Any landlords?

crunchman

midlifecrisis said:

forget about all the financial figures for a moment. Your house is your home. Renters always have that possibility (in this country UK) of being given very short notice to move out at the LL wim, imagine young families with young kids having to uproot quickly. Renters are subject to the rent just going up and up. Have to have LL approval to do any major decorating.
Owning a house gives security, worse comes to worse you may sell it and downsize. You may pass it on to your children, you can rent it out if you want.  Ive been fortunate in that ive never had to rent and hope i never will.  Ive paid off my mortgage 5 years ago so im more relaxed, can work easier hours .
Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

Long term, prices will have to come down, as long as we don't continue to see the high levels of immigration we have had in recent years.  Demographics will see to that.  There is a lot of property in the hands of the baby boom generation.  They are getting to the age where they will start dying out in the coming years, and there won't be enough people who can afford to buy the properties at current prices.  If the prices come down, rents will follow eventually.

We should also implement a policy like a lot of other countries have that doesn't allow non-citizens to buy property.  Foreigners buying property in London is a huge part of the problem.  I don't know what we do about the stuff that is already in foreign hands.  Maybe we should charge them double council tax.  It would make them a lot less attractive as an investment if the costs were higher.

Tex Mexico

midlifecrisis said:

Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

Pensions are a timebomb anyway, regardless of housing. People are living longer and saving less. The only equity most people have is in their property.

ToneControl

Tex Mexico said:

ToneControl said:

when looking at the house price increase in the 70s, few people remember that this was when most single-income families became dual-income families, and also food and consumer goods got much much cheaper. AFAIK this is the main reason house prices went up, because people bought what they could afford, and so competed with more cash for houses.

Also, it was extremely difficult to get a mortgage in the 60s compared to later decades

There's lots of reasons house prices have more than doubled in the past forty to fifty years, and yes some of them are to do with family incomes and therefore demand increasing. However the bulk of the increase took place in the decade between 1996 and 2006, and it's well-documented that very little of it was down to the middle-class becoming more affluent.

The 2008 crash was caused by a massive increase in sub-prime mortgages over the previous years. Property prices were artificially inflated by buyers being lent far more money than they could afford. Compound that with deregulation, which allowed foreign investors to buy huge swathes of London property to capitalise on the bubble, further jacking up local prices to the point where my house in Preston is worth less than 1/10th of what it would be in Battersea. Throughout that period, average wages just about kept up with inflation.

The huge distance between average earnings and average house prices can't be explained away by better credit availability or the average worker's increasing wealth over the years, not when there's so much evidence of market manipulation by the super-rich and corrupt financial institutions.

certainly easier lending made a difference

not sure about the bulk of the growth in prices being between 1996-2006, this graphs show far bigger growth in early and late 70s, and the late 80s





in fact, houses are more affordable now than in the late 1980s




real (i.e. ) prices peaked 14 years ago, not now

ToneControl

midlifecrisis said:

forget about all the financial figures for a moment. Your house is your home. Renters always have that possibility (in this country UK) of being given very short notice to move out at the LL wim, imagine young families with young kids having to uproot quickly. Renters are subject to the rent just going up and up. Have to have LL approval to do any major decorating.
Owning a house gives security, worse comes to worse you may sell it and downsize. You may pass it on to your children, you can rent it out if you want.  Ive been fortunate in that ive never had to rent and hope i never will.  Ive paid off my mortgage 5 years ago so im more relaxed, can work easier hours .
Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

shared ownership is a safer option

Tex Mexico

ToneControl said:

Tex Mexico said:

ToneControl said:

when looking at the house price increase in the 70s, few people remember that this was when most single-income families became dual-income families, and also food and consumer goods got much much cheaper. AFAIK this is the main reason house prices went up, because people bought what they could afford, and so competed with more cash for houses.

Also, it was extremely difficult to get a mortgage in the 60s compared to later decades

There's lots of reasons house prices have more than doubled in the past forty to fifty years, and yes some of them are to do with family incomes and therefore demand increasing. However the bulk of the increase took place in the decade between 1996 and 2006, and it's well-documented that very little of it was down to the middle-class becoming more affluent.

The 2008 crash was caused by a massive increase in sub-prime mortgages over the previous years. Property prices were artificially inflated by buyers being lent far more money than they could afford. Compound that with deregulation, which allowed foreign investors to buy huge swathes of London property to capitalise on the bubble, further jacking up local prices to the point where my house in Preston is worth less than 1/10th of what it would be in Battersea. Throughout that period, average wages just about kept up with inflation.

