I'm so sick of people buying multiple properties for BTL

[flashbac]

So the landlord next door has hoovered up another house on the street for BTL. A nice house that wasn't even on the market but they managed to get their mits on it. Yes I know I sound bitter because I am! I'm so fed up of investors hoovering up all the houses. There should be a limit but with most of our government being BTL landlords nothing will change.
I'm sick of the increasing gap between rich and poor.
now runs and hides because reckons half of MN have a BTL or holiday home

Typo - One way or another

Cant blame people when interest rates are kept so low.

Sorry I must be dim - why does someone buying a BTL mean you can't buy a property? BTL need higher deposits, higher interest rates and higher rates of stamp duty ........

Here's a conclusion on Buy to Leave in a report I've found. (A different once, since not focused on London, and does find some impact.)

On balance the issue of Buy to Leave Empty is not deemed to present a major policy issue, being confined to particular local markets, and even in those local markets not being hugely significant in the context of the overall market. In terms of limiting supply to those seeking a home, which would be their principal residence, it is probably less significant nationally than the proportion of flatted dwellings being bought for second homes or corporate uses, given the significance of such purchases in London and other city centre locations.

www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/REP/Buy_to_Leave_Empty.pdf

@peaceanddove

Welcome to capitalism.

We have one BLT property and in the process of buying a second. Disgruntled people have no idea of the sacrifices we've made to make this happen. I really have zero fucks to give - especially as I strongly suspect that this is just sour grapes, and the disgruntled would do exact the same if they were in a position to do so.

It’s not sour grapes, it’s people struggling to make ends meet and being able to afford their rent. Rental prices in my town are going up all the time. I feel so thankful not to be in a position where I have to rent! It might be an investment to you, and you are extremely lucky to be in that position but this is people’s lives. To have somewhere secure that you can call home…

@the80sweregreat - pensioners get the same housing benefits as everyone else but no bedroom tax etc. If you have a good landlord it’s likely to be better than having to pay to maintain an older property. Certainly if you are in pension credit you are not likely to have the funds for essential maintenance. So better for many to have a landlord who will take care of it all.

@DocAutumn

Aw, just let the rich people have everything because they can afford to pay for it.

Also, with buy to let mortgages often requiring miniscule or no deposits and the tenants paying rent that more than covers the mortgage these rich people often aren't even investing any money in the properties they end up owning.

@DocAutumn I thought BLT mortgages were 75% LTV as a minimum?

BTL* even - no sandwiches here!

My ex landlord owned 23 properties on the same street, plus others. Lived in Hong Kong, never maintained a thing. I just don't understand how anyone could condone that.

@Otherthanetta you get help though if you can’t afford your rent. You don’t if you can’t afford your mortgage

Around here many builders get together to buy up old properties to do them up and turn a profit that way rather than buy to let
Trouble is, the price really does rocket so prices out any first time buyers..

@DocAutumn - that’s not the case, btl need at least a 25% deposit

Yes so agree 100% there should be more to prevent this . And I also very much agree about the homes under the hammer. O very nice for them with their portfolio of houses . In a way I don't think there's enough said about this . Well done for speaking up !

[quote Chloemol]@dangerrabbit

i consider BTL and buy to leave to be the root causes of the housing crisis

No the root cause is the developers who buy up the land, then don’t build for years, then when they do release in small tranches to get prices[/quote]
I don't think you quite understand how development works. Developers have to build in phases due to land and planning permissions (lead-times etc.) as well as build costs. The contracts for the phases are not finalised until the beginning of each phase, therefore the build and sells costs are not inflated they are relevant to cost indices.

I don't think we should be attacking those that are contributing to the supply of housing. They also don't set the house prices - the market does.

We should be looking at extensive legislation that looks to control who can buy the property (limit oversea investors).

Owning your own home is absolutely a luxury that should only be afforded by a given percentage of society.

I never said anything about owning, I said housing was a basic human need, be that owned or rented. Allowing the wealthy to buy up swathes of property to make a profit on at the expense of those less well off is exploitative. I'm not arguing against a rental market, I'm arguing for a better regulated rental market. The same way other basic needs, like food, utilities, fuel, and medicine are regulated. Do we really want to see a system where people have to choose between rent and food or heating?

If you make a luxury like that available to everyone, then what incentive is there to better oneself, seek out and take advantage of opportunities etc?

Removing incentives to succeed has a hugely detrimental effect on society.

Firstly, defining success by how wealthy you are, or how many assets you have is one of many problems with our society.

Secondly, I'm not sure making it so the single parent has to work 60 hours a week, or the family of 4 have to choose between food and rent, just to keep a roof over their heads is the most effective way to encourage people to "better themselves".

Thirdly, it's a complete and utter myth that anyone can "succeed", if they want to. For society to function you need a foundation of manual/low skilled (hate that term) workers to bear the weight of those above. If every cleaner/carer/refuse collector (not that I'd deem these to be low skilled but our society does) were to decide, and were able to become, engineers/doctors/architects society would collapse.

