Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that banning 'buy-to-let' would go a long way to solving the housing crisis?

205 replies

carlajean · 27/10/2015 12:15

It seems so obvious to me that there's sure to be some flaw in the argument, but it would be easy to enforce (i.e. one family, one house) and there would be a large number of houses/flats released onto the market, forcing the price down (to a rational level) so that people could afford the newly-available housing.
Because interest rates are so low, housing is a good investment, particularly with older people who might have pulled down their pension early, resulting in private landlords buying up cheap housing a letting it out.
I await flaming, but am interested to hear what people think.

OP posts:
Jaxsbum · 27/10/2015 12:17

how would that work in university towns?

winchester1 · 27/10/2015 12:19

Not everyone wants to buy. Landlords (should at least) take care of maintenance and basic furnishings. Not every wants or feels able to do that.

Seriouslyffs · 27/10/2015 12:20

I'd ban non residents buying first and having massive taxes on empty properties.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 27/10/2015 12:21

Given that there isn't enough social housing what will happen to people who can neither afford a house even if prices come down nor get social housing? Who will they rent off?

What about people who move temporarily for work, who will they rent off?
If you force buy to let landlords to sell will they seek compensation?

Oysterbabe · 27/10/2015 12:22

Not everyone wants to buy.

HorseyCool · 27/10/2015 12:22

Where would people live?

evilcherub · 27/10/2015 12:23

YANBU. Perhaps the government will now bring forward the cuts to BTL tax allowances instead of staggering them. No reason at all why BTL should be given these tax perks that owner occupiers do not get and they are causing a great social disservice. I would ban BTL altogether.

TheFlis12345 · 27/10/2015 12:25

Fine for people who can afford (and want) to buy straight away. What about those who can't or don't want to (e.g. because they are only living somewhere short term). They would be screwed as rental prices would go through the roof. And what about those who are renting as they save for a deposit? Where would they end up?

Toughasoldboots · 27/10/2015 12:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mintbiscuit · 27/10/2015 12:26

I'd ban non residents buying first

Definitely agree with this. Especially in places like London.

evilcherub · 27/10/2015 12:27

Horsey, what do you mean? Houses don't just disappear if landlords don't own them you know. Presumably it would mean a lot of those first time buyers wouldn't have to compete with landlords to buy a home. It also means less people competing for a rental if they buy.

KittyOShea · 27/10/2015 12:28

Many landlords ended up there accidentally- I bought and lived in a one bedroom terrace for 9 years.

When I married DH we needed somewhere a bit bigger as we were planning on having children. My house was in negative equity so we rented it out and luckily DH had saved a large deposit so we were able to buy.

Currently the house is rented out (below market rate) to a pensioner on housing benefit. I pay around £200 per month to insure, pay rest of mortgage etc.

Should I have been forced to sell at a £20k loss? Many landlords won't rent to housing benefit tenants- should my tenant have remained in the hostel he was in?

Not all landlords are the same...

Fuckingfuming82 · 27/10/2015 12:31

My dps granny owns lots of houses around coastal areas.

She rents them out as holiday lets which is taking housing way from locals and driving up the house prices.

She's already very wealthy so she doesn't need the money. She loves to go to auctions and outbid locals. It's like a game to her.

DreamingOfThruxtons · 27/10/2015 12:32

Jaxbum. I am from a University town, and my sister now lives in another. I'd like to see more subsidised, publicly owned/University owned accommodation for students, rather than what currently happens: I could never afford to live in my home town (even if I wanted to!), either rent or mortgage would be just too expensive. I now live in another University town, and have to live far out to be able to afford a mortgage.

Similarly, my sister will never get on the housing ladder where she lives- she would have to relocate completely.

There seem to be whole ghettoes wholly inhabited by posh well-off students either renting or living in flats bought by Mummy and Daddy: I lived on the edges of one for a year, and don't think I ever got a decent night's sleep for them braying on in the wee hours of the morning.

Sorry. Possibly being somewhat intolerant, but bloody hell it was annoying, especially when I was pregnant and had to get up for work in the morning!

DreamingOfThruxtons · 27/10/2015 12:33

(Apologies for crap structure; I need coffee!)

BaronessEllaSaturday · 27/10/2015 12:34

A friend of mine lets out his house, he met and married someone a couple of years ago and they moved into her house, his is rented out now. It's rented out because house prices have seriously dropped in our area and if he sold he wouldn't release enough capital to pay off the mortgage. He can't afford to sell. If one family one house came in it would break up their family as they could not afford to take the loss on selling that house so would have to live separately.

DinosaursRoar · 27/10/2015 12:35

Do you assume that all people who are currently renting a) would want to buy the property they are renting and b) would be able to buy? Between us DH and I have rented 4 different cities for study and work before buying a house in Kent.

Having the option to rent, to be able to move from one city to another quickly and easily before we were ready to settle down and have DCs helped us build our careers. It meant we could have a decent property to live in when the now DH was self employed and wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage without a massive deposit.

I wouldn't want a housing market where the options were buy, or live in a 'halls of residence' type arrangement, or social housing.

I also quite like that when I want to go on holiday in the UK, I can rent a cottage rather than stay in a hotel or B&B - usually those are owned by individuals who rent them out. Would you ban holiday homes as well?

Toughasoldboots · 27/10/2015 12:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

titchy · 27/10/2015 12:35

Banning BTL just means the supply of rental houses decreases and therefore rents go up.

Not quite sure how your plan would work...

notquitehuman · 27/10/2015 12:38

As a tenant, I'd rather have rent caps or guaranteed long term tenancies to ensure my family's stability. I think that for fairness, private buyers should be given priority over BTLetters - perhaps if a house doesn't sell for a certain period it can be snapped up for a rental, but I don't think you can stop BTL entirely.

RickRoll · 27/10/2015 12:38

"Banning BTL just means the supply of rental houses decreases and therefore rents go up."

Or, the number of renters decreases. You presume every renter wants to rent.

museumum · 27/10/2015 12:43

where would all the newly graduated 20 somethings who want to flat share live?

I rented for years in london with no desire to buy or 'settle down' there.

Not to mention the three out of four years at uni when I rented privately (only rented from the uni in first year).

Surely better rights for renters is the answer, not destroying the entire rental option for everybody?

OffMyAyersRocker · 27/10/2015 12:43

This nugget again.

Yes carlajean (Hmm) yabu.

This delusion that no btl will mean everyone can afford to buy is ridiculous.

5Foot5 · 27/10/2015 12:44

I don't understand how this could possibly be anything but a bad thing from the POV of people who either have to or want to rent.

And this might seem like a side issue, but I agree with DinosaursRoar - would you ban holiday homes? That would bugger most of our holiday plans.

titchy · 27/10/2015 12:45

Well yes that was my point - the number of renters would decrease.

I'm not assuming every renter WANTS to rent, but every renter clearly needs to rent at the time they are renting.... So what happens to Mr Smith's tenants when Mr Smith sells his portfolio of properties to go on a round the world cruise/fund his retirement/settle his divorce/pay fro his care home fees/etc?