The huge distance between average earnings and average house prices can't be explained away by better credit availability or the average worker's increasing wealth over the years, not when there's so much evidence of market manipulation by the super-rich and corrupt financial institutions.

certainly easier lending made a difference

not sure about the bulk of the growth in prices being between 1996-2006, this graphs show far bigger growth in early and late 70s, and the late 80s

in fact, houses are more affordable now than in the late 1980s

real (i.e. ) prices peaked 14 years ago, not now

There's a difference between easier lending and predatory lending. While both will obviously have an effect on demand, predatory lending has an artificial effect on demand, as in it doesn't reflect actual affordability.

I'm not an economist or statistician so it would be untrue to say I fully understand the correlation between the graph that shows the increase as a percentage and the increase in real-terms, however on the latter you see a very steep climb in real-terms prices from 1996-2006, triple the 1988 peak but with a similar correction - meaning in real terms the property bubble basically doubled the cost of a house. The 1988 peak correlates with the increase in terms of mortgage against take-home pay percentage you see the year after.

Whereas it's true that mortgage as a percentage of take-home pay hasn't increased, all that reflects is a period cost against wage cost, and doesn't take into account the overall value of the house, the size of the deposit, the length of the mortgage and so on. In terms of market accessibility, what share of their wages existing homeowners are paying now on average isn't that enlightening in terms of bars to ownership for people who don't have sizeable deposits or bulletproof credit.

Real house prices did peak fourteen years ago, just before the crash. There hasn't, however, been that much of a correction.

ToneControl

Tex Mexico said:

ToneControl said:

Tex Mexico said:

ToneControl said:

when looking at the house price increase in the 70s, few people remember that this was when most single-income families became dual-income families, and also food and consumer goods got much much cheaper. AFAIK this is the main reason house prices went up, because people bought what they could afford, and so competed with more cash for houses.

Also, it was extremely difficult to get a mortgage in the 60s compared to later decades

There's lots of reasons house prices have more than doubled in the past forty to fifty years, and yes some of them are to do with family incomes and therefore demand increasing. However the bulk of the increase took place in the decade between 1996 and 2006, and it's well-documented that very little of it was down to the middle-class becoming more affluent.

The 2008 crash was caused by a massive increase in sub-prime mortgages over the previous years. Property prices were artificially inflated by buyers being lent far more money than they could afford. Compound that with deregulation, which allowed foreign investors to buy huge swathes of London property to capitalise on the bubble, further jacking up local prices to the point where my house in Preston is worth less than 1/10th of what it would be in Battersea. Throughout that period, average wages just about kept up with inflation.

The huge distance between average earnings and average house prices can't be explained away by better credit availability or the average worker's increasing wealth over the years, not when there's so much evidence of market manipulation by the super-rich and corrupt financial institutions.

certainly easier lending made a difference

not sure about the bulk of the growth in prices being between 1996-2006, this graphs show far bigger growth in early and late 70s, and the late 80s

in fact, houses are more affordable now than in the late 1980s

real (i.e. ) prices peaked 14 years ago, not now

There's a difference between easier lending and predatory lending. While both will obviously have an effect on demand, predatory lending has an artificial effect on demand, as in it doesn't reflect actual affordability.

I'm not an economist or statistician so it would be untrue to say I fully understand the correlation between the graph that shows the increase as a percentage and the increase in real-terms, however on the latter you see a very steep climb in real-terms prices from 1996-2006, triple the 1988 peak but with a similar correction - meaning in real terms the property bubble basically doubled the cost of a house. The 1988 peak correlates with the increase in terms of mortgage against take-home pay percentage you see the year after.

Whereas it's true that mortgage as a percentage of take-home pay hasn't increased, all that reflects is a period cost against wage cost, and doesn't take into account the overall value of the house, the size of the deposit, the length of the mortgage and so on. In terms of market accessibility, what share of their wages existing homeowners are paying now on average isn't that enlightening in terms of bars to ownership for people who don't have sizeable deposits or bulletproof credit.

Real house prices did peak fourteen years ago, just before the crash. There hasn't, however, been that much of a correction.

1978-1988 goes up 100% in 10 years
1996-2006  goes up 150% in 10 years

I'm not really clear on what point you are making

My point is that it was harder to buy a house in the late 80s than it is now, the data shows it, but people keep telling me that it's harder now than at any time in the past.
Deposit requirements were similar back then, and a good credit history was also required.

