Lockdown ? What Lockdown?

[mrsmelly]

10 hours ago, MHS said:

Sadly if your wish comes true and prices crash, you will leave many hardworking families in negative equity. What about younger people who have managed  to buy their first home? How would you then help them?

Its a mess. As for negative equity there is no such thing. Example, one of my kids paid 109k for her flat in 2007 its now probably worth 90k in todays market. She has paid off 13 years of her mortgage which has by the way come down over the years. So as she is keeping on paying it off then she will own the property at the end of the arranged mortgage term. She wants to sell at the moment and has accepted that if she sells she will get less for it than she paid for it ( she is still going to sell ) much like much stuff goes down in value over the years. She has had a roof over her head for those 13 years after all. So she does have a choice in sell and get less or stay put and pay the mortgage off. Its a home not an investment after all.

[Ex Brummie]

The main difference between home ownership/rental between the 60's and early 70's and later dates is that peoples expectations of life have significantly changed.

The 'baby boomers' who are now seen as pariahs were happy to invest in a home at the expense of cars, foreign holidays, nights out at clubs, meals out, achange of wardrobe every month etc.

They did not live on credit, only spending what they had, and saved for new stuff rather than end up paying instalments for stuff they have long got fed up of. I understand the gripe of renters who complain they are buying someone else's house, but any investment is not without risk. It is this attitude to house purchase that left prospective purchasers with having to find a much bigger deposit, and saw the assimilation of Building Societies into the general banking industry, and we all know their priorities.

 As someone who serviced a lot of property in the course of my work, I understand the fragile relationship between landlord and tenant, where each wants as much as they can get for as little cost. In probably 80% of tenancies, there is an easy balance, but it only takes a small number of bad tenants to negate the profits of an investment. Legislation has made property rental a less attractive proposition and is heavily loaded in the tenants favour. As usual there are many agencies who milk the situation for a slice of the profits and impose excessive costs to tenants for precious little constructive input and no acceptance of any responsibility.These are more to be reviled than the landlord.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Ex Brummie

[Parahandy]

7 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

The main difference between home ownership/rental between the 60's and early 70's and later dates is that peoples expectations of life have significantly changed.

The 'baby boomers' who are now seen as pariahs were happy to invest in a home at the expense of cars, foreign holidays, nights out at clubs, meals out, achange of wardrobe every month etc.

They did not live on credit, only spending what they had, and saved for new stuff rather than end up paying instalments for stuff they have long got fed up of. I understand the gripe of renters who complain they are buying someone else's house, but any investment is not without risk. It is this attitude to house purchase that left prospective purchasers with having to find a much bigger deposit, and saw the assimilation of Building Societies into the general banking industry, and we all know their priorities.

 As someone who serviced a lot of property in the course of my work, I understand the fragile relationship between landlord and tenant, where each wants as much as they can get for as little cost. In probably 80% of tenancies, there is an easy balance, but it only takes a small number of bad tenants to negate the profits of an investment. Legislation has made property rental a less attractive proposition and is heavily loaded in the tenants favour. As usual there are many agencies who milk the situation for a slice of the profits and impose excessive costs to tenants for precious little constructive input and no acceptance of any responsibility.These are more to be reviled than the landlord.

I think we eventually get back to the paucity of Social House Building and sadly its been the same story no matter which Government is in Power . I had hoped with low interest rates the present Government would take the advice of Economists like Jim O,Neill and embark on these large definitive once in a lifetime projects such as replenishing  Social Housing  Stock .

Poor Pension provision has been another driver of this Private Landlord Explosion and I dont think you can bear any ill will to someone who has been left a Home by his Parents and decides to rent it out rather than sell it , likewise someone who buys a Boat for Social Housing rather than Cruising .

[Athy]

16 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

As usual there are many agencies who milk the situation for a slice of the profits and impose excessive costs to tenants for precious little constructive input and no acceptance of any responsibility.These are more to be reviled than the landlord.

...and others who, for a reasonable fee, manage properties efficiently and fairly, and who are not to be reviled in the slightest. Fortunately ours (Hudson's of Thetford) falls into this category.

[Parahandy]

34 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Its a mess. As for negative equity there is no such thing. Example, one of my kids paid 109k for her flat in 2007 its now probably worth 90k in todays market. She has paid off 13 years of her mortgage which has by the way come down over the years. So as she is keeping on paying it off then she will own the property at the end of the arranged mortgage term. She wants to sell at the moment and has accepted that if she sells she will get less for it than she paid for it ( she is still going to sell ) much like much stuff goes down in value over the years. She has had a roof over her head for those 13 years after all. So she does have a choice in sell and get less or stay put and pay the mortgage off. Its a home not an investment after all.

I dont strictly agree with that Tim , whats the problem with property being an Investment ?

[Parahandy]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

...and others who, for a reasonable fee, manage properties efficiently and fairly, and who are not to be reviled in the slightest. Fortunately ours (Hudson's of Thetford) falls into this category.

Ahhh the rural backwater variety ? Doubtless these good Agents are still out there . My sister is responsible for rental property for American Servicemen and Women at Mildenhall and Lakenheath ensuring that property is up to the required standard and handed back to the Agents in the proper condition after the Rental Period is over . I suspect these Agents such as Hudsons have made a good living over the Years and as you say have provided good service .

[mrsmelly]

22 minutes ago, Parahandy said:

I dont strictly agree with that Tim , whats the problem with property being an Investment ?

Not many people do agree with it. Just my opinion old bean  The problem is houses are homes for the majority not investments for the few.  Whilst ever people with disposable incomes keep buying them up then they creep upwards and onwards away from working people on low wages. There is a programme on daily showing people with spare cash buying up terraced proerties and what they call " Adding Value " in other words forcing the price ever upwards. Those people then take rent from the less fortunate and so the cycle escalates. Its very true to say that people like estate agents could never be NHS staff, a different outlook on life entirely. I know of course that it takes all kinds ?

[Parahandy]

25 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Not many people do agree with it. Just my opinion old bean  The problem is houses are homes for the majority not investments for the few.  Whilst ever people with disposable incomes keep buying them up then they creep upwards and onwards away from working people on low wages. There is a programme on daily showing people with spare cash buying up terraced proerties and what they call " Adding Value " in other words forcing the price ever upwards. Those people then take rent from the less fortunate and so the cycle escalates. Its very true to say that people like estate agents could never be NHS staff, a different outlook on life entirely. I know of course that it takes all kinds ?

Ive no time for Estate Agents , they are little more than corrