Incredible. New homes and property ownership was spurred on by leveraging debt and a boom in borrowing, leaving a lot of people very wealthy at the expense of a house of cards debt system that kept kicking the can down the road for the next generation to pay. Now that all the money has dried up, this generation has been told to lift itself up by its bootstraps.
Yes, essentially the more desirable an area is to live in, the more expensive a property will be, but in London and the South East this has legitimately gotten ridiculous. House prices are not being spurred on simply because of demand, it is because of speculation and massive property & land conglomerates who want to take homes and land and transform them into flats, town houses, apartments, then sell them on for monstrous profit because they cut corners and use shabby construction. The Government and local authorities have a responsibility to sling out bad practices such as these. To these developers, they are assets, but to normal people they are homes, they are where they start families, raise their children and make memories. The homelessness rate in this country is scandalous considering how wealthy we are and how many vacant properties there are and this is linked with the property market and government housing policy.
There is a finite amount of land in this country and an even scarcer amount that is actually desirable to currently live on. Too bad within the last 100 years every last tract of this land has been bought up by the rich using debt leveraged against the next generation, then they pump up the prices and make a massive enough fortune to pay off the debt and still be multi-millionaires.
The irony of the speculators buying up all these properties is that a lot of them live in the equivalent of council housing in Singapore or Hong Kong. Once again our rulers are happy to pursue a private market dream just for the UK while almost everywhere else in the world has some sort of regulation. It's clear who the winners and losers are here.
I was arguing with a spanner the other day about the proposed development around their ground. They were saying no one would buy properties next to the Den and the incinerator etc. But they will. Far eastern govts stop their citizens from speculating on property in their own backyard. The British govt is so desperate for "inward investment" that it welcomes them, especially as the accompanying infrastructure never gets built (much like the Surrey Canal Road station won't be unless TfL pay for it) guaranteeing developers even more profit .
Incredible. New homes and property ownership was spurred on by leveraging debt and a boom in borrowing, leaving a lot of people very wealthy at the expense of a house of cards debt system that kept kicking the can down the road for the next generation to pay. Now that all the money has dried up, this generation has been told to lift itself up by its bootstraps.
Yes, essentially the more desirable an area is to live in, the more expensive a property will be, but in London and the South East this has legitimately gotten ridiculous. House prices are not being spurred on simply because of demand, it is because of speculation and massive property & land conglomerates who want to take homes and land and transform them into flats, town houses, apartments, then sell them on for monstrous profit because they cut corners and use shabby construction. The Government and local authorities have a responsibility to sling out bad practices such as these. To these developers, they are assets, but to normal people they are homes, they are where they start families, raise their children and make memories. The homelessness rate in this country is scandalous considering how wealthy we are and how many vacant properties there are and this is linked with the property market and government housing policy.
There is a finite amount of land in this country and an even scarcer amount that is actually desirable to currently live on. Too bad within the last 100 years every last tract of this land has been bought up by the rich using debt leveraged against the next generation, then they pump up the prices and make a massive enough fortune to pay off the debt and still be multi-millionaires.
But this doesn't help explain why property is similarly expensive in Hong Kong, Singapore, New York, San Francisco, Sydney, Zurich etc. unless you think the same practices have been at work here too. In short there are wider factors at work (mainly globalisation) which are largely out of the control of governments (at least until Mr Trump got elected) - London just happened to be at the epicentre of it all and I struggle to see how that could possibly be to our detriment overall.
It's a good thing water is currently not treated the same way as land/property is - a finite resource necessary for happiness and well-being. Imagine the rich buying up all the reservoirs and lakes using debt leveraged against the next generation then charging through the nose for water even of an average quality. No doubt there would still be the same people on here chortling and saying 'Water isn't a god-given right, if you can't afford it, move somewhere where the water is cheaper or get a better job'.
Incredible. New homes and property ownership was spurred on by leveraging debt and a boom in borrowing, leaving a lot of people very wealthy at the expense of a house of cards debt system that kept kicking the can down the road for the next generation to pay. Now that all the money has dried up, this generation has been told to lift itself up by its bootstraps.