ToneControl

midlifecrisis said:

forget about all the financial figures for a moment. Your house is your home. Renters always have that possibility (in this country UK) of being given very short notice to move out at the LL wim, imagine young families with young kids having to uproot quickly. Renters are subject to the rent just going up and up. Have to have LL approval to do any major decorating.
Owning a house gives security, worse comes to worse you may sell it and downsize. You may pass it on to your children, you can rent it out if you want.  Ive been fortunate in that ive never had to rent and hope i never will.  Ive paid off my mortgage 5 years ago so im more relaxed, can work easier hours .
Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

same as someone who takes a lower-paid job, they need to move to somewhere cheaper or take a lodger
for those without a private pension, they would get housing benefit

robgilmo

midlifecrisis said:

forget about all the financial figures for a moment. Your house is your home. Renters always have that possibility (in this country UK) of being given very short notice to move out at the LL wim, imagine young families with young kids having to uproot quickly. Renters are subject to the rent just going up and up. Have to have LL approval to do any major decorating.
Owning a house gives security, worse comes to worse you may sell it and downsize. You may pass it on to your children, you can rent it out if you want.  Ive been fortunate in that ive never had to rent and hope i never will.  Ive paid off my mortgage 5 years ago so im more relaxed, can work easier hours .
Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

My last Landlord of 7 years inspected his property that we rented, he decided it needed a full refit of the kitchen and bathroom, it was an old house and pretty neglected, we were 8 months pregnant at the time. We were given the choice to have it done then or after the birth, we opted for after. Heard nothing back until our son was 5 months old then we were told we had to leave, January the 4th! No section 21, no proper paperwork, 6 weeks notice and told they were doing us a favour as they only had to give us 2 weeks! They always insisted on cash payments as this money went to pay their cleaners etc, no receipts. We actually fucking pleaded with these cunts to give us more time, January the 4th, 1 kid and one baby, we had no chance of finding a new place, they said no, they said they had builders scheduled for Jan 6th, we left on the 4th, builders didnt show up until March. Last I heard it was a holiday let. And its not like it was a money issue, this cunt ownes Tattersalls! Being evicted is one thing, being evicted at fucking Christmas? Still , Karma ensued, about a year later, around the same time of year, he had a massive stroke and had to be air lifted to hospital. I have to admit, the news didnt sadden me at all.

robgilmo

ToneControl said:

midlifecrisis said:

forget about all the financial figures for a moment. Your house is your home. Renters always have that possibility (in this country UK) of being given very short notice to move out at the LL wim, imagine young families with young kids having to uproot quickly. Renters are subject to the rent just going up and up. Have to have LL approval to do any major decorating.
Owning a house gives security, worse comes to worse you may sell it and downsize. You may pass it on to your children, you can rent it out if you want.  Ive been fortunate in that ive never had to rent and hope i never will.  Ive paid off my mortgage 5 years ago so im more relaxed, can work easier hours .
Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

same as someone who takes a lower-paid job, they need to move to somewhere cheaper or take a lodger
for those without a private pension, they would get housing benefit

Yeah, cos thats easy peasy.

stickyfiddle

ToneControl said:

Tex Mexico said:

Deposit requirements were similar back then, and a good credit history was also required.

As a proportion of salaries? And how did rents as a proportion of salaries compare?

Tex Mexico

ToneControl said:

Tex Mexico said:

ToneControl said:

Tex Mexico said:

ToneControl said:

when looking at the house price increase in the 70s, few people remember that this was when most single-income families became dual-income families, and also food and consumer goods got much much cheaper. AFAIK this is the main reason house prices went up, because people bought what they could afford, and so competed with more cash for houses.

Also, it was extremely difficult to get a mortgage in the 60s compared to later decades

There's lots of reasons house prices have more than doubled in the past forty to fifty years, and yes some of them are to do with family incomes and therefore demand increasing. However the bulk of the increase took place in the decade between 1996 and 2006, and it's well-documented that very little of it was down to the middle-class becoming more affluent.

The 2008 crash was caused by a massive increase in sub-prime mortgages over the previous years. Property prices were artificially inflated by buyers being lent far more money than they could afford. Compound that with deregulation, which allowed foreign investors to buy huge swathes of London property to capitalise on the bubble, further jacking up local prices to the point where my house in Preston is worth less than 1/10th of what it would be in Battersea. Throughout that period, average wages just about kept up with inflation.

