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

[carlajean]

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.

This is a risk you take when you take out a mortgage

Well yes it is a risk, but no government is dumb harsh enough to force owners into selling at a huge loss by banning them from renting the house out while the market recovers. It is madness to put measures in place to make it even more risky to want to buy a house.

Your ideology seems entirely jealousy-driven and exists only to hurt anyone with the audacity to spend some time as a landlord.

Of course the unintended consequences would also hurt tourism, job mobility, the building trade, people at the start of their careers, students, people in abusive relationships, people who have relocated from abroad, people who want to relocate abroad, people with small businesses, people with ill relatives, people with houses in poor repair, people with mental health problems, people with life-limiting illnesses, the list could go on and on
But as long as a few landlords get burned, screw everyone else, right?

Your ideology seems entirely jealousy-driven and exists only to hurt anyone with the audacity to spend some time as a landlord.

you only hear ideas like this when prices are high or rising.

I was renting in 2008 outside of London when prices were falling, and let me tell you I LOVED the privilege of renting an massive investment falling in value. while my costs were stable, my landlord was losing money fast.

short term memory for renters who forget a mere 7 years ago.

red
You loved it because your rent fell, or because you took delight in someone else's financial losses?

To be honest, people who claim to honestly think that it would be a good thing for the UK to ban BTL come across as both bitter and a bit thick to me.

There are much more effective ways to lower prices and increase housing stock.

Your ideology seems entirely jealousy-driven and exists only to hurt anyone with the audacity to spend some time as a landlord.

err no, its driven by wanting some bloody security in a home that someone could be bothered and obligated to maintain and repair. I have many friends who rent and we all want the same thing. Its nothing to do with wanting to hurt anyone. Its to do with not wanting an individual and their personal circumstances or mood dictating whether other people have a decent roof over their heads.

There are much more effective ways to lower prices and increase housing stock

....which are?

its driven by wanting some bloody security in a home that someone could be bothered and obligated to maintain and repair.

Very admirable
But how do you get around the fact that your genius master plan puts massive swathes of the population at a disadvantage, and has huge negative consequences for the overall economy?

Or is just a real case of 'I'm alright jack'?

Or is just a real case of 'I'm alright jack'?

yeah 'cause BTLers do it for the greater good.

Actually at that "i'm alright jack" line. Those selfish tenants wanting decent affordable secure homes. How dare they deprive a BTLer of having their mortgage paid for them? Should ban those tenants having any say really.

....which are?

Building houses. People can only behave as rent-seekers in times of scarcity. The only reason houses are overpriced in London is that there aren't enough of them and there are planning constraints which mean it's hard to build more. Shift the greenbelt out by a few miles (remember, the original Northern Heights proposal involved the Northern Line going as far as Bushey Heath via Elstree, but was abandoned after the Greenbelt was imposed) and there's then vast amounts of land and house prices would drop like a stone.

As seriouslyffs says, there should be rent caps and better security of tenure for tenants. As it is, the way people are treated in private rents is pretty disgusting for a so-called civilised society.

Rents are enormously high, wages are tremendously low for many people, their rent is topped up by housing benefit, private landlords are often having their mortgages paid for them by the bloody Government! It makes me like no other issue except perhaps education in this country.

Oh, and the other thing which needs to happen is to cease the sale of council and housing association properties under right to buy.

Building houses

Who building houses? If it was profitable for developers they would be doing it. (They are here but small scale although it is gradually picking up in recent years.) Do you mean councils building houses? Is there funding available?

You loved it because your rent fell, or because you took delight in someone else's financial losses?

No of course I didn't take delight in my landlord losing money. What I liked is that I wasn't losing money. My point is that renters are against buy-to-let in this environment because prices are sky high (not real BTLers fault I think) but forget the times when renters weren't losing money because of falling prices.

Building houses.

indeed. But the Cons (and Labour) did anything but. for some reason people think the solution to a housing shortage is rent caps, when the solution is more houses.

I have no idea what the answer is but something needs to be done. Around where I live I see a lot of people who bought their homes before prices went crazy. Many of these people now want bigger homes.
I see these people now remortgaging as their homes have gone up massively in value. They then buy a bigger place but keep their old place and rent it out. This us reducing the housing available to buy and pushing prices up.

Actually grin at that "i'm alright jack" line.

Can you not see that your sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut 'solution' is ridiculous though?
Of course it would never be adopted, but if it were, in order to help you and your mates, your heavy-handed approach would put lots and lots of groups of people into a worse situation.

So I'm afraid I can't follow your logic of how a blanket ban would lead to more secure homes.

They are building houses up north, our town has pockets where they keep springing up.
They can't sell them to families or individuals so they are bought and rented out.
Not everybody wants to own a home and what goes with it.

There are some ll who give us decent ll a bad name and we aren't all btlets either.
I have a lovely tenant and if she ever leaves I would much prefer a sp and somebody on hb tbh. I think it is awful that some mortgages/ insurance won't allow hb tenants and as i have no mortgage on the property wouldn't fall under the ruling.

If there is a problem we sort it out on the same day if we can.
I also charge at least £25 per month under the rate for these houses and haven't put rent up, nor will we.

In return I have a lovely tenant who looks after my future investment.

So I'm afraid I can't follow your logic of how a blanket ban would lead to more secure homes

BTL no longer possible, BTLers sell, market flooded, prices drop, those who previously couldnt afford to buy now can own their own homes, (freeing up council properties too) councils can buy up a whole load cheaply and provide affordable secure tenancies = more secure homes.

Holiday lets could be treated differently. They arent permanent residences.

I think there should be some sort of commitment statement of intention, legalised between the ll and tenant.
I'm not sure how it would work though.

But in my case it would be permission to rent for as long as you look after the place, pay rent, inform us of maintenance issues.

Otherwise, We will only terminate contract if for financial reasons we need to sell the house/ it is our intention to own the house for the remainder of our lives.

We sort of did this verbally to our tenant as we thought it fair. In her case though she is single and no dc. I can see it being even more important if you have dc, you need even more protection.

Holiday lets could be treated differently. They arent permanent residences.

Most holiday lets started out as permanent residences.

Most holiday lets started out as permanent residences.

Not sure what point you are making.

People have pointed out the issue over holiday lets, cottages etc and you said they could be treated differently as they are not permanent residence but there is no reason they could not be permanent residences and often have been.

Banning private landlords would make no difference to the number of homes, or the number of people needing homes, so shouldn't make any difference to the average cost of housing. Though I suspect it would marginally decrease availability as some people who would have let out their houses will be willing to let them stand empty for a while, if that's the only legal alternative to selling.

It would make more sense to make it compulsory for people to be landlords, if they own homes that would otherwise be standing empty.

There was a period in the UK with very little private rented housing. Tenants could stay for life and rents were fixed, often at very very low levels such as £10 and there was no right to get the tenant out. I first moved to London just after that time and there was big shortgage of properties and even then just about no council housing to rent. It did not work because no landlord would let out a property they could not get back. Then the assured shorthold came in - a tenancy which does allow you to agree a fixed term and suddenly there were properties available to rent rather than people sleeping on parents' sofas.