An appropriate use of the Human Rights Act???????

[Diddy]

Haha..yeah I live about 20mins from Canterbury.

Lived in Canterbury for 13 years between 1990 and 2003. Worked all over kent and the dreaded London while down there. channel tunnel boy to start with lol....weren't we all ha ha.

 

[UNG]

Im torn on this. I have family in Canterbury, It is now more a university city than a tourism hotspot (although they still are a major tourism hotspot).
anyway in Canterbury during term time there are 40,000 students in the city. A huge percentage of ex council housing is now owned by BTL landlords who use these places as HMO - Subject to NO council tax. Same buyers get 1st dibs on most of the local houses of the "type" that meets the criteria. - Result property prices in that area are sky high for a "local" worker. These houses and their owners give zero back to the local economy and costs every council tax payer extra £££ on their bills to make up for the fact that so many thousand houses just don't "need" to pay for the services they happily share.
Then the tax relief on the interest part of the mortgage - Yes it's a hit that they are abandoning it - But I know a few property owners from Canterbury that who already make well over the mortgage repayments per month - My cousin is one. He bought his mothers house from his other siblings when she passed away. Here are the rough details
Property cost - £180k
Renovations - £10 k
He ended up with a mortgage of £140k - costs about £700 per month at the moment - He receives £1800 per month for 10 months per year. Not a bad return - AND its a repayment.
I do often wonder when I hear BTL landlords argue against more fee's ect (we all want to pay less to be fair) - But surely whatever type of mortgage you have at the end of the mortgage you will have a house bought and paid for by your tenants. Surely any cash one earns above the break even point must just be a brucie bonus so to speak ? Am i missing the point - Is it essential that prospective tenants not only pay the landlords mortgage but also pay them a nice bonus on top ?
Again I may well be missing the point by a mile.....At least they didn't bring in the other weeks members bill to enforce in law that landlords must supply housing fit for humans lol.

I see your one of the blinkered ones that believes the only cost of a BTL is the mortgage, a little bit more research needed on your part I think

Any that come on the canterbury local estate agents usually get "offered" to a certain few before being offered to the public. Another thing happening in Canterbury is that the council, due to huge local uprisings have now decided to enact some legislation that means any property that someone wants to convert to a HMO will need planning permission (think from jan this year) part of the planning thing is to ensure that hmo's don't number more than 10% of properties within a 100 meter range. Things are changing down there due to the pressure that all these students have placed on the council.....tough one because the students in their sheer numbers do obviously contribute to the economy.
Planning permission has already been given to a couple of 500 bed purpose built properties in a pfi style thing going on between the universities and a couple of large builders.....Still doesn't help the council though.

A lot of the problem with HMO's is that every council throughout the country has different rules regarding licencing and a lot of HMO's are created to be under the room limit before a licence is needed therefore it can go on under the radar and swamp the local community.
I think all HMO's should be licenced if only to set a safe and livable standard as some I have seen are in a very poor condition and the landlords appear to have very little regard for their tenants welfare

 

[Gavin A]

I welcome pretty much anything that puts the brakes on the runaway btl market, which is almost entirely responsible for the vast increases in house prices over the last couple of decades, way ahead of rises in pay levels.

This graph shows the scale of the BTL problem, which is massively exacerbating the issue of low rates of house building.

It shows the ownership of new build properties built since 2000, with the vast majority going into BTL. 2.5 million new build properties gone as btl means 2.5 million less people able to buy their own properties, and 2.5 million more people who're therefore stuck as renters because ultimately the BTL market was driving prices way beyond the reach of those who ought to have been buying the properties.

This is obviously going to impact on those who've come into that market as landlords for whatever reason, but the current situation is completely unsustainable. We're now heading back towards Victorian levels of private rented housing which really isn't a positive thing for society.

I suspect Osbourne's not really realised what he's doing here, but I don't see that it's the government's role to maintain a situation that has created huge housing bubbles and a vast increase in the proportion of housing sold that's going into the private rented sector. Those affected should probably sell up, move on and be glad of the years of extra income they did get out of it.

