Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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:

sparechange · 27/10/2015 16:55

Ok,
BTL no longer possible
So that means that anyone owning a property, but not living in it on the date that the SurlyLaw is enacted has to sell it? What happens to those tenants? What about the ones who have been happily living there for decades and are now homeless because a first time buyer has bought the house that their landlord was forced to sell by SurlyLaw? What about the ones with houses tied to their jobs? Will they be allowed to stay in those houses, or do they have to move miles away?

councils can buy up a whole load cheaply

And what money are they using to buy these houses? You say upthread that they can't afford to build houses, but now they magically have money to buy them? And it takes roughly 3 months between exchange and completion, so what happens to all those tenants for the 3 months between being turfed out of their houses, and the council being able to offer them a new house.
Will the council take over the letting agents already in towns, or will they have to hire in thousands and thousands of housing officers to do the jobs of letting agents

And you are making a massive assumption that all rental properties are bought as BTL. As lots of people have explained, the vast majority of landlords only own one property and many are accidental landlords renting out a former family home after a change in circumstances. What happens to those houses? Are they left empty while people work abroad/look after their elderly relatives in a different part of the country/wait for their divorce to come through/wait for their child to come out of hospital?

And you also say upthread that when couples move in together having both previously lived in their own houses, one house should be left empty. So how are you going to increase the housing stock while at the same time force people to leave their house empty? Or are you actually really religious and this is all just a ploy to stop people living in sin?

merrymouse · 27/10/2015 16:58

This wouldn't help the people who need social housing rather than private rentals funded by housing benefits.

The problem is not private landlords but that the government abdicated their responsibility to house the many people who aren't in a position to get a mortgage.

banning btl might result in a drop in house prices but wouldnt enable people who can't get credit to buy a home.

Equally there are plenty of areas in Britain where there is low cost housing - how would this affect them?

laureywilliams · 27/10/2015 17:00

There is a shortage of housing in this country, for sale and for rent (I acknowledge this may be regional)

There would still be a shortage of housing, but an even greater shortage of rentals.

redstrawberry10 · 27/10/2015 17:14

This wouldn't help the people who need social housing rather than private rentals funded by housing benefits.

who are people who need social housing as opposed to private rentals?

SurlyCue · 27/10/2015 17:18

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.

Yes of course they could be permanent homes. But if they are being let as holiday lets then they arent, at that moment in time, a permanent residence and so wouldnt be treated like one. They are a business if they are being let as holiday lets and would be treated like one. No?

merrymouse · 27/10/2015 17:21

People who need long term, low cost tenancies in suitable housing rather than a short term let in a damp one bedroom flat that has never been maintained. Housing for the public good rather than profit.

Nothing wrong with making a profit if you are a landlord. There will always be a need for private landlords - people need flexibility.

However there is everything wrong with providing shoddy housing to vulnerable people who need council houses.

Ricardian · 27/10/2015 17:32

Who building houses? If it was profitable for developers they would be doing it

On all the available land for housing inside the M25, I presume. Yeah, there's loads of it.

Ricardian · 27/10/2015 17:36

However there is everything wrong with providing shoddy housing to vulnerable people who need council houses.

That explains, of course, why "council estate" is such a byword for high-quality, well-maintained housing, popular with the residents.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Road_Flats

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Hill,_Sheffield

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

SurlyCue · 27/10/2015 17:45

So that means that anyone owning a property, but not living in it

Nope. Anyone who bought as a BTL

on the date that the SurlyLaw is enacted has to sell it?

nope. They just wouldnt be able to let it. Whether they sell it, move into it or leave it empty is up to them.

What happens to those tenants? What about the ones who have been happily living there for decades

nothing happens overnight. There would have to be housing plans (temporary and permanent) put in place by Govt to accommodate changes to the law. The government have no qualms about making people move from homes they've lived in for decades by charging bedroom taxes.

What about the ones with houses tied to their jobs

would those houses be BTLs?

And what money are they using to buy these houses? You say upthread that they can't afford to build houses

dont think I did.

And it takes roughly 3 months between exchange and completion, so what happens to all those tenants for the 3 months between being turfed out of their houses, and the council being able to offer them a new house.

if the council are buying the houses why would the tenants need to move out?

If the council arent buying the house, again, why would the tenant need to move out before completion?

Will the council take over the letting agents already in towns, or will they have to hire in thousands and thousands of housing officers to do the jobs of letting agents

good idea. They need more of those. Perhaps the letting agents could apply for those jobs.

And you are making a massive assumption that all rental properties are bought as BTL.

