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.

Paddington - so you're paying £1100 Rent for a 3 bed semi in a nice area. A not so nice house would be £1300 in mortgage.

There's nothing in your post that proves you 'can't' buy...just that you're not willing to compromise on your nice 3 bed semi to do so. Which is fine - but that's your choice and it's not the same as being unable to buy at all.

Dh and I bought the most expensive house we could afford at the time (£100k). Typical teeny two up two down, in a shit area. Then we worked and saved and upgraded from there. You can't expect to just step into your dream home from the off and there's a lot of sacrifice involved for many that have bought.

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.

I looked a the figures from my flat, bought in 1998, compared it to buying now. Assuming 5% deposit and 9% interest rate then, 20% deposit and 2.5% interest rate now.

(Those are actual typical variable mortgage APRs for the time published by Bank of England.)

Then I would have needed a 10K deposit and annual mortgage payments would have been 19K.

Adjusted for general inflation, in today's money that would be a deposit of 14K and annual mortgage payments of 27K.

Now I would need a 130K deposit and annual mortgage payment would be 28K.

So initially it looks like you are right with regard to monthly payments, and people are "only" worse off now because they'd have to find a 130K deposit rather than just 14K.

However my actual mortgage payments in 1998 were equivalent of 14K in today's money, I think because of a five-year introductory deal, plus it being an interest-only mortgage. I doubt you could get a similar reduction on today's mortgage.

Another one saying its a dreadful idea op for the reasons previously listed.

Anyone on here actually happy to be renting from a private landlord? And is house buying a cultural thing?

I know it's a funny question but on half of my family all live abroad and they all rent, no one is bothered about buying or having property under their belt.

YABVU, he is a business not a charity. He lets you rent the property as you need a place to live in return for payment. Without landlords, lots of people simply wouldn't have homes as not everyone can get or wants a mortgage.

Of course no government is going to force people to sell their possessions to others

I honestly cannot get my head round the way H2B is offered. It's not really helping any one is it?

My DSIS rents out her house, due to living abroad at the moment. She may decide to come back at some point and go back to living in her house.

The lovely people she currently rents to have been there for 5 years, so under your proposal, they should be able to buy my sisters house, at a knock down rate?

My DSIS scrimped and saved to get a deposit together for her first home and I don't think it's ok that she should then be forced to sell it to someone else and lose the money she worked hard for. Crazy idea.

The best idea would have been for Council/social housing homes not to have been sold off in the first place and we wouldn't have a housing crisis with people having to pay high rents in the private sector.

We rent out a flat as when I met my husband I owned my house and he had his flat. Are you seriously suggesting we should HAVE to sell our property bought and paid for after years of hard work, going without holidays, never claiming benefit (I was a working single parent for 16 years). We choose to live in a small house and rent the flat out. We also chose to move to a cheaper area as have our children who have both struggled but managed to buy in the last year. Take control of your own future and don't try to rob other people.

But it's not about renting or buying is it, it's about the fundamental need for a place to call home, in order to have any change of flourishing in life we all need a secure affordable place to live!
A home is a basic need like health-care or education, we wouldn't let people with money buy up all the state schools and charge us so much to educate our children that we could barely afford to live. ?

GreenAugustLion

We can't get a mortgage. Been refused. We need at least, a minimum of £20,000 deposit for a mortgage on a house under £250k. We don't have a minimum of £20,000. There's not much under £250k where I live anyway. By the time we have saved up £20k, mortgage lenders would no doubt require a much bigger deposit.

I appreciate what you are saying, if we had the money (deposit) to buy a smaller house in a worse area we probably would. No one gets their dream home from the off. Well. Except those who are gifted their mortgage deposits anyway. But we can't get a mortgage. We don't have the money for a deposit. So that's why we rent.

I did buy a house with an ex partner in 1997 and our deposit was £4k. Getting a mortgage used to be a lot easier. We are saving and we do hope to buy at some point in our lives but it's not possible at the moment. It was a decision of save for a house or have a child and we chose to have a child first.

Looking at 'easier then or now' from an overall perspective:

1988-1991 saw mortgage payments as a proportion of income to around 20-25% before dropping back to around the same level as today in 1992 (stable around 16% except in the mid-2000s when they rose to 20-21% again, back at 16% now). It's pretty widely accepted than renting is often more expensive these days in many areas than mortgage payments. However, it's worth noting that mortgage payments as a % of income for first time buyers in 2007 were only slightly lower than in 1989, though they've since dropped to 1987 levels (still well above most of the 90s).