The huge distance between average earnings and average house prices can't be explained away by better credit availability or the average worker's increasing wealth over the years, not when there's so much evidence of market manipulation by the super-rich and corrupt financial institutions.

certainly easier lending made a difference

not sure about the bulk of the growth in prices being between 1996-2006, this graphs show far bigger growth in early and late 70s, and the late 80s

in fact, houses are more affordable now than in the late 1980s

real (i.e. ) prices peaked 14 years ago, not now

There's a difference between easier lending and predatory lending. While both will obviously have an effect on demand, predatory lending has an artificial effect on demand, as in it doesn't reflect actual affordability.

I'm not an economist or statistician so it would be untrue to say I fully understand the correlation between the graph that shows the increase as a percentage and the increase in real-terms, however on the latter you see a very steep climb in real-terms prices from 1996-2006, triple the 1988 peak but with a similar correction - meaning in real terms the property bubble basically doubled the cost of a house. The 1988 peak correlates with the increase in terms of mortgage against take-home pay percentage you see the year after.

Whereas it's true that mortgage as a percentage of take-home pay hasn't increased, all that reflects is a period cost against wage cost, and doesn't take into account the overall value of the house, the size of the deposit, the length of the mortgage and so on. In terms of market accessibility, what share of their wages existing homeowners are paying now on average isn't that enlightening in terms of bars to ownership for people who don't have sizeable deposits or bulletproof credit.

Real house prices did peak fourteen years ago, just before the crash. There hasn't, however, been that much of a correction.

1978-1988 goes up 100% in 10 years
1996-2006  goes up 150% in 10 years

I'm not really clear on what point you are making

My point is that it was harder to buy a house in the late 80s than it is now, the data shows it, but people keep telling me that it's harder now than at any time in the past.
Deposit requirements were similar back then, and a good credit history was also required.

So, forgive me for disagreeing, but the timeline goes:

1978-1988 goes up 100% in 10 years
1988-1996 goes back down 50%+ in 8 years
1996-2006  goes up 150% in 10 years

There has not been a commensurate correction after 2006's peak. So yes, in the late 80s houses were very expensive for a couple of years, this is true, but by 1991 they were back where they were in 1985. However it's been fourteen years since the peak of the housing bubble and the overall correction since then has been no more than 10%-20%.

Beyond that the broader point is that the evolution of average house prices is one of, but nothing like the only factor in access to housing. Average wages figures don't show the growing wealth gap (i.e. 50% of wealth owned by the top 10%, stagnant lower wages hidden by increasing higher wages). Mortgage as percentage of take-home pay figures don't show the detail in difference between those who had large deposits or those who are on year twenty of their mortgage, and those who are on £30k with no savings in a town where starter houses cost £250k.

Changing social circumstances are also a factor, for example where there are far more two-income families now than there were in the seventies, a lot of those two-income families are having one income wiped out by childcare costs. The cost of raising a kid to 18 in the UK is now ironically about on par with the average cost of a house.

Finally it's worth noting that the average UK life expectancy has risen a whole decade since 1970. As well as contributing to the pensions crisis, this not only ties up housing stock for longer and therefore increases demand, but also skews the mortgage-as-%-of-income figures further as there is a greater proportion of people living in paid-off houses.

octatonic

midlifecrisis said:

forget about all the financial figures for a moment. Your house is your home. Renters always have that possibility (in this country UK) of being given very short notice to move out at the LL wim, imagine young families with young kids having to uproot quickly. Renters are subject to the rent just going up and up. Have to have LL approval to do any major decorating.
Owning a house gives security, worse comes to worse you may sell it and downsize. You may pass it on to your children, you can rent it out if you want.  Ive been fortunate in that ive never had to rent and hope i never will.  Ive paid off my mortgage 5 years ago so im more relaxed, can work easier hours .
Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

Agreed.

spark240

octatonic said:

midlifecrisis said:

forget about all the financial figures for a moment. Your house is your home. Renters always have that possibility (in this country UK) of being given very short notice to move out at the LL wim, imagine young families with young kids having to uproot quickly. Renters are subject to the rent just going up and up. Have to have LL approval to do any major decorating.
Owning a house gives security, worse comes to worse you may sell it and downsize. You may pass it on to your children, you can rent it out if you want.  Ive been fortunate in that ive never had to rent and hope i never will.  Ive paid off my mortgage 5 years ago so im more relaxed, can work easier hours .
Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

Agreed.

This is a problem, my relative rents in Berkshire.....quiet expensive , leases a car which is a continuous cycle as they can’t afford to get out of it and buy one, personal possessions are minimal,..you say it’s a time bomb, but surely if they had nothing the council would just foot the bill?.....not saying it’s right buts it’s fact no ?