Where did I do that?

the vast majority of landlords only own one property and many are accidental landlords renting out a former family home after a change in circumstances. What happens to those houses? Are they left empty while people work abroad/look after their elderly relatives in a different part of the country/wait for their divorce to come through/wait for their child to come out of hospital?

They could lease them to the council to let and manage at council rates if they wish to provide housing stock.

And you also say upthread that when couples move in together having both previously lived in their own houses, one house should be left empty.

nope. I didnt.

So how are you going to increase the housing stock while at the same time force people to leave their house empty?

no-one would be forced to leave their house empty.

Or are you actually really religious and this is all just a ploy to stop people living in sin?

DeoGratias · 27/10/2015 17:47

Someone mentioned air bnb. Everytime my daughter goes away (she lives in London) now she has people in via air bnb to her flat. Would that be banned too?

SurlyCue · 27/10/2015 17:48

On all the available land for housing inside the M25, I presume. Yeah, there's loads of it.

Loads of? Building? By developers? So houses are being built?

SarahSavesTheDay · 27/10/2015 17:51

I love your communist manifesto, Surly.

merrymouse · 27/10/2015 17:55

That explains, of course, why "council estate" is such a byword for high-quality, well-maintained housing, popular with the residents.

Of course council houses aren't always properly maintained. However there is certainly no reason for them to be better maintained once they are sold into private hands.

Letting council properties fall into disrepair and selling them on are both an abdication of responsibility - unless the government also wants to introduce rent caps, longer tenancies and increase legislation of the rental market.

Ricardian · 27/10/2015 17:56

Loads of? Building? By developers? So houses are being built?

Sarcasm doesn't travel well, apparently.

sparechange · 27/10/2015 18:01

Ah so it wasn't rhetorical when you asked if funding is available for councils to build houses?

So to clarify, buy to let - bad, but let to buy is ok?

HortonWho · 27/10/2015 18:02

It's reading threads like these that makes me wish I had a time machine and could send some of these posters back to the Soviet era. Because they can't be arsed to study history and read about how great this kind of thinking ended up working out in the few decades it was in place.

TheBouquets · 27/10/2015 18:03

What about the damage done to the homes let out to unscrupulous tenants who destroy the property and don't pay the rent?
That is the other side of being a Landlord.

KP86 · 27/10/2015 18:08

My personal view is that tax breaks for investors (BTL) should be limited to one property per person.

The U.K. market favours investors so much more than in Australia, where we are from. We get tax credits on losses made but our costs are also higher than what a UK investor faces because owners pay council taxes, water supply charges etc whereas here that is all on the tenant.

Scremersford · 27/10/2015 18:26

YABU OP for assuming everyone who wants to rent is a family unit, not moving around much.

Lots of people want to rent because they are starting a job in a new area, or leaving home for the first time, or own a home somewhere else and need to rent for work, and so on.

So very very YANBU for assuming that everyone falls into your little chosen demographic model and would be suited by your ridiculous and unnecessary approach.

Have you never left home and had to find somewhere to rent? I have, and I really don't fancy trying to rent social housing. Oh, and some of us would rather live around other young people, not amongst families.

ZoeTurtle · 27/10/2015 18:31

A close friend was advised by a solicitor to rent out her mothers house rather than sell it . The rent along with her pension and some other savings enabled her to pay the care home fees without selling the house. Is that wrong?

IMO, yes. Clinging onto "her" inheritance while someone else pays the care home fees. Disgusting.

echt · 27/10/2015 18:59

Er.... Zoe's close friend is paying the care home fees. How is that disgusting?

echt · 27/10/2015 19:01

I'll try again.

IMO, yes. Clinging onto "her" inheritance while someone else pays the care home fees. Disgusting.

The friend is paying the care home fees, not "someone else".

Andrewofgg · 27/10/2015 19:05

If you owned a home, more so if you inherited a home, and wanted to sell it, would you want someone deciding who could and who could not buy it and driving down the priced or would you want to sell it for all it wo0uld fetch?

Thought so.

You could create a no-BTL covenant on new build though goodness who would enforce it and how. But for existing properties the right to sell freely is part of the deal.

DeoGratias · 27/10/2015 19:06

People are tlaking about tax breaks. You pay capital gains tax when you sell your property if you don't live in it as your home. There is no tax break there.
If you have no mortgage interest you have no right to set interest you don't pay against the rent.

What are the tax breaks? If you have a mortgage like other costs like painting the property you calculate the profit you made after taken fof costs but that is no more a tax break than if I buy goods for £100 and sell them for £101 I make £1 profit and am tax on that not on £101 - that is not a tax break.

RickRoll · 27/10/2015 19:08

"If you have no mortgage interest you have no right to set interest you don't pay against the rent"

But if you do pay mortgage interest, you can set it against the rent.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9