But deposits have risen out of all proportion to both incomes and house prices - meaning it's much harder to get on the ladder in the first place. The deposit a first time buyer needed in 1988 averaged 10-12% for the decade from 1988. It's twice that since 2008.

Similarly, house price to earnings ratios have shot up nationwide, with a particular emphasis on London. The 4.3 nationwide ratio now is higher than in the end of the 80s boom (never went above 4, even at the absolute peak), and for most of the 90s was closer to 2 on average. In London, the ratio is 7.3 - at the peak of the 80s boom it was 5.7.

This all means that as both house prices (relative to income) and deposit as a % of house prices are significantly higher than in past decades, it's a double whammy in terms of increased difficulty in getting on the ladder at all, while servicing the mortgage once you've got it is easier than the 'blip' 3 years of the late 80s/early 90s (but harder than in the surrounding years).

suzannecanthecan but the OP has a secure place to live. S/he is just demanding the (strangeLy) right to buy it.

My DSS and fiance have moved back with us and saved a 5% deposit and got on help to buy. They move into their new home in two weeks. It is tiny and in an area that was undesirable but improving. This will not be their forever home but it gets them on the ladder. They are so excited!

S/he is just demanding the (strangeLy) right to buy it.

Why is it stranger than HA properties?

Because it's someone's possession? Because it's not state owned.

Help to buy was hugely helpful to DH and I.

Our house was up for £175k, we put down 5%, the government put in 20% and so our mortgage is only 2.6%. We can either pay the government their chunk (which will be lower if house prices drop) when we sell or after 25 years and it's interest free for five years.

Sorry, obviously yes it is helpful. I just find it bizarre the way it's pretty much offered to all and sundry.

I have a house I rent out. I rent a flat in a different town as this is where my son goes to school.

When I got my mortgage, I was allowed a 20 year mortgage. With the new rules that came in last April/May, if I move and take out a new mortgage, I can only have a 12 year mortgage. This means that I would no longer be able to afford the payments. So I am stuck. I cannot sell my house that is rented (btw the rent is actually LESS than the mortgage, so I am hardly making my fortune!) without losing my 20 year mortgage option. I would love to sell the rented house, but have no other way of remaining in the property market.

So no - I don't want my tenants to purchase my house because I would then not be able to afford to buy a house for myself.

I am pretty sure I am not the only person in this situation.

Because it's someone's possession? Because it's not state owned.

Neither are HA properties.

I think right to buy either is equally absurd, to be honest.

Throughthickand, I was referring to the wider housing problem rather than the specific situation of the OP

Yabu op. I don't understand why you think it's your right to buy something at a discount that someone else has saved and paid for.

If I was a landlord and I was made to sell my property at a discount to my tenants after a set period of time, let's say 5 years, I'd not have rents longer than 4 years. Would renew leases every year. To avoid selling.

Glad Paddington is prepared to be our guinea pig.
House under £250k - let us say £250k. Needs £20k deposit i.e. £10k per each in the couple. So that must be a 10% not 5% deposit.
Have you tried a mortgage broker? They can be quite good at finding you 95% mortgages?

The biggest hurdle is that is hard to get a 95% mortgage.

90% is £25k so that move from 5% to 10% deposit is the killer for a lot of people ad why help or right to buy (the 95% mortgage thing which i think just ended just after the election - now) was so helpful to so many people.

The political and moral issues of property ownership are always there. I believe in private rights to keep your savings and own property. My daughter who could not afford to live in her flat and lived at home whilst renting it out and taking a risk p[rices would not drop (the previous owners of this London flat made £5k over 7 years - amazingly low for London!!!!!! and is probably a loss) so her buying 2.5 years ago was a massive risk. She even had to spend £2k on putting in a new boiler for the tenants. So the idea on the thread is that she should have to sell it at say a 50% discount for less than her mortgage is? No Government is going to do that.

So those struggling to buy will need to think of other routes than a socialist revolution with property confiscation.

As well as the sleeping on floors ideas (and no maternity leaves which I did) what about second jobs? We both had a second job in effect at weekends in those early difficult days of trying to buy. Yes it's an absolute nightmare but the price we paid to buy.

I am not saying it's easy though.

And what b. we sold a flat in about 1995 for 50% less than we bought it for in outer London! There was a 1990s property crash.

Also interest rates are very low. In those very difficult early days we were paying 12% interest and of course capital repayments too - it was very hard and the tax relief you used to get on interest paid on a home loan had withered to just about nothing or gone.

jassy correction not 'state owned', but 'state regulated and publicly funded' and run alongside council housing schemes.