To think people who own multiple homes have helped drive house prices out of reach?

[OneRoofIsEnough]

I’m not saying they’re the only reason but I do think anyone who owns more than one residential property has played some part in pushing prices up over the last few decades.
When housing is treated as an investment vehicle rather than shelter, demand increases, supply tightens and first-time buyers lose out. Over time, that has made home ownership unaffordable for huge numbers of people.

AIBU to think this isn’t just “the market”, it’s a collective outcome created by individual choices?

I dont think it is a major contributory factor its a factor, but not massively significant

What is significant is more single households,, high population, lending multiples being increased, 100% mortgages and mortgages now being taken over a much longer period, unheard of when I first bought my property. Fewer options for eldery people other than to stay in their houses and the big ones - right to buy and help to buy.

People with multiple homes that are only used sporadically by them are few and far between, people with multiple homes that are being rented out to tenants are therefore providing a home, people with holiday lets again dont make up a massive portion of home owners.

OP has disappeared.

Wonder if she'd currently on the M5 on her way to her holiday gaff in Cornwall for Christmas?

That only works if there are jobs close to the family home. GIven the "drain" of decent jobs away from the regions and into London and a handful of other big cities, continuing to live at home is simply not possible for many.

A quick google comes up with various figures but maybe around a million homes are "second homes", i.e. not buy to let nor holiday lets, but second homes that people live in only for part of the year. That's huge, and it certainly IS significant.

Perhaps someone cleverer than me can interpret this report as what I seem to gather from it is that much of that number is caravans/mobile homes etc but then some of the graphs seem to contradict that so am unsure

They also seem to make a distinction between empty home and second home, not sure what the difference is.

We had an empty home in the family, took 4 years to deal with an estate of someone who died and the flat was sitting there empty all that time, not sure if that would be included in the figures as it was within the estate until it sold.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/numberofvacantandsecondhomesenglandandwales/census2021#:~:text=Of%20the%201%2C507%2C100%20unoccupied%20dwellings,and%2014.6%25%20were%20second%20homes.

That’s not nice.

You took the words out of MY mouth 😝

Plenty of jobs in the regions, health, services, agri, SME's, not disputing that the SE is very prosperous but esp with increased military spend, there is more opportunities away from the capital.

Give people 10% savings rates and no one would ever touch property.

No if they’re renting them out, yes if they’re air BnB or leaving it empty most of the time. Add all the couples that split with kids both needing larger homes for part of the time it’s no surprise demand is so high pushing prices up.

of course it’s part of the problem and it disproportionally impacts the younger generation because the landscape is very different now.

Plenty of places are nowhere near defence plants either! It's not as if they're in every town. And not much use living within commuting distance of BAE at Barrow if you are an actuary!!

Where would all the tenants live if landlords didn't buy the homes?

Plenty of places are near hospitals, larger towns will need pro services/finance, defence means engineering jobs around the country, not just in Barrow or Plymouth, Bristol is hub for aerospace and defence, as is Portsmouth, can manufacturing, various types of engineering, Universities too ...

Plenty of well paid work outside of London.

Big difference between homes that sit empty most of the year and homes that are rented out. The rental market is really important and someone has to own those houses. But second homes for occasional use are very hard to justify.

Exactly! Govt's need to get on with council house building but new planning approvals are at very low levels at the moment, the plan seems to be to give approval for 3/4/5 bed town houses, that hardly anyone can afford and not Social housing.
HA haven't the funds to buy too many new builds, too busy getting existing stock up to new EPC standards... madness.

Hospitals don't need in house actuaries!

There used to be pension/insurance head offices or large regional offices in virtually every county all over the UK. All sucked up by London and a handful of other big cities like Bristol and Edinburgh.

Yes, lots of defence jobs around the country, but again, useless if there are none within commutable distance of where your family live. It's not as if they're in every town and city is it??

I think in depends on the property. There are some that, due to location or type etc, would rarely be suitable for anything other than a holiday let.

Hi, I am a PhD mathematician and have studied this.

You are almost fully correct. This is a significant part of the problem. However, there is also another significant issue that is hidden from the public.

In the 1980's you were only allowed to borrow 2.5 times your wage, and only on the primary wage earner in the household. This has sky rocketed over the years, and both earners' wages are now taken into account. There is a DIRECT correlation between this multiple of earnings and the inflation in house prices. The word 'inflation' is accurate, as it is the magicing into existence of money that does not exist. It is not backed by anything (eg other peoples' savings, gold reserves etc).

You could solve the house price crisis within a year by returning borrowing multiples to 2.5 of the primary earner and FINE people 10% of the price of the house every year, if they personally cannot demonstrate 80% occupancy in a year. Instead of renting, people would be able to buy at similar present rental costs.

This intent to engage in house price inflation was known (by the chosen people) before it happened.

Inflation is a disgusting tax on the average family to let the rich get richer by doing literally nothing. They have excess money which they can park in the inflationary part of the economy without demonstrating any intelligence whatsoever.

I think many of us have mentioned lending behaviour and lending multiples earlier in the thread, its not kept from the public at all!!!

Its not rocket science, if the general person can borrow more than they could 40 years ago, ergo the prices are going to match that.

Yes.

Yes, I think that people forget that for every divorce somebody needs another home.

Government incentives artificially inflated house prices. Daft buggers.

Owning multiple houses should be illegal. As should owning a home with far more bedrooms than you need.

Seems pretty obvious to me.