To think rents are going up because of insane levels of demand and not billionaires buying all the houses?

[BlueJuniper94]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the billionaires, and I don't like them owning all the houses. But the main reason rents are rising like this is because we simply have too many people looking for housing than we have (or are building) houses for.

I know a relative of a friend who is living in a sad triangle in one room. Bed, chair, commode, her partner left the house to charity ( she has a life interest) at the time it seemed like a good idea as no kids. Now she would benefit from company and care but has no assets. Social services won’t fund just 3 care visits a day and she has this house just crumbling as can’t afford to maintain.

Thankfully, the government doesn't consider a rental property with an EPC rating of below C to be 'perfectly fine', which is more important than my opinion!

That’s actually a lot more than farming contributes to the UK Economy at 14.5 billion in 2024.

Calling older people "boomers" in that distainful tone is as insulting as using the "N" word to an ethnic minority person.

But many of those people would have bought those same properties in the past but now can’t afford to because of the rise in house prices (due to lack of provision of new housing).

It's purely supply and demand. I have lost count of the amount of times over the years it has been debated on MN. People saying that making things tougher for landlords would mean they had to sell up and then house prices would go down and people would be able to buy instead of rent. I got shouted down for pointing out that landlords selling up wouldn't flood the market and push prices down so people still wouldn't be able to afford to buy but also would struggle to find somewhere to rent. Now it is the reality. Landlords have sold up because it has become to onerous and unprofitable. House prices haven't gone down. People still need places to rent but there are less places available. That pushes rents up.

The real problem is that there is not enough council housing. Between people buying their council houses and removing them from the stock, and a complete lack of investment in building more, there just isn't enough for everyone that needs it. That isn't the responsibility of landlords to fill the gap. That is something that government, local and national, needs to sort out.

I think people prefer to buy a shiny new one. The older ones value can be really low (area dependant) and tough to sell. Often the estate has to carry on paying substantial fees so there’s no real incentive for whoever is running it to assist in selling as getting paid regardless.

And we have a population crisis because we keep importing people.

Heating a large house costs more
Maintenance costs more
Stairs may become a problem especially if the only bathroom is upstairs as is the case with older properties.
Cleaning a large house is more difficult

Well the house prices would crash, as they need to.

If you thought LL's are leaving the market now, and they are, wait until the EPC rules kick in. I have 12 btl houses. 8 are EPC C already and the other 4 are one or two points from the C standard. They are Victorian terraced houses and are single skinned because that was how they were built. They are not damp or mouldy because they have air vents towards bottom of external rooms. To get them to an EPC C I'd have to have internal cladding on every external wall and redecorate afterwards. I've been quoted at between £13k and 14.5k depending on numbers of rooms/bedrooms. All this so tenant can save £103 pa. It's not financially viable. If I passed on cost to tenants, as they'd be saving on fuel bills, noone would afford the rent. I'll be selling these 4 houses in 2028. It will mean making 8 adults, 7 DC including 1 with SEND and 2 cats homeless. These tenants have been living in these homes for years, many of the DC have never lived anywhere else. They are good tenants they pay their rent on time and advise me in good time if anything needs repairing or replacing. The big problem is in this city so many other homes (about 35 percent) are also Victorian terraced houses that are also unlikely to be internally clad to get to EPC C. All the other LL's I have spoken with also say they will sell between 2028-9. Where will all of the tenants displaced by Miliband's policy go? It's madness that btl houses must be EPC C but privately owned houses can be an E standard. It would be far better if everyone got help to meet EPC D standard now then another push for C standard in 10 years. Labour policy will make so many families homeless. Government are not building houses at the rate needed to even stand still as immigration is far outstripping emigration. The sheer number of new immigrants in the UK every year means millions of houses are needed just for them. No wonder so many people are turning against Labour as they see they will be made homeless.

SDLT prohibits many people from downsizing, or moving at all.

If like to see some stats at source about benefits to the UK as a whole.

This is madness.

What are the cons of a retirement village?

1. Service charges can mount upMost homes in a retirement village will be leasehold. This can come as a shock if you’ve only previously owned a freehold home.

Having a leasehold means you’re likely to need to pay peppercorn rent to your freeholder. A freeholder is the person who owns the bricks, mortar and land your home stands on. Technically, as a leaseholder, you are not the owner. Instead you're leasing the home long-term. Find out more about the pros and cons of leasehold ownership here. There will also be service charges to consider, and these can stack up to eye-watering sums. The maintenance and running costs for all of the facilities in a retirement home are ultimately paid for by the residents. Service charges can eat into retirement income. And crucially, you may be charged for them until the property is sold. Even if you’ve moved into another home or have passed away, leaving your family responsible for covering the costs. Be sure to get details of these charges before you buy, as it’s vital to understand what you’ll be paying.

