Trite Observations About the Housing Market

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

As a high earning renter, sorry but your idea scares the shit out of me. I need private landlords. I'm too old to make a mortgage a viable option, I will never own a home but I will (hopefully) always earn way too much money for social housing to offer me anything

Yes, there’s room in the world for rentals, they are needed for all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances. If I have an 18 month contract in a city I can’t be living in a hotel or going through the grief of buying a property.

But the high earning renter by choice isn’t what I’m trying to eradicate in a couple of sentences on a messageboard.

Too many people are being barred from buying first homes because Dave and Mary decided they’d like a retirement hobby that gets them an income and Slimey Pete sees himself as a property magnate when he’s actually a slum landlord. These people are taking vast swathes of entry level properties off the market as they can out money first time buyers. Those first time buyers then have to rent, which needs to include profit for the landlord.

Building 1.5 million homes might even be all the action we need, if those homes specifically have to be lived in by the people that buy them. Taking decades of heat out of the market’s inflated prices, thus deterring hobby landlords, possibly even reducing rents to stay competitive with the option of buying.

The best option is not the status quo, it isn’t putting more new housing out of the reach of first time buyers, it isn’t reducing the available social housing with right to buy, it isn’t allowing slum landlords to continue.

I reckon we can come up with something better and it starts with a massive home building programme. 

[Genie]

18 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m not sure what legislation would prevent the building of more houses?

Do you mean the Biodiversity Net Gain legislation? Or town plans and purpose groups? 

Rishi blamed potentially missing his parties housing target on EU laws

link

Quote

The prime minister went on to blame an EU legacy law for a lack of housebuilding in the UK.

“Just a few weeks ago, we wanted to change an EU legacy law that we’d inherited, that is currently blocking the builidng of 100,000 homes across the country, many of which already have planning permission.

“That was blocked by the Labour party in the House of Lords.”

———————

Mr Sunak is referring to the nutrient neutrality law, which means housing developments have to offset their pollution. 

The Government has said the law is unfairly blocking new homes near waterways but Labour hit back saying there is enough pollution in rivers already.

Starmer also said this week he will get tough with MP’s who block major developments in their constituency. 

It seems less about money, and more about laws and NIMBY’s.

[chrisp65]

12 minutes ago, Genie said:

Rishi blamed potentially missing his parties housing target on EU laws

link

Starmer also said this week he will get tough with MP’s who block major developments in their constituency. 

It seems less about money, and more about laws and NIMBY’s.

Yep, he’s referring to nutrient neutrality. It won’t surprise you to hear we are the only country that has interpreted that legislation in a way that prevents building homes.

We have a project in Norwich and we were informed that a planning decision would be postponed 18 months whilst they got government legal advice on what nutrient neutrality meant. There were two ways of interpreting it. One, was to check and prevent excess nutrient being spilled in to waterways by providing modern drainage systems. One was to spend 18 months checking the legal meaning of each word then each word in relation to each other word then how we can tweek that so we can still pump shit in to the local river if a proper pipe looked a bit pricey.

We (England and Wales) went for the second option. Which meant even schemes (like ours) that was proposing proper modern drainage was delayed, whilst the government pretended it needed 18 months to understand what a drain was and what a poo was so it could then tell the planners what a drain was and what a poo was.

[Rds1983]

30 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yes, there’s room in the world for rentals, they are needed for all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances. If I have an 18 month contract in a city I can’t be living in a hotel or going through the grief of buying a property.

But the high earning renter by choice isn’t what I’m trying to eradicate in a couple of sentences on a messageboard.

Too many people are being barred from buying first homes because Dave and Mary decided they’d like a retirement hobby that gets them an income and Slimey Pete sees himself as a property magnate when he’s actually a slum landlord. These people are taking vast swathes of entry level properties off the market as they can out money first time buyers. Those first time buyers then have to rent, which needs to include profit for the landlord.

Building 1.5 million homes might even be all the action we need, if those homes specifically have to be lived in by the people that buy them. Taking decades of heat out of the market’s inflated prices, thus deterring hobby landlords, possibly even reducing rents to stay competitive with the option of buying.

The best option is not the status quo, it isn’t putting more new housing out of the reach of first time buyers, it isn’t reducing the available social housing with right to buy, it isn’t allowing slum landlords to continue.

I reckon we can come up with something better and it starts with a massive home building programme. 

Personally I feel amateur landlord's are a better option than the large scale professional landlord's with thousands of homes under their estate.

If there is a need for rentals then surely it's better for their landlords to be amateurs as you say. I feel they'd be more likely to be actively involved and providing better housing, would be easier to challenge if something went wrong and more likely to be paying higher levels of tax.

The big firms are also more likely to be able to pay over the odds for the house at the outset as they know they can swallow the initial cost and make it back long term.

I'd rather Dave and Mary were providing the housing and taking 2 or 3 houses from first time buyers than Corporate CEO taking 10,000.

[chrisp65]

26 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Personally I feel amateur landlord's are a better option than the large scale professional landlord's with thousands of homes under their estate.