Yes, essentially the more desirable an area is to live in, the more expensive a property will be, but in London and the South East this has legitimately gotten ridiculous. House prices are not being spurred on simply because of demand, it is because of speculation and massive property & land conglomerates who want to take homes and land and transform them into flats, town houses, apartments, then sell them on for monstrous profit because they cut corners and use shabby construction. The Government and local authorities have a responsibility to sling out bad practices such as these. To these developers, they are assets, but to normal people they are homes, they are where they start families, raise their children and make memories. The homelessness rate in this country is scandalous considering how wealthy we are and how many vacant properties there are and this is linked with the property market and government housing policy.
There is a finite amount of land in this country and an even scarcer amount that is actually desirable to currently live on. Too bad within the last 100 years every last tract of this land has been bought up by the rich using debt leveraged against the next generation, then they pump up the prices and make a massive enough fortune to pay off the debt and still be multi-millionaires.
But this doesn't help explain why property is similarly expensive in Hong Kong, Singapore, New York, San Francisco, Sydney, Zurich etc. unless you think the same practices have been at work here too. In short there are wider factors at work (mainly globalisation) which are largely out of the control of governments (at least until Mr Trump got elected) - London just happened to be at the epicentre of it all and I struggle to see how that could possibly be to our detriment overall.
Ask the residents of the New Era housing estate if they think that rampant property speculation and letting the rich buy up property developments willy-nilly has not been to their detriment at all.
Similarly, I cannot possibly comment on the all the different cities you listed as I do not know about their housing policies. However it is not just London that is affected by this, it is the whole of the South East. As I said before, desirability is a factor that will affected prices and these areas are desirable due to proximity to London and to the jobs, but I am strongly opposed to property being used and exploited to make monstrous profits at the expense of the wellbeing of those who live in those areas. In fact I am opposed to property as an investment vehicle altogether - like water, it is a finite resource with huge social implications and should not be left to the free market to decide who gets it.
It's a good thing water is currently not treated the same way as land/property is - a finite resource necessary for happiness and well-being. Imagine the rich buying up all the reservoirs and lakes using debt leveraged against the next generation then charging through the nose for water even of an average quality. No doubt there would still be the same people on here chortling and saying 'Water isn't a god-given right, if you can't afford it, move somewhere where the water is cheaper or get a better job'.
you may jest but future wars will be fought for water. With rising populations, global warming.... it's already started in the middle east.
The problem is that a lot of people think they're entitled to spring water from the freshest mountain stream but turn their nose up at a glass of tap water.
A definite factor (when isn't it) is the cutbacks made in LPA funding - they now lack the resource and expertise in many areas to write a sound local plan. This means it's like a free buffet for developers, rightly or wrongly. There are systems in place to make sure the correct infrastructure goes in, and from my experience of one small part of the planning process this is the case
It's a good thing water is currently not treated the same way as land/property is - a finite resource necessary for happiness and well-being. Imagine the rich buying up all the reservoirs and lakes using debt leveraged against the next generation then charging through the nose for water even of an average quality. No doubt there would still be the same people on here chortling and saying 'Water isn't a god-given right, if you can't afford it, move somewhere where the water is cheaper or get a better job'.
Was this not a plot in a James Bond film? Quantum of Solace I think.
A definite factor (when isn't it) is the cutbacks made in LPA funding - they now lack the resource and expertise in many areas to write a sound local plan. This means it's like a free buffet for developers, rightly or wrongly. There are systems in place to make sure the correct infrastructure goes in, and from my experience of one small part of the planning process this is the case
Agreed - inappropriate development everywhere but the bastards still won't let me add an extension to my house!!
A definite factor (when isn't it) is the cutbacks made in LPA funding - they now lack the resource and expertise in many areas to write a sound local plan. This means it's like a free buffet for developers, rightly or wrongly. There are systems in place to make sure the correct infrastructure goes in, and from my experience of one small part of the planning process this is the case
Agreed - inappropriate development everywhere but the bastards still won't let me add an extension to my house!!
I am troubled by the fact that a true housing shortage would be evidenced by rents rising as fast as house prices and millions of homeless, yet neither is apparent.
My view is that there is simply a shortage of properties for sale (since 'supply' includes both new homes and existing homes), and the abolition of stamp duty would solve this instantly by encouraging greater mobility.