1. Retirement homes can be difficult to sellRetirement homes are not always bought and sold easily.

This is perhaps because of how specific the market for this accommodation is. These homes are usually advertised to people aged 55 and over. As a result, they can take a long time to sell, particularly in tough market conditions. That can make it tough if you need to sell up to help pay for residential care elsewhere. If you die before selling, your family members will have to continue to pay the service charges while their waiting for the property to be sold. That can be particularly tricky if they need to pay inheritance tax and the money is all tied up in a retirement home.

1. Resale values don’t follow market trendsRetirement homes can be sold for far less than expected, or even at a loss.

Retirement villages have a lot of advantages for older people when it comes to their day-to-day life. But they appeal to only one section of the buying public, and it’s unlikely that someone who isn’t of retirement age would want to buy one. So that can impact how much they sell for.

1. Exit fees can run into thousands Ask your solicitor to check for so-called 'exit fees' before buying a home in a retirement village.

Exit fees are also known as 'event fees,' or 'deferred management fees'. You'll usually find the details for these in your lease. The fees are charged once the home is sold. That might be after the owner moves into full-time care elsewhere, or after the owner dies. These fees can sometimes run into tens of thousands of pounds. Exit fees can come as a huge shock for the owner or family members dealing with probate. These fees are designed cover future repairs and costs associated with the upkeep for retirement villages. They continue to be charged by many retirement villages.

Yes because 2008 went so well and had no negative repercussions whatsoever! Be careful what you wish for.

There were approximately 1.5 million empty or second homes in England in 2021. Stop people having second homes or leaving housing empty and that will make a really good start to helping the housing issues.

Yes that was a total shitshow. People lost their jobs and it was miserable. Also the prices didn’t even crash all over the country - it was only in already deprived areas. I don’t think anyone benefited from it really so I definitely wouldn’t be wishing for another massive recession.

Which is why the Treasury is looking to replace it.
https://www.ukonward.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Onward-A-Fairer-Property-Tax.pdf

No it was awful. Job losses too.

So many people are willing to blame immigrants and jump to the conclusion that if it’s not their fault then it’s because of older generations.

Maybe think about the massive increase in housing needed because of our ‘British Values’ than mean we have so many families live separately nowadays. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but people now have the freedoms to have children with people they don’t live with, or to raise children across two properties because Mum and Dad separated and now a single family needs two homes instead of one.

No one is ever prepared to look inwards and see what choices they have made that contribute in a tiny way to the housing crisis they are complaining about.

I agree with @Hoardasurass, i.e., it started with Thatcher and was exacerbated by the failure of subsequent governments to properly manage the housing market.

Do you live with family etc? Your parents, adult children, an elderly aunt?

Edit: I re read and can see you mean single parents more than extended family. I do see what you mean. Our ‘needs’ as people are vast compared to even 30 or 40 years ago and we demand so much while giving so little.

Very true. Government clearly don't want any btl LL to exist yet. The best way to eradicate them is to build and provide enough social housing, but they don't/won't do that. Driving btl LL out without replacing housing stock means far more homeless families languishing in the temporary accommodation for years.

https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/features/impact-universities-numbers-2023/how-do-universities-grow-economy

^^ This is a clearly bias sorce but does give facts and figures.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/higher-education-contribution-to-the-economy-and-levelling-up/

https://myresearchconnect.com/universities-uk-report-reveals-265-billion-economic-contribution-of-uk-higher-education-and-research-activities/
The headline £265 billion figure includes the impact of:

• Research and knowledge exchange: £63 billion (£54 billion for research, which includes £40 billion from improved private sector productivity and £14 billion from the impact of higher education sector spending on research, and £9 billion for knowledge exchange).
• Impact of teaching and learning: £95 billion.
• Impact of educational exports: £37 billion.
• Impact of higher education provider (university) expenditure: £70 billion.

https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/09/13/why-a-decline-in-the-uks-university-sector-is-a-threat-to-gdp

This is crucial for regions like the North East and Wales that rely more heavily on the relatively high-wage, high-productivity university jobs and their economic multiplier effects. That includes international students' spending, as well as spending by university and supply chain employees.
A decline in the university sector could severely affect employment and local services in these regions, and increase regional inequality in the country, warned the report.
“In a university-reliant local authority economy, a university going bankrupt would have a substantial negative impact that would reverberate through the whole area. It is therefore difficult to overstate the value of universities to the UK's economic model, both at the national and the local levels.”