Why would you want to create/support a society where those at the foundation are expected to live in shit conditions, worrying about how they'll make rent next month or be able to afford their kids Christmas presents, while those at the top have more than they'll ever need in a 1000 lifetimes?

In my opinion we should be striving to reduce the gap between the foundation and the top of society as much as possible. One way to do that is to ensure that everyone, regardless of their wealth or status, is be able to have a safe, secure, and affordable place to call home. Removing that stress from people's lives would undoubtedly do more to encourage and allow people to "better themselves" as they'd more energy and money to do so.

To answer your question, yes I think the government needs to back right out of people’s lives and leave the invisible hand to do the work in the vast majority of cases.

I do agree that there are some examples of market failure (such as environmental matters) where the government should step in, but the housing market is not one of them.

Can you not see the contradiction between those two statements?

You're happy for the government to step in on environmental matters because you know companies/individuals cannot be trusted to regulated themselves. I'm also guessing your happy for the government to regulate other necessities, like fuel and food, to stop companies exploiting them, or would you prefer to let companies raise the price of food until the poor can only afford bread and water to eat?

Why is housing different?

[quote FangsForTheMemory]@dangerrabbit The root cause of the housing crisis is that Thatcher let thousands of people buy their council homes and councils never built new ones.[/quote]
Were councils not actually prohibited from using the money raised from council house sales to build new council properties?

That's how I remember it.

@Journeyofthedragons - how would having a home they own be any different from a home they rent when rent is paid by housing benefits? How would that lead to more poverty for pensioners? Particularly when, as I said, maintainance will be paid for by the landlord which is often a significant cost for poorer pensioners?

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@the80sweregreat - pensioners get the same housing benefits as everyone else but no bedroom tax etc. If you have a good landlord it’s likely to be better than having to pay to maintain an older property. Certainly if you are in pension credit you are not likely to have the funds for essential maintenance. So better for many to have a landlord who will take care of it all.[/quote]
This is a good thing, but where will the funds come from in 25 years when generation rent start to retire?

Yes it's disgusting that so many people BTL knowing full well they are pricing others out of the housing market.
I have never had a decent LL either. Very happy to take my money but won't do essential repairs.
I don't know anyone who wants to rent. What is annoying is that I can afford the mortgage repayment but don't have a deposit.
Can't see why anyone needs more than one house. It's just greedy.

In some mad moments, I agree that housing should be owned by residents, but then my DS worked abroad for 2 years renting out his house while away - therefore a non-resident, although still British.

More worryingly, one of the larger banks has started investing in property! I have also heard of (foreign) pension funds investing in houses.
I am hoping they will find it more trouble than it's worth.
However, one of the unforseen consequences of houses being owned by institutions, is that they will 'never' come on the market again, and thus the Gov will lose out on the massive stamp duty tax, every time the house is sold.
So what is the answer?
Maybe houses (if residentail) should only be owned by individuals? But this would omit housing associations.
Maybe houses should ony be owned by residents, or British citizens? I know that some other countries have adopted these kind of policies.

ai think BTL should be severely restricted. I would also ban the buying of holiday homes

I agree with both these things. I would not buy a holiday house for ethical reasons. I would argue that BTL properties are at least filled with people living in the community but agree there should be financial disincentives to own multiple properties, and properties which remain empty.

I would have thought that the fact Landlords can command high prices is suggestive that there is a shortage of rental properties?

@Bucanarab - the housing market is regulated though. It’s quite heavily regulated in fact and the government intervenes to house people who can’t house themselves. So your argument doesn’t make any sense.

Yes, that’s exactly how it was @ifIwerenotanandroid. That was a huge mistake. The most shortsighted policy ever.

@Yogsgirl

I think there's a lot of myths about the housing market on this thread?

There are plenty of properties in the UK for everyone to have a place to live- we really don't have a housing shortage. We only have a shortage of cheap housing.

House prices are not fuelled by the BLT brigade- there must be a demand for rental properties otherwise they would all be empty- it's supply and demand.

House prices are rising constantly because the government has set the interest rates low- when they do this the housing market always booms because people can afford to offer more because mortgage rates are lower which means people can afford to pay more!

The other reason house prices remain high in the Uk is because the previous governments have created a culture where home-ownership is seen as a goal and an indicator of success, this creates a great demand in the buyers market with people wanting to invest in their own property rather than rent long-term or live in social housing.

Historically in the UK, property was largely rented, with large investors building properties to rent to the working classes. Industrial Britain had whole towns of houses that were built by the wealthy mill owners and rented to the workers. This new idea that each person needs to own they own house is what drives the property market.

Agree about the housing "crisis" - it's a crisis in some places only. Houses are still cheap by UK standards in places where there's no work.