A few points to challenge your argument:
- Private rental prices are rising much faster than house prices. - The latest statistics show 75,000 household in temporary accommodation (usually B&B). - There are now 3.3million 20-34 year-olds still living with parents, a 618,000 leap since 1996, the findings from the Office for National Statistics show. - A fifth of 25-to-29 year olds still living with their parents, and half of those aged 20-to-24 and one in 10 aged 30-to-34 are also in the same boat.
The explanation isn't a shortage of properties for sale - rather it's a combination of a shortage of affordable housing for both sale and rent in the areas where people need them.
But rental yields in the South-East remain less than 5% typically (and are not rising). Thus a typical 1-bed flat which would cost say £300k to buy can be rented for £15k pa or £1,250 pm. The same property to buy with a 5% deposit at say 3.3% for 5-years fixed would cost £1,396 per month (capital+interest) but this is of course before stamp duty, legal fees, maintenance costs etc. (plus the opportunity cost of the deposit tied up in the property). And this is of course calculated whilst interest rates are at all-time lows.
There is an implicit assumption that young people have a 'right' to own a property but renting has meaningful advantages not least mobility. I appreciate that the problem doesn't exist solely in the South-East but unfortunately if young people don't have the earnings power to own property in arguably the world's best and most dynamic city then the simple fact is that they have to move somewhere where they can (or rent!).
I don't know how things are in New York, but the reality of renting for the young people I know who have to in London is awful. Revenge evictions if they ask for repairs. Having to move every 6 months with all its attendant costs. Agreeing a rent then seeing it increase by a hundred pounds a month. Being evicted if you lose your job because landlords won't accept tenants on benefits.
Renting could be fine, but the reality is that with no security of tenure, meaning you could be homeless again pretty soon after you've settled in. And forget starting a family unless you're one of the lucky few who can get social housing or have rich parents.
Landlords are no longer able to legally evict if the notice is served as a result of repairs being requested
I don't know how things are in New York, but the reality of renting for the young people I know who have to in London is awful. Revenge evictions if they ask for repairs. Having to move every 6 months with all its attendant costs. Agreeing a rent then seeing it increase by a hundred pounds a month. Being evicted if you lose your job because landlords won't accept tenants on benefits.
Renting could be fine, but the reality is that with no security of tenure, meaning you could be homeless again pretty soon after you've settled in. And forget starting a family unless you're one of the lucky few who can get social housing or have rich parents.
It's not necessarily that the landlords won't accept tenants on benefits, but that their building insurance specifically states that the property cannot be let to people on benefits. Ridiculous, of course, because why do the insurers think that someone on benefits is going to wreck the place when someone with an adequately-paid job won't, but that clause isn't the landlord's fault, it's the ignorance of the insurance.
And you can't be revenge-evicted; there are specific legal protections to stop that happening. And you can't have rent rises that are not specified in your rental agreement. If you're a good tenant - pay your rent on time and report repairs promptly, then the landlord isn't going to expect you to move after 6 months - they'll want to keep you, because changing tenants costs the landlord too, so if the landlord has a good tenant, they want to keep hold of them.
You've highlighted two problems there. Firstly, the fact that in the 21st century insurers are allowed to carry on with practices that are being stamped out everywhere else (discriminating/pricing out based on background).
Secondly, the landlords. Plenty of unscrupulous ones out there who run off with deposits, and are quite happy to turf out people as often as possible since they can charge superfluous extortionate admin fees for new tenants. Plus do you think a single mum working two jobs in order to afford her rent as the council refuses to move her away from an abusive boyfriend has the time and money to find out her legal rights when a landlord threatens to kick her out because her locks are broken? Whereas the landlord will have access to far better legal team?
