To be angry that this government has further shafted everyone bar homeowners

[Kitchendisco73]

The eviction ban ends and the prediction is that about a million people who rent will be in trouble and at risk of losing their home.

Alongside that, the government has also shafted anyone who is a first time buyer by creating a fake housing boom using help to buy and the stamp duty holiday as prices have risen so much, those who it was allegedly meant to help are priced out.

In Cornwall, I read there were 10,000 air Bnb properties but 62 for long term rent for local families.

www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/01/bank-of-england-monitors-uk-housing-boom-as-it-weighs-inflation-risk-dave-ramsden-covid

It’s entirely possible that there is a big housing crash coming too thanks to inflationary pressures.

Aibu to be angry- it’s just truly appalling and impossible for anyone (millions of people) who can’t get on the property ladder. Surely this madness has to end soon? You can’t just protect homeowners at the expense of everyone else. I am tired of the rampant inequality in this country.

But they do. People downsize to give their kids deposits. Houses are sold when people die and the proceeds are used for deposits.

People can't all just downsize. Apart from all the other issues involved, if there's mass downsizing to smaller homes, where do single people (including vulnerable disabled), couples, or smaller families go?

Many won't inherit. Not with care home fees. And those that do will be pensioners themselves by then. Where do they (and their families) live in the meanwhile.

@Tealightsandd I don't think we can prove why people voted.

Given 65% of households are homeowners it's not a surprise that all parties are going to try to appeal to them. Otherwise they aren't getting elected.

Things are horribly stacked against renters, including the political inclination.

Things might change though. 35-45 year olds are 3 x more likely to rent today than 20 years ago. As the boomers stop voting there might be a change.

It’s not only boomers who own homes. Nobody who owns a home wants to see the property market tank. Those 35-40 year olds are going to inherit boomers’ money - guess where the vast majority of it will go.

As the boomers stop voting there might be a change.

One of today's biggest problems is the generalisation and stereotyping of various groups.

'Boomers' are not all the same, or all in the same situation. Not by any means.

Despite right to buy, plenty of that generation remain as council tenants. Either because of morals or lack of funds or just content as they were.

Also divorce and relationship breakdowns mean quite a lot of that generation are not so housing secure afterall.

'Boomers' do not want to see their children and grandchildren struggling without a stable home. And many are not in the financial position to help. Deprivation of assets rules and care home fees, for example.

guess where the vast majority of it will go.

House sale money?
To care home owners.

Nobody who owns a home wants to see the property market tank. Those 35-40 year olds are going to

A home? Or an investment property?

Plenty of threads on MN alone from people who can't afford to upsize and are stuck with a growing family in a too small starter home.

And nobody wants anything to tank. A small much needed correction, maybe. A dampening rather than a crash.

What's needed more than anything is building and/or buying more council homes. That's the most urgent need.

Owning is a want, not a need. Currently significant and growing numbers don't have access to what is a need.

Many honest good LL have been fucked over by tenants refusing to pay rent for no other reason but they can and nothing they can do.
There as many bad LL as there is bad tenants .

I rest my case: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-57322524.amp

And the worst thing is how much it dilutes welsh house names and traditions. I can see Meibion Glyndwr making a big comeback and torching some more welsh holiday homes if something isn’t urgently done. Northumberland council have just legislated against any town having more than 20% holiday homes, seems this needs to happen everywhere.

Northumberland council have just legislated against any town having more than 20% holiday homes, seems this needs to happen everywhere.

Yes good idea.

Nowhere is that needed more than the capital of homelessness. Two thirds of the UK's homeless families in temporary accommodation are in London - whilst at the same time many homes are used as airbnbs or just left completely empty as an investment.

And the worst thing is how much it dilutes welsh house names and traditions.
Out of interest. In London, cockney has been diluted by a rich diverse mix of communities from around the world. There's no affordable housing in London so I assume many recent migrants might be housed elsewhere. If that was North Wales, would you not welcome the opportunity of diversity even if it meant some dilution? It wouldn't have to mean erasing Welsh. The new and old could work together?

Has anyone mentioned that people are not going to afford to buy all these houses when collectively you all are going to need to sell them to pay for care or so your children can claim their inheritance. The prices will eventually tank but it will be the next generation that gets screwed over

@Tealightsandd

guess where the vast majority of it will go.

House sale money?
To care home owners.

Ah yes, the much vaunted care homes - where just 15% of over 85s end up.

@Tealightsandd

As the boomers stop voting there might be a change.

One of today's biggest problems is the generalisation and stereotyping of various groups.

'Boomers' are not all the same, or all in the same situation. Not by any means.

Despite right to buy, plenty of that generation remain as council tenants. Either because of morals or lack of funds or just content as they were.

Also divorce and relationship breakdowns mean quite a lot of that generation are not so housing secure afterall.