I can see this potentially leading to the market being flooded with houses and prices crashing, which probably isn't great economically, but really would just be deflating the massive housing bubble and putting housing back on to the historic ratio of house prices to income.

 

[UNG]

I welcome pretty much anything that puts the brakes on the runaway btl market, which is almost entirely responsible for the vast increases in house prices over the last couple of decades, way ahead of rises in pay levels.

This graph shows the scale of the BTL problem, which is massively exacerbating the issue of low rates of house building.

It shows the ownership of new build properties built since 2000, with the vast majority going into BTL. 2.5 million new build properties gone as btl means 2.5 million less people able to buy their own properties, and 2.5 million more people who're therefore stuck as renters because ultimately the BTL market was driving prices way beyond the reach of those who ought to have been buying the properties.

This is obviously going to impact on those who've come into that market as landlords for whatever reason, but the current situation is completely unsustainable. We're now heading back towards Victorian levels of private rented housing which really isn't a positive thing for society.

I suspect Osbourne's not really realised what he's doing here, but I don't see that it's the government's role to maintain a situation that has created huge housing bubbles and a vast increase in the proportion of housing sold that's going into the private rented sector. Those affected should probably sell up, move on and be glad of the years of extra income they did get out of it.

I can see this potentially leading to the market being flooded with houses and prices crashing, which probably isn't great economically, but really would just be deflating the massive housing bubble and putting housing back on to the historic ratio of house prices to income.

I think you need to analyse your data a bit more before you post which appears a bit misinformed and misleading.
The legislation that is being challenged does not impact all the of the BTL investor market only the smaller investors yet your wide ranging facts do not highlight or detail this
As with all markets supply and demand is the big driver and the BTL market is no different to any other where speculation is involved, although house prices are not only driven by the BTL market there are other factors such as good schools, employment, access to public transport for commuting, people wanting second homes driving small investors out of the market ain't going to fix the problem of people needing some where to live
The house price to income graph IMO is meaningless unless you consider how the levels of disposable income have changed it is not uncommon now to find young people paying £40 - £50 a month on a must have latest mobile phone and needing their 2 weeks in the sun every year and if they have a car they are no doubt paying a small fortune for insurance which was not the case when I first started driving saving for a deposit is the last thing they are thinking about
Your comment
2.5 million new build properties gone as btl means 2.5 million less people able to buy their own properties, and 2.5 million more people who're therefore stuck as renters because ultimately the BTL market was driving prices way beyond the reach of those who ought to have been buying the properties.
Implies that all these properties where built by small investors and makes no reference to the types of property being built and whether they were suitable for or in areas where those people wanting to buy would buy, really just another case of poor stats distorting the reality

 

[sean_ork]

At least they didn't bring in the other weeks members bill to enforce in law that landlords must supply housing fit for humans lol.

Other than it costing landlords money, what were the arguments against this seemingly basic requirement ?

 

[Diddy]

I see your one of the blinkered ones that believes the only cost of a BTL is the mortgage, a little bit more research needed on your part I think


A lot of the problem with HMO's is that every council throughout the country has different rules regarding licencing and a lot of HMO's are created to be under the room limit before a licence is needed therefore it can go on under the radar and swamp the local community.
I think all HMO's should be licenced if only to set a safe and livable standard as some I have seen are in a very poor condition and the landlords appear to have very little regard for their tenants welfare

I know that ll's need to pay for upkeep, insurances, endowments, complying with legislation.....but with my Canterbury example the ll is still many £££ ahead...if we are seeing housing as solely an investment vehicle then the Canterbury situation is great. But on a personal level I think housing should be about the populace having a home. I do think governments should move to discourage the thought that housing is anything other than somewhere for people to live....This is just my opinion....This is not jealousy on my part because im old enough to have been born in a "good" time with regards to housing. I do realize that a certain amount of LL haters fall into the envious young bracket......But I do think they have a point.

 

[Diddy]

Other than it costing landlords money, what were the arguments against this seemingly basic requirement ?