There are probably as many unscrupulous landlords as there are unscrupulous tenants - and both are a minority. Landlords can't just turf people out. Admin fees for new tenants are now outlawed. Landlords don't hold the deposits, they have to be held in a separate insured scheme, so they can't 'run off with them' - the tenant will have the landlord's address on their tenancy, so they know where they are, and the tenancy deposit scheme arbitrates regarding deposit return at the end of a tenancy and they give the money back to the tenant/to the landlord to cover proven disrepair caused by the tenant, as appropriate. Your imaginary single mum working 2 jobs in your example is expecting the council to move her, which may or may not be the council's responsibility; she should ring Shelter where advice is free regarding her legal rights, or Refuge if she needs to move immediately to a place of safety. Her landlord can't kick her out because the locks are broken because landlords can't post notice to evict or terminate a tenancy if the tenant has just requested a repair. The 'better legal team' that you think the landlord has access to will just advise the landlord that they can't behave the way you're suggesting they do. Things have moved on a bit since the 1960s...
Is it really as bad as we all make out (affordability).
I've had the conversations many times with young people at work who say 'it's alright for you'.
However they seem a bit shocked when I say that I bought my first house at 24, however from 18-24 I worked not only in an office during the day but 5, sometimes 6 nights a week in a bar to save up, sometimes I used to Labour for my builder uncle as well. I either didn't have a car or the while I did I'd usually spent about £250 on one with as long an MOT as possible, my one luxury was a season ticket.......how sad!!
On today's minimum wage that bar job would net around £30k in savings (assuming you saved all the bar job money). It's do able if you want to make the sacrifices.
And for some of that time (from 20) I had moved out of my parents home, house share with some friends.
I think as a multiplier property is probably more expensive now, however interest isn't 9% like it was when I bought so I think that balances out.
Is it really as bad as we all make out (affordability).
I've had the conversations many times with young people at work who say 'it's alright for you'.
However they seem a bit shocked when I say that I bought my first house at 24, however from 18-24 I worked not only in an office during the day but 5, sometimes 6 nights a week in a bar to save up, sometimes I used to Labour for my builder uncle as well. I either didn't have a car or the while I did I'd usually spent about £250 on one with as long an MOT as possible, my one luxury was a season ticket.......how sad!!
On today's minimum wage that bar job would net around £30k in savings (assuming you saved all the bar job money). It's do able if you want to make the sacrifices.
And for some of that time (from 20) I had moved out of my parents home, house share with some friends.
I think as a multiplier property is probably more expensive now, however interest isn't 9% like it was when I bought so I think that balances out.
Don't really agree that it's the same today.
I saved for a deposit on my first house and arranged for a mortgage in 1983. But it was over a year before I actually moved in and by that time I didn't need the mortgage anyway. I'd more or less saved enough to pay outright. (Admittedly I was not paying rent for that year).
Oh - and I took the mortgage anyway and put it in a savings account. MIRAS tax relief meant it was almost profitable to have a mortgage you didn't need! Sold up for well over twice the original value seven years later.
There are probably as many unscrupulous landlords as there are unscrupulous tenants - and both are a minority. Landlords can't just turf people out. Admin fees for new tenants are now outlawed. Landlords don't hold the deposits, they have to be held in a separate insured scheme, so they can't 'run off with them' - the tenant will have the landlord's address on their tenancy, so they know where they are, and the tenancy deposit scheme arbitrates regarding deposit return at the end of a tenancy and they give the money back to the tenant/to the landlord to cover proven disrepair caused by the tenant, as appropriate. Your imaginary single mum working 2 jobs in your example is expecting the council to move her, which may or may not be the council's responsibility; she should ring Shelter where advice is free regarding her legal rights, or Refuge if she needs to move immediately to a place of safety. Her landlord can't kick her out because the locks are broken because landlords can't post notice to evict or terminate a tenancy if the tenant has just requested a repair. The 'better legal team' that you think the landlord has access to will just advise the landlord that they can't behave the way you're suggesting they do. Things have moved on a bit since the 1960s...
1) You are entirely correct, they are the minority in both cases as tenant or landlord. However, landlords have the upper hand in that they are able to discriminate against tenants they believe to be trouble on the basis of their background or employment status (even if this is mandated by the insurer). Tenants do not have the same luxury of vetting their landlord and even if they did I imagine many are quite happy initially taking that risk because they want the property that badly. Due to the sheer volume of demand in London and the South East the ball is very much in the landlord's court in this regard.