Tex Mexico

spark240 said:

octatonic said:

midlifecrisis said:

forget about all the financial figures for a moment. Your house is your home. Renters always have that possibility (in this country UK) of being given very short notice to move out at the LL wim, imagine young families with young kids having to uproot quickly. Renters are subject to the rent just going up and up. Have to have LL approval to do any major decorating.
Owning a house gives security, worse comes to worse you may sell it and downsize. You may pass it on to your children, you can rent it out if you want.  Ive been fortunate in that ive never had to rent and hope i never will.  Ive paid off my mortgage 5 years ago so im more relaxed, can work easier hours .
Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

Agreed.

This is a problem, my relative rents in Berkshire.....quiet expensive , leases a car which is a continuous cycle as they can’t afford to get out of it and buy one, personal possessions are minimal,..you say it’s a time bomb, but surely if they had nothing the council would just foot the bill?.....not saying it’s right buts it’s fact no ?

Unfortunately not.

I always think of a saying, I'm not sure where it comes from, but it goes "you're only ever nine meals away from total disaster".

I think it's intended to mean that you should never take a safety net for granted.

EDIT: Alfred Henry Lewis, “There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.” Slightly different meaning but on an individual level it bears out, as it's to do with the reliance on vs. the absence of social support systems.

robgilmo

spark240 said:

octatonic said:

midlifecrisis said:

forget about all the financial figures for a moment. Your house is your home. Renters always have that possibility (in this country UK) of being given very short notice to move out at the LL wim, imagine young families with young kids having to uproot quickly. Renters are subject to the rent just going up and up. Have to have LL approval to do any major decorating.
Owning a house gives security, worse comes to worse you may sell it and downsize. You may pass it on to your children, you can rent it out if you want.  Ive been fortunate in that ive never had to rent and hope i never will.  Ive paid off my mortgage 5 years ago so im more relaxed, can work easier hours .
Whats going to happen when a renter wants to retire but the pension wont cover the rent? This is a timebomb.

Agreed.

This is a problem, my relative rents in Berkshire.....quiet expensive , leases a car which is a continuous cycle as they can’t afford to get out of it and buy one, personal possessions are minimal,..you say it’s a time bomb, but surely if they had nothing the council would just foot the bill?.....not saying it’s right buts it’s fact no ?

No, the council dont foot the bill, housing benefit is capped at well below the average rent price for any given area.

spark240

Yeah....what I meant was....they will find you somewhere to live no 

You get evicted through no fault of your own, you got no money...?

robgilmo

spark240 said:

Yeah....what I meant was....they will find you somewhere to live no 

You get evicted through no fault of your own, you got no money...?

They will only help you once you are out on the street, even a section 21 wont raise their eyebrow, you have to be physically living on the street, and even then they still wont rehouse you unless you are a priority case, and even after all that they might only give you a bed in a hostel. Council houses arnt a safety net for any renter, because there isnt any, at least round here anyway. People have been waiting years for a council house.

Tex Mexico

robgilmo said:

spark240 said:

Yeah....what I meant was....they will find you somewhere to live no 

You get evicted through no fault of your own, you got no money...?

They will only help you once you are out on the street, even a section 21 wont raise their eyebrow, you have to be physically living on the street, and even then they still wont rehouse you unless you are a priority case, and even after all that they might only give you a bed in a hostel. Council houses arnt a safety net for any renter, because there isnt any, at least round here anyway. People have been waiting years for a council house.

100%.

I was technically homeless for a few months in 2011 after a bad break-up. She locked me out and called the cops on me (she was bananas) and once they realised she was a nutbar and I was in fact not trying to kill her or anything they asked me if I had anywhere to stay. I said "no" thinking they might have access to some kind of emergency housing situation, but I was flatly told that if I couldn't find a couch to surf it was either the shelter or, you know, a bus shelter.

I was lucky that I had a couple of mates who sorted me out until I was able to find my own gaff. Lots of people don't have that.

ToneControl

stickyfiddle said:

ToneControl said:

Tex Mexico said:

Deposit requirements were similar back then, and a good credit history was also required.

As a proportion of salaries? And how did rents as a proportion of salaries compare?

dunno, have you looked it up?

stickyfiddle

ToneControl said:

stickyfiddle said:

ToneControl said:

Tex Mexico said:

Deposit requirements were similar back then, and a good credit history was also required.

As a proportion of salaries? And how did rents as a proportion of salaries compare?

dunno, have you looked it up?

No, i'm supposed to be working :P 

But it's relevant to the discussion, as failing to consider those factors is potentially misleading.