No vote...It was "talked out" so never made it that far....A shameful system we have that allows such tactics....Used at various stages by all parties.
Here is a piece on the bill and what happened. Opinion: Why the 'Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill' shouldn't have been talked out » Housing » 24dash.com

 

[Gavin A]

I think you need to analyse your data a bit more before you post which appears a bit misinformed and misleading.
The legislation that is being challenged does not impact all the of the BTL investor market only the smaller investors yet your wide ranging facts do not highlight or detail this
As with all markets supply and demand is the big driver and the BTL market is no different to any other where speculation is involved, although house prices are not only driven by the BTL market there are other factors such as good schools, employment, access to public transport for commuting, people wanting second homes driving small investors out of the market ain't going to fix the problem of people needing some where to live
The house price to income graph IMO is meaningless unless you consider how the levels of disposable income have changed it is not uncommon now to find young people paying £40 - £50 a month on a must have latest mobile phone and needing their 2 weeks in the sun every year and if they have a car they are no doubt paying a small fortune for insurance which was not the case when I first started driving saving for a deposit is the last thing they are thinking about
Your comment
2.5 million new build properties gone as btl means 2.5 million less people able to buy their own properties, and 2.5 million more people who're therefore stuck as renters because ultimately the BTL market was driving prices way beyond the reach of those who ought to have been buying the properties.
Implies that all these properties where built by small investors and makes no reference to the types of property being built and whether they were suitable for or in areas where those people wanting to buy would buy, really just another case of poor stats distorting the reality

I can't be arsed to go into the details, but the big picture is pretty undeniable.

Vast swathes of UK housing has been bought up by BTL landlords which has pushed house prices up to levels at which it's unaffordable for a large proportion of the population to actually buy a house, particularly when they're having to spend the majority of their wages to pay the inflated rents on the private rented houses / flats they have no choice but to rent.

Or are you arguing that it's a coincidence that the rapid rise in the house price to earnings ratio to way above historic norms coincided with a huge expansion of the buy to let market? When BTL are taking such a big proportion of all houses that are on the market it's bound to have an impact on prices, that's just basic supply and demand economics.

 

[UNG]

I know that ll's need to pay for upkeep, insurances, endowments, complying with legislation.....but with my Canterbury example the ll is still many £££ ahead...if we are seeing housing as solely an investment vehicle then the Canterbury situation is great. But on a personal level I think housing should be about the populace having a home. I do think governments should move to discourage the thought that housing is anything other than somewhere for people to live....This is just my opinion....This is not jealousy on my part because im old enough to have been born in a "good" time with regards to housing. I do realize that a certain amount of LL haters fall into the envious young bracket......But I do think they have a point.

How do you know how many ££££'s ahead they are
The pension pushers in sharp suits are part of the proliferation of BTL. BTL has become a better pension investment in recent times with people seeing their pension funds eroded by large fund management charges and then smash and grab raids of Gordon Brown a few years ago adding to the pain.

 

[UNG]

I can't be arsed to go into the details, but the big picture is pretty undeniable.

A very good response to substantiate the p**s poor stats you posted so why carry on

Vast swathes of UK housing has been bought up by BTL landlords which has pushed house prices up to levels at which it's unaffordable for a large proportion of the population to actually buy a house, particularly when they're having to spend the majority of their wages to pay the inflated rents on the private rented houses / flats they have no choice but to rent.

Or are you arguing that it's a coincidence that the rapid rise in the house price to earnings ratio to way above historic norms coincided with a huge expansion of the buy to let market? When BTL are taking such a big proportion of all houses that are on the market it's bound to have an impact on prices, that's just basic supply and demand economics.

I think you really need to go away and look at the facts a little more in depth the small time BTL investor isn't the problem IMO it's the pension funds buying up "vast swathes of housing" as you put it or buying land to build rental only property to fund your pension

I know a few BTL landlords who buy dilapidated properties and refurb them some they sell on at a good profit some they keep for rental but it will be a good few years before they see a return on their investment the bottom line it is a business

I could argue that when FIT payments where at the 40p+ rates the solar pv industry ripped householders off with high equipment and install costs because once the FIT dropped the solar pv prices went rapidly south as well but that is a whole different argument on a similar theme