2) The legal protections you have outlined are great and these do seem to be getting better, however this doesn't stop the horror stories that I read about on a daily basis. At the end of the day, the landlord holds the balance of power - he will generally have better legal advice and he has the ability to make the tenants' lives a living hell. There are few things scarier than losing the peace of mind of having security in your own home. My scenario may have been an example but it is by no means imaginary, thanks to the lack of social housing and the lack of resources for the local authorities to investigate each and every allegation of domestic violence or other safety issues appropriately, this and similar scenarios are reality. If the tenant knew exactly their legal rights then they might stand a chance, so education on this regard needs to be better. At the same time, if you think lawyers work for the law as opposed to their clients, I refer you to the case of Phil Shiner.
I'm not on some landlord witch-hunt here. I agree with you that this is only a minority of landlords who behave in this way, and as you have pointed out, the law is strong enough, so it looks like enforcement is the real problem here.
I am still entirely opposed to residential property as an investment vehicle though.
Then again back in the 60's it took my parents about 5 years to save plus I think you had to have been saving with the building society for a few years to be eligible for a mortgage!!
All different through the years but I still think for a lot of working people if you make sacrifices you can do it. Oh yer, forgot MIRAS, although one of the things labour took away in the late 90's.
Then again back in the 60's it took my parents about 5 years to save plus I think you had to have been saving with the building society for a few years to be eligible for a mortgage!!
All different through the years but I still think for a lot of working people if you make sacrifices you can do it. Oh yer, forgot MIRAS, although one of the things labour took away in the late 90's.
By the time Labour abolished MIRAS it was already as good as dead with cut after cut under the Tories.
The masses are going to rebel over housing sooner or later. The politician who can represent their grievances will find him/herself kneeling in front of the queen.
The masses are going to rebel over housing sooner or later. The politician who can represent their grievances will find him/herself kneeling in front of the queen.
All politicians and governments pay lip service to the problem but nothing really ever changes.
1,000,000 new homes by 2020 is the latest nonsense being spouted which everyone including those who build homes are saying is at best highly optimistic and at worst just another lie.
The big five building companies are sitting on acres of land, enough to build 25% of that target but who actually thinks that they will free up that for affordable homes when all they want is to maximise profits.
Political will. Make it that properties not lived in have to pay 10 times regular council tax. It would soon alter the economics around hoarding homes.
Political will. Make it that properties not lived in have to pay 10 times regular council tax. It would soon alter the economics around hoarding homes.
There are a number of things I would want to see the government do that ultimately, is interfering in the free market so will never happen and I'm probably looking at it too simplistically, so what in my head is a good idea, wouldn't work in practice.
Basically I'm 110% with @Fiiish on this subject. I agree with pretty much everything he's written, particularly the bit about property not be used as an investment vexhicle. However I know that viewpoint would not be welcome by a number of people
Political will. Make it that properties not lived in have to pay 10 times regular council tax. It would soon alter the economics around hoarding homes.
There are a number of things I would want to see the government do that ultimately, is interfering in the free market so will never happen and I'm probably looking at it too simplistically, so what in my head is a good idea, wouldn't work in practice.
Basically I'm 110% with @Fiiish on this subject. I agree with pretty much everything he's written, particularly the bit about property not be used as an investment vexhicle. However I know that viewpoint would not be welcome by a number of people
Mainly people that think human misery is a price worth paying for guaranteed returns of 15% and upwards on their investment, as long as they already have access to millions of pounds of capital to spunk on scarce property.
I don't doubt that if someone could generate that kind of investment return on a product that actually directly causes the death of other Brits in realtime, there would be people lining up to invest (and I'm sure some of our members here believe such an investment vehicle already exists).
Political will. Make it that properties not lived in have to pay 10 times regular council tax. It would soon alter the economics around hoarding homes.
There are a number of things I would want to see the government do that ultimately, is interfering in the free market so will never happen and I'm probably looking at it too simplistically, so what in my head is a good idea, wouldn't work in practice.
Basically I'm 110% with @Fiiish on this subject. I agree with pretty much everything he's written, particularly the bit about property not be used as an investment vexhicle. However I know that viewpoint would not be welcome by a number of people
How is taxing empty property interfering in the free market any more than taxing booze and fags? This is a simple policy, easy to administer. You get up to 6 months to refurbish an empty property (as is allowed under council tax now). After that, you start paying 10 times council tax. Obviously this would have to be on a region by region basis as there really are places up north no one will live. But there's no excuse for hoarding homes in areas of high demand.
