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.

It's funny as I've had several conversations recently with people like this....

They go along the lines of "Noone can afford to buy theses days, you had it easy...."

Except when I go through the figures with them, yes I bought in 1996 so house prices were lower, but earnings were also lower and crucially INTEREST RATES were 7%. They were just coming out of a period when they went to 15%. Banks were cautious about affordability even then.

This meant in order to buy I had to 1) live with my mum for a year to save up my deposit 2) Not go out at all and save every penny and 3) buy with my boyfriend as it was the only way to do it (and he did the same as well).

The ratios are still very much the same, you can borrow more at a lower rate which works out at roughly the same and you still had to have a deposit. Rates were better with bigger depoit, nothing has changed.

This is more to do with the current "entitlement" culture which is very blinkered to what the rest of us 40 somethings had to do to get anywhere, which was work dammed hard and make sacrifices.

For many the problem is raising the deposit. Give us a few more facts here.
Current salaries of husband and wife roughly and if you both work full time and your childcare bill.

The deposit - people do do things like - my daughter moved back home to save on rent or slept in friends' places. I also sent the older children details of house sitting type jobs you can get in fire stations in London where you are paid to occupy the property. It is not easy to get deposits together even of 5% on a £200k flat. That is about £10k so £5k per each person in the couple and that is outer London (not inner London flats). Also not everyone can get a 95% mortgage and you have to endure a higher rate of interest as for that first property you have that big mortgage percentage.

Second problem to raise the £190k mortgage is income. If you both earn say £25k you might be able to raise that and here we are talking about London in my example so £25k is not that rare a salary.

New build should be covered by a covenant against BTL and new BTL buys put under a less favourable tax regime. But no, you cannot confiscate people's houses and give them at cut rates to the tenant.

As many people have pointed out the idea is absurd.
Governement cannot force people to sell their own property at a loss and at a time when it does not suit them. That is simple.

The "lack of understanding" about the ability to get mortgages is mainly I think a flippant response to the lack of understanding on the OPs's part about the real costs and risks of property ownership. PP mentioned stamp duty, mortgage arrangement fees, tax on any rent received as income, all repairs.

When you own you can't just sell, (without huge costs) when it all goes wrong. There are losses too. And when they build a massive housing estate or a motorway or the neighbours from hell move in next door you are stuck. A reasoned debate about the housing crisis - including a discussion on population, is worth having but the OP is being silly and has received suitably flippant responses

That's fine gorgeousgeorge if you have parents willing/able to house you (or parents at all!), a boyfriend to buy with, etc etc.
we're making massive sacrifices to buy. In fact we're just about to move 180 miles away to a cheaper area, away from everyone we know in order to do so.

Gorgeousgeorge my dos bought around this time with a 100 % mortgage. There were other options that are simply not available now.

Ds not dos

Dsis even!

I think the op is discussing a wider suggestion for housing (which I don't agree with) but at an individual level you can ask and it can work.
We rented and got given notice that our tenancy would end because it was going to be put for sale. We were in a position to buy but it all depended on price. We ended up having a bit of a negotiation and because landlord avoided estate agent fees and it was going to be easy to deal with no chain and we knew exactly what we were getting I think we ended up at about a 5-7% discount.
It's always worth asking... I have ended up needing to rent that property out because I now work in a different part of the country and would definitely be tempted to offer a small discount if my tenants wanted to buy it.

theres no single answer to the housing crisis and no pain free solution.
Probably some unexpected series of events will lead to a property price crash, all the small landlords will see their plans for a comfortable retirement go down the drain and property will be bought up cheap by those who have enough wealth to withstand the crash.
The bubble will then re inflate and even more of our housing stock will be in the hands of a few very rich people ?

No. I think the op is quite clear. They want the government to force landlords to sell property to the tennants living in it, but thinks it won't happen because all of the government are landlords, and are in fact deliberately inflating costs to profiteer from their buy to lets.

So you think that landlord should be forced to sell their property for a price that is below the market value if tenants live in their property for more than a certain length of time?
You do realise what the end result of such a stupid policy would be don't you??

If you can afford to rent, why can't you afford a mortgage? Some rents cost more than mortgages?

We can't get a mortgage. We don't have enough for a deposit either. Our rented home is a 3 bed semi in a nice area, valued around £300k and is £1100 a month to rent. We were quoted £1300 a month in mortgage repayments on a smaller £250K house in a crappy area, with. £20k deposit

?Surely the OP is making an absurd suggestion in order to illuminate the absurdity of the existing right to buy scheme??

That's very generous of you Suzanne, but if that was the case do you not think they'd have elaborated further?

Well, actually it is clear to me that the OP is channeling (from the collective unconscious) a wider concept than the one that she is consciously aware of

Don't know if anyone's said this already, but I've read half the thread and now have to go out...
In the autumn the govt's Help to Buy scheme is being expanded to include a H2B ISA, with the govt adding £50 to every £200 that you put in. This money is added at the point you need to use it, and both members of a couple can have their own ISA.

Might help, might not...but look out for it, OP.

Yes look for it op, and a network rail card too, perhaps? (Damn Mnetters and their pesky helpfulfulness).

H2B,
aka help to buy
aka 'help to push up property prices even further
nice work the govt

We were very lucky to buy when we did. But on the other hand my DH and I did live in one room in a flatshare for five years - however it was a pleasant flatshare and the low rent enabled us to save deposits. However, I do suspect that most couples would expect to have their own flat these days.

OP, YABU.

I own a house (while living in a rented flat several miles away) in which I have invested tens of thousands of pounds - new kitchen, bathrooms, boiler, windows, etc. I haven't made a profit, ever. Every single penny and more goes into improving the house.

If a long-term tenant told me that they should have the right to buy the house from me at a discount simply because they have lived there a number of years, I would burst into laughter and tell them they had no chance at all.

I don't know why the economic arguments being laid out in previous posts don't also apply when the tax payer is the landlord (LA / HA) properties.

Private landlords should be no different to the Taxpayer Ladlord. As a taxpayer investor in housing stock why should we expect less profit/benefit from our investment and why should tenants who have to go private because our shared taxpayer investments have been sold off cheaply be penalised because of that.

A formula could be worked out that would leave us all (private and taxpayer landlords) with modest profit that could be reinvested however we decide - more housing or nhs for taxpayers or more houses or pension or yachts to sail in the med for private - but that wouldn't win the conservatives any votes would it?

The OP lit a match here and buggered off. Where are you OP

YABU.

I agree with the few saying if you rhink you can afford to buy your rental property (by your theoretical law of forcing the owner to sell to you), then you should be in a position to buy a different property anyway. It just sounds like you can't be bothered to make that move.

GorgeousGeorge - I first bought in 1994 and they were practically giving away mortgages compared to nowadays, especially endowment ones, the checks were fairly minimal. As for the interest rates, mine was a 5 year fixed at 6%, but was eadily affordable on a mortgage which was just over 2x my annual salary. And that's the difference. My salary was around £25k for a £55k mortgage. Someone in an equivalent job today might be earning £35k, but that house sold last year for £205k, tiny 2 bed starter home outside London. I had it easy.

It won't work all that will happen is just before the cut off you'll get kicked out.