leave the house to rot

people keep saying we need to build more houses and there is a real need but in my town they have houses rotting and more being built yet apparently family's are "crying out" for them in my area they claim they cant afford them but they have all the special offers attached they are part buy part rent deposit paid for you first year free all the bells and whistles and they sit and they rot

then the housing association swoop in and buy them cheap and they still sit empty

The advice those of us who have done well is not out of date and works today and always will - get good results at school and work hard there (I got the best exam results in the school and obviously I accept not everyone can of course), pick a highly paid career. My daughters are doing that and they have bought recently so the advice does work today. However those of us who have managed to buy somewhere are not saying it will always work for everyone.

It sounds like when not fathering a child at 24 and having sex when some of us were buried in our law books, nota, has and does work hard so the issue must be not picking lucrative work. What stopped nota cycling to the library in his teens to borrow a book called what people earn and made me do that? May be he did not have a bike or perhaps as many young people think money is not everything. We are only discussing this example because it was raised. Why do my daughters in 20s earn £65k - £100k. We know why their borther earns £20k because he chose low paid work as a post man. He like nota is a graduate.

May be it wash the nota choice of university? There is a massive difference in earnings depending on the type of university you choose?

So without my looking up the thread as I got up at 6 to finish some work before I get the children up, what are the nota issues? We don't need to know exactly but price of 1 bed or studio flat within one hour of commute from nota and partner's work? Nota and current partner's current income and if both work full time and cost of rent and maintenance to child of previous family. That will let us work out how we can help Nota to buy. There will be some of us on here with good contacts with mortgage brokers who can help. I spend my life helping people solve problems. Let us do that here.

If you read the thread maybe you'd learn something.

Ok lotus I bought at 18, I put my 'jam' into tomorrow, I worked bloody hard at a Ftse 100 company. 3 down from director level in fact. Unfortunately I did it with an abusive (in every sense) arse who left me with almost 6 figures of debt and took all the equity out the house which was way over £100,000.
There is no jam for me today or tomorrow (or my kids) but I did everything 'right'.
Surely we can't live in a society where you make one fuck up (choose wrong carer, choose wrong partner) at such a young age and that's it.

Lotus..my husbands a lawyer. Law when you start out is very poorly paid, with one firm telling dh he was lucky to get paid and he was getting experience. Dont know what they thought we live on fresh air. Living in london his wage of 16k and my wage just about covered the expensive london rent. We have worked very very hard. Believe me but we still havent been able to buy. I live in hope... One of my friends didnt go to uni and just worked in local office. She bought her house outright now. Its about luck before the buy to let took off.

I should say wrong career (living up to my name there!), wrong Uni course, no funds for Uni, no family support. Despite doing the 'right' thing sometimes you get it wrong.

I've just been reading about the increase of New Build vendors offering leasehold on actual houses rather than flats, in direct correlation with the implementation and take up the help to buy scheme.

Obviously the initial outlay is about 20k less but then the leaseholders are subjected to fees of £150 a year and asked to take out specific insurances.

So now the people at the bottom of the ladder can own a home but not the land.

How is this anything to do with a lack of productivity in The British workforce.

It's the landowners taking advantage of a govt grant to push house prices up further.

Damnedautocorrect Surely we can't live in a society where you make one fuck up (choose wrong carer, choose wrong partner) at such a young age and that's it.

That's a very interesting question, and not one I'd even pretend to have the answer to.

If you commit a crime, unless its exceptionally serious or one of many, you are given plenty of chances.

If you become bankrupt, it will probably only last a year (though will affect your credit rating).

If you make "social choices", they can affect your whole life. Not just getting divorced, but if you have gaps between jobs, it can push you down the career scale quite significantly. But I think most people know this, it was certainly drummed into me from quite an early age. Many of the most competitive university courses require exam results from the first sitting only. I had my education quite disrupted by pupils who couldn't be bothered at school, and even as a child it was pretty obvious to me that they would be those in the future who struggled to have a nice life. Divorce does tend to affect people's financial prospects significantly and I can't see a way out of this, other than treating the less financially strong partner more harshly. Which would then create another problem. The Scandinavian countries provide much better free or cheap childcare so that women can go out to work, but they have much higher rates of divorce and single parent families.

I exempt from this where you have a child/children young, out of wedlock, then express surprise that you have to support your children for the next 16 or 18 years, or if you have multiple children with multiple partners. But that's not what you were discussing Damned.

What is harsh is that I've noticed quite a few people being sacked from their jobs without notice recently, for quite small things which just about qualify as gross misconduct if you are very lenient with the definition, often people who have longstanding records of employment with that employer. This obviously saves on redundancy. I would suggest this could quite easily be resolved by clarifying the grounds that constitute gross misconduct in legislation much more firmly, and making them harder to prove.

I don't think its unreasonable though that poor career choices, especially resulting from not working at school, being disruptive, etc. do affect your life.

Its a harsh world at times, but still, in Northern Europe, we live in a part of the world which offers us a standard of living that would be an unattainable dream for most of the world's population.