(edited to add) Councils wouldn't even need to buy a new computer system to administer it.
The masses are going to rebel over housing sooner or later. The politician who can represent their grievances will find him/herself kneeling in front of the queen.
All politicians and governments pay lip service to the problem but nothing really ever changes.
1,000,000 new homes by 2020 is the latest nonsense being spouted which everyone including those who build homes are saying is at best highly optimistic and at worst just another lie.
The big five building companies are sitting on acres of land, enough to build 25% of that target but who actually thinks that they will free up that for affordable homes when all they want is to maximise profits.
I agree with your cynicism. The cosy triangle of politicians, house builders and banks have too much to gain from the current system to want any real change but that doesn't magic away the (justified) anger of those who've lost out and they're a huge voter bloc.
Political will. Make it that properties not lived in have to pay 10 times regular council tax. It would soon alter the economics around hoarding homes.
There are a number of things I would want to see the government do that ultimately, is interfering in the free market so will never happen and I'm probably looking at it too simplistically, so what in my head is a good idea, wouldn't work in practice.
Basically I'm 110% with @Fiiish on this subject. I agree with pretty much everything he's written, particularly the bit about property not be used as an investment vexhicle. However I know that viewpoint would not be welcome by a number of people
How is taxing empty property interfering in the free market any more than taxing booze and fags? This is a simple policy, easy to administer. You get up to 6 months to refurbish an empty property (as is allowed under council tax now). After that, you start paying 10 times council tax. Obviously this would have to be on a region by region basis as there really are places up north no one will live. But there's no excuse for hoarding homes in areas of high demand.
(edited to add) Councils wouldn't even need to buy a new computer system to administer it.
Apologies Rananegra - My post was a continuation of yours rather than a direct reply. Your suggestion is one that I agree with. My point was that I think to redress the balance, the government must actually interfere and do things that people would probably take umbrage about, more far reaching than what you suggest
Comments
Yes, essentially the more desirable an area is to live in, the more expensive a property will be, but in London and the South East this has legitimately gotten ridiculous. House prices are not being spurred on simply because of demand, it is because of speculation and massive property & land conglomerates who want to take homes and land and transform them into flats, town houses, apartments, then sell them on for monstrous profit because they cut corners and use shabby construction. The Government and local authorities have a responsibility to sling out bad practices such as these. To these developers, they are assets, but to normal people they are homes, they are where they start families, raise their children and make memories. The homelessness rate in this country is scandalous considering how wealthy we are and how many vacant properties there are and this is linked with the property market and government housing policy.
There is a finite amount of land in this country and an even scarcer amount that is actually desirable to currently live on. Too bad within the last 100 years every last tract of this land has been bought up by the rich using debt leveraged against the next generation, then they pump up the prices and make a massive enough fortune to pay off the debt and still be multi-millionaires.
I was arguing with a spanner the other day about the proposed development around their ground. They were saying no one would buy properties next to the Den and the incinerator etc. But they will. Far eastern govts stop their citizens from speculating on property in their own backyard. The British govt is so desperate for "inward investment" that it welcomes them, especially as the accompanying infrastructure never gets built (much like the Surrey Canal Road station won't be unless TfL pay for it) guaranteeing developers even more profit .
Similarly, I cannot possibly comment on the all the different cities you listed as I do not know about their housing policies. However it is not just London that is affected by this, it is the whole of the South East. As I said before, desirability is a factor that will affected prices and these areas are desirable due to proximity to London and to the jobs, but I am strongly opposed to property being used and exploited to make monstrous profits at the expense of the wellbeing of those who live in those areas. In fact I am opposed to property as an investment vehicle altogether - like water, it is a finite resource with huge social implications and should not be left to the free market to decide who gets it.
it's already started in the middle east.
It's not necessarily that the landlords won't accept tenants on benefits, but that their building insurance specifically states that the property cannot be let to people on benefits. Ridiculous, of course, because why do the insurers think that someone on benefits is going to wreck the place when someone with an adequately-paid job won't, but that clause isn't the landlord's fault, it's the ignorance of the insurance.