'Boomers' do not want to see their children and grandchildren struggling without a stable home. And many are not in the financial position to help. Deprivation of assets rules and care home fees, for example.

80% of those over 65 own their home. Only 20% are tenants.

I'm not stereotyping them as a group but statistically they are very likely to own their own home.

@rwalker

Many honest good LL have been fucked over by tenants refusing to pay rent for no other reason but they can and nothing they can do. There as many bad LL as there is bad tenants .

Difference is, nobody has to be a landlord. Many tenants don't have a choice.

There are solutions to unpaid rent. Reintroduce housing benefit and pay it direct to landlord, or if the tenant is in work, deduct from wages.

Add in a Covid Rent Arrears Fund and tweaked Section 8 to allow landlords to evict for genuine reasons. There is no need for Section 21.

But the crux of the matter is we urgently need more social housing.

@Blossomtoes

It’s not only boomers who own homes. Nobody who owns a home wants to see the property market tank. Those 35-40 year olds are going to inherit boomers’ money - guess where the vast majority of it will go.

75% of home owners are over 45. Over 50% of homeowners are 'Boomers'.

80% of those over 65 own their home. Only 20% are tenants.

So a home - to live in, not an investment property.

How many are landlords? That's the real question. Only a minority. The vast majority of 'boomers' own just the one home - the one the live in.

People owning just one home aren't shutting others out. They'd be living there whether owned or rented.

Where do those figures come from? The FT disagrees.

www.ft.com/content/69ae2814-3dfa-11ea-b232-000f4477fbca

@Tealightsandd

"But the crux of the matter is we urgently need more social housing."

Absolutely.

There’s no point in building more social housing unless we get rid of right to buy.

75% of home owners are over 45. Over 50% of homeowners are 'Boomers'.

So it seems that priority for social housing should be given to those over 45? Those who don't own by then, and who aren't in stable social housing, are in the most desperate need. They haven't time to save or catch up.

@Blossomtoes

There’s no point in building more social housing unless we get rid of right to buy.

It's ridiculous that it's still going on. I don't know about NI, but Wales and Scotland have already banned it.

The cheaper houses that first time buyers should be buying are being bought by second home owners or people who own houses to rent out. It’s not right and it has to end

Agreed. All the cheaper 2 bed boxes that are targeted at the first time buyer are bought up by those high up on the property ladder already as a rental income. Potential FTBs are paying extortionate rent to live in these properties whilst struggling to save a deposit and subsequently find that they have already outgrown these properties before they have even gotten onto the housing ladder.

Many 30 somethings are stuck in rentals due to rising house prices and already having started a family - they simply can't afford to purchase the bigger property they need off the bat that once upon a time would have been the house you upsize to.

Rather than the abundance of 2 bed, tiny, can't a swing a cat in, postage stamp garden new houses being built, developers need to build more 3 bedroom 'family' homes for the generation that have already been priced out of the market.

But the crux of the matter is we urgently need more social housing

Or a cap on the amount a private landlord can charge in rent. Its ridiculous that many renters are paying hundreds more per month than the actual monthly mortgage payment would be on the same property yet they can't get a mortgage themselves because they don't earn enough(!) because they are not in the position to save due to the ridiculous rent.

Some real spite aimed at homeowners 🙄

I was an accidental landlord. I rented only to family and friends at a few hundred quid below market as I didn't want to get fucked over by the kind of tenant who would just because they could. Just talking with other LLs was an eye-opener to how tenants sometimes behave.

Unfortunately, one bad apple spoils the barrel.

I kept the house pristine and fixed everything within 24 hours. As with tenants, it only takes one bad landlord to give the rest a bad rep. If I went back to renting I'd find another accidental LL as they seem to be more emotionally invested in caring for the property, therefore the tenants.

I've owned since the mid 80s, was gazumped on several properties, and worked NHS by day, bar by night to save then pay my mortgage. The mortgage itself was hard to get and went to nearly 15% at one point. It's not just people today that find it hard.

If you want to blame anyone blame the big developers. They cross palms to get permission, throw up shoddy houses on tiny plots on top of each other then charge a lot more than older stock goes for. This has a knock-on effect of upping prices locally that spreads out.

Yet every younger person I've asked has told me the same - they all want a spanking new property to move into and are willing to pay inflated prices for it.

In our area (also Wales) it's the younger locals buying the new houses out of choice and older people from further away that buy the older houses.

Yet every younger person I've asked has told me the same - they all want a spanking new property to move into and are willing to pay inflated prices for it.

Isn't that because government policies to inflate the bubble like help to buy are aimed at new builds? No one I've ever met wants one. Like you say, they're often shoddily built, poor quality rabbit hitches compared to older homes.

I suppose some people might prefer them. Pros and cons to older buildings. I like them, but others like shiny new.