If there is a need for rentals then surely it's better for their landlords to be amateurs as you say. I feel they'd be more likely to be actively involved and providing better housing, would be easier to challenge if something went wrong and more likely to be paying higher levels of tax.

The big firms are also more likely to be able to pay over the odds for the house at the outset as they know they can swallow the initial cost and make it back long term.

I'd rather Dave and Mary were providing the housing and taking 2 or 3 houses from first time buyers than Corporate CEO taking 10,000.

 

I wrote out quite a long reply and its bloody disappeared somewhere.*

I guess my view is based on what I see where I live.

An old dock town with red brick terraced streets all being bought up by amateurs and the inside gets a new kitchen and a lot of white paint. After that, Dave and Mary are a bit out of their depth and end up working their rental through an estate agent based management firm. Now there are two businesses that need to extract profit from the young family starting out and they still need that back bedroom damp fixed.

Or, those terraced houses suddenly have a loft conversion and five doorbells and everyone’s paying close to mortgage money for a bedroom and a share of the plumbing.

All of the above solved with substantially more council lets and more housing association flats. Not an extra seven, but hundreds, thousands. A number that genuinely impacts these over inflated market prices. Over inflated thanks at least in part to Dave and Mary.

 

*ok threads got tidied.

Edited October 11, 2023 by chrisp65

[sidcow]

6 hours ago, Genie said:

My house was built on a golf course  

Did you put a big deposit down? That must have gone a fairway towards the cost. 

[sidcow]

6 hours ago, Designer1 said:

You get 100 extra VT points for a Scrooged GIF 

[sidcow]

4 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Demands high because the rich are buying all the properties up as the poor are being priced out

But if more homes are built there are more for people to buy outright. If more people buy there is less demand for rentals, meaning rents fall. If rents fall there is less incentive for the rich to buy for rent, they'll probably sell instead meaning even more properties are available to buy. 

Also people probably stop leaving properties empty waiting for prices to rise as prices are falling, so they'll probably sell making more properties available to buy.

So many of the current housing market problems are due to shortage of housing stock. 

[mjmooney]

18 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Did you put a big deposit down? That must have gone a fairway towards the cost. 

Suits him to a tee. 

[sidcow]

Some of the stuff being proposed sounds like a proper plan which really should alleviate many of the problems in the housing market and help housing to be more affordable for many people. 

As well as ensuring that many of these new homes have proper infrastructure like schools and doctors. 

But I don't understand how this can be as political parties are all basically the same and this lot are pointless. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by sidcow

[sidcow]

I'm a middle class middle age homeowner. 

It gives me no pleasure to see my house price constantly increasing substantially. It's currently probably double what we paid. 

Am I alone in this or is this a generation thing where the baby boomers were the very first mass home owners so got obsessive about house prices? 

I spend a lot more time worrying about how the hell my kids will afford a home than I spend feeling smug about how much (pointless to me) cash I'm sitting on. 

[Genie]

Near me it’s possible to get a decent 3 bed house, even detached for £250k. That would be more than acceptable for a first time buyer. More like a second or third home.

With a 10% deposit the mortgage on £225k looks like £1,350 a month fixed for 5 years on a 25 year term. That’s about do-able for a singleton, and comfortable for a couple isn’t it? Rent wouldn’t be much less.

If I could I’d release all or some of the deposit from my equity to get them started. 

Is it really that hard for youngsters to get on the ladder? Especially those with parents who have benefited from the rocketing prices?

[Demitri_C]

53 minutes ago, sidcow said:

But if more homes are built there are more for people to buy outright. If more people buy there is less demand for rentals, meaning rents fall. If rents fall there is less incentive for the rich to buy for rent, they'll probably sell instead meaning even more properties are available to buy. 

Also people probably stop leaving properties empty waiting for prices to rise as prices are falling, so they'll probably sell making more properties available to buy.

So many of the current housing market problems are due to shortage of housing stock. 

It depends on what kind of properties they are building though. Any new build 3-4 room near me you aint getting for lwss than 500k if your lucky.  Not many 1st time buyers can afford that so all the rich **** snap them up  by remortgaging one of their properties.

Rents dont fall though thats the issue esp when you have the cost of living crisis we are experiencing. 

I cant speak on other peoples areas but near me loads of new builds near me havent sold as asking price is 850k plus. The 5 beds are close to a mil!!

Why **** build these no 1st time buyer is buying that?!

[markavfc40]

24 minutes ago, Genie said:

Near me it’s possible to get a decent 3 bed house, even detached for £250k. That would be more than acceptable for a first time buyer. More like a second or third home.

With a 10% deposit the mortgage on £225k looks like £1,350 a month fixed for 5 years on a 25 year term. That’s about do-able for a singleton, and comfortable for a couple isn’t it? Rent wouldn’t be much less.

If I could I’d release all or some of the deposit from my equity to get them started. 

Is it really that hard for youngsters to get on the ladder? Especially those with parents who have benefited from the rocketing prices?

The average salary in UK is 32k so you'd be picking up around £2100 a month. Your average singleton would be hard pushed to afford a mortgage of £1350 and have £750 to pay the rest of their bills and live. A couple each bringing in the average wage could obviously do it but it would be a push in you factored in kids and either child care or one parent cutting their hours. The average salary for those between 22 and 29 is 28k.