And you can't be revenge-evicted; there are specific legal protections to stop that happening. And you can't have rent rises that are not specified in your rental agreement. If you're a good tenant - pay your rent on time and report repairs promptly, then the landlord isn't going to expect you to move after 6 months - they'll want to keep you, because changing tenants costs the landlord too, so if the landlord has a good tenant, they want to keep hold of them.
Secondly, the landlords. Plenty of unscrupulous ones out there who run off with deposits, and are quite happy to turf out people as often as possible since they can charge superfluous extortionate admin fees for new tenants. Plus do you think a single mum working two jobs in order to afford her rent as the council refuses to move her away from an abusive boyfriend has the time and money to find out her legal rights when a landlord threatens to kick her out because her locks are broken? Whereas the landlord will have access to far better legal team?
I've had the conversations many times with young people at work who say 'it's alright for you'.
However they seem a bit shocked when I say that I bought my first house at 24, however from 18-24 I worked not only in an office during the day but 5, sometimes 6 nights a week in a bar to save up, sometimes I used to Labour for my builder uncle as well. I either didn't have a car or the while I did I'd usually spent about £250 on one with as long an MOT as possible, my one luxury was a season ticket.......how sad!!
On today's minimum wage that bar job would net around £30k in savings (assuming you saved all the bar job money). It's do able if you want to make the sacrifices.
And for some of that time (from 20) I had moved out of my parents home, house share with some friends.
I think as a multiplier property is probably more expensive now, however interest isn't 9% like it was when I bought so I think that balances out.
I saved for a deposit on my first house and arranged for a mortgage in 1983. But it was over a year before I actually moved in and by that time I didn't need the mortgage anyway. I'd more or less saved enough to pay outright. (Admittedly I was not paying rent for that year).
Oh - and I took the mortgage anyway and put it in a savings account. MIRAS tax relief meant it was almost profitable to have a mortgage you didn't need! Sold up for well over twice the original value seven years later.
Those were the days!
2) The legal protections you have outlined are great and these do seem to be getting better, however this doesn't stop the horror stories that I read about on a daily basis. At the end of the day, the landlord holds the balance of power - he will generally have better legal advice and he has the ability to make the tenants' lives a living hell. There are few things scarier than losing the peace of mind of having security in your own home. My scenario may have been an example but it is by no means imaginary, thanks to the lack of social housing and the lack of resources for the local authorities to investigate each and every allegation of domestic violence or other safety issues appropriately, this and similar scenarios are reality. If the tenant knew exactly their legal rights then they might stand a chance, so education on this regard needs to be better. At the same time, if you think lawyers work for the law as opposed to their clients, I refer you to the case of Phil Shiner.
Also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904078
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38795177/revenge-eviction-law-not-working
I'm not on some landlord witch-hunt here. I agree with you that this is only a minority of landlords who behave in this way, and as you have pointed out, the law is strong enough, so it looks like enforcement is the real problem here.
I am still entirely opposed to residential property as an investment vehicle though.
Then again back in the 60's it took my parents about 5 years to save plus I think you had to have been saving with the building society for a few years to be eligible for a mortgage!!
All different through the years but I still think for a lot of working people if you make sacrifices you can do it.
Oh yer, forgot MIRAS, although one of the things labour took away in the late 90's.
1,000,000 new homes by 2020 is the latest nonsense being spouted which everyone including those who build homes are saying is at best highly optimistic and at worst just another lie.
The big five building companies are sitting on acres of land, enough to build 25% of that target but who actually thinks that they will free up that for affordable homes when all they want is to maximise profits.
Basically I'm 110% with @Fiiish on this subject. I agree with pretty much everything he's written, particularly the bit about property not be used as an investment vexhicle. However I know that viewpoint would not be welcome by a number of people
I don't doubt that if someone could generate that kind of investment return on a product that actually directly causes the death of other Brits in realtime, there would be people lining up to invest (and I'm sure some of our members here believe such an investment vehicle already exists).
(edited to add) Councils wouldn't even need to buy a new computer system to administer it.