I bought my first house in 1998 when I was 24, was earning around 23k a year (wasn't a particularly well paid job) and paid 37k for a 3 bed semi in a decent area that needed a bit of work. My mortgage was around £220 a month. 

[ender4]

6 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

It depends on what kind of properties they are building though. Any new build 3-4 room near me you aint getting for lwss than 500k if your lucky.  Not many 1st time buyers can afford that so all the rich **** snap them up  by remortgaging one of their properties.

Rents dont fall though thats the issue esp when you have the cost of living crisis we are experiencing. 

I cant speak on other peoples areas but near me loads of new builds near me havent sold as asking price is 850k plus. The 5 beds are close to a mil!!

Why **** build these no 1st time buyer is buying that?!

Because people in a small 2-bed want to move up the ladder to a 4-bed detached home.   This frees up starter homes as they sell and move on. 

[Genie]

12 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

The average salary in UK is 32k so you'd be picking up around £2100 a month. Your average singleton would be hard pushed to afford a mortgage of £1350 and have £750 to pay the rest of their bills and live. A couple each bringing in the average wage could obviously do it but it would be a push in you factored in kids and either child care or one parent cutting their hours. The average salary for those between 22 and 29 is 28k.

I bought my first house in 1998 when I was 24, was earning around 23k a year (wasn't a particularly well paid job) and paid 37k for a 3 bed semi in a decent area that needed a bit of work. My mortgage was around £220 a month. 

Maybe a £250k house as a starter was a bad example. A 2 bed semi in an ok area here can be had for £200k and is definite first time buyer type house.

5 year fixed mortgage with 10% deposit is just over £1,000 a month. Half the take home pay of an average young earner living alone (unlikely). A couple and it’s reasonably comfortable.

I know it’s harder than it was, but it’s not impossible.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Genie

[foreveryoung]

48 minutes ago, Genie said:

Near me it’s possible to get a decent 3 bed house, even detached for £250k. That would be more than acceptable for a first time buyer. More like a second or third home.

With a 10% deposit the mortgage on £225k looks like £1,350 a month fixed for 5 years on a 25 year term. That’s about do-able for a singleton, and comfortable for a couple isn’t it? Rent wouldn’t be much less.

If I could I’d release all or some of the deposit from my equity to get them started. 

Is it really that hard for youngsters to get on the ladder? Especially those with parents who have benefited from the rocketing prices?

Your kidding yeah?  £22k and £1200 a month for a singleton, I very much doubt its comfotable for a couple, never mind someone on there own. It'll be plus around £200 council tax, £150 energy, water, car bills food, life, not a chance unless you can bring in at least £3k a month.

[chrisp65]

42 minutes ago, Genie said:

Near me it’s possible to get a decent 3 bed house, even detached for £250k. That would be more than acceptable for a first time buyer. More like a second or third home.

With a 10% deposit the mortgage on £225k looks like £1,350 a month fixed for 5 years on a 25 year term. That’s about do-able for a singleton, and comfortable for a couple isn’t it? Rent wouldn’t be much less.

If I could I’d release all or some of the deposit from my equity to get them started. 

Is it really that hard for youngsters to get on the ladder? Especially those with parents who have benefited from the rocketing prices?

It’s very much based on location isn’t it. 

We’re walking distance from the coast, 11 miles from a capital city that has civil service jobs, BBC, film studios and sports teams and all that. Which is nice, but it does mean that in this street alone, I’m fast becoming one of the last residents with a local accent. Literally every house sale in the last 5 years has been to someone not originally from here. People from here are being pushed out to the valleys. Which makes you wonder where the people from the valleys are going if Barry folk are buying the houses in Treherbet and Tonypandy.

The result is that my house is now ‘worth’ exactly 5 times more than i paid for it 20 years ago. 5 times the value in 20 years is not sustainable for the kids of the local shop workers and everyday office staff to stay close to family.

We need thousands of homes here to prick this bubble. Those houses will need roads and schools and shops and dentists. 

 

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

I'm a middle class middle age homeowner. 

It gives me no pleasure to see my house price constantly increasing substantially. It's currently probably double what we paid. 

Am I alone in this or is this a generation thing where the baby boomers were the very first mass home owners so got obsessive about house prices? 

I spend a lot more time worrying about how the hell my kids will afford a home than I spend feeling smug about how much (pointless to me) cash I'm sitting on. 

Well when you die your kids will have their deposit and then some 

[Genie]

10 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Your kidding yeah?  £22k and £1200 a month for a singleton, I very much doubt its comfotable for a couple, never mind someone on there own. It'll be plus around £200 council tax, £150 energy, water, car bills food, life, not a chance unless you can bring in at least £3k a month.

2 people on £25k a year is £3.5k take home a month. That’s not mega money is it? Minimum wage is about £21k a year, 2 people on minimum wage take home over £3k a month. 

I know some people will still be priced out, and people will have to cut out the luxuries but I don’t see getting on the ladder as the impossible task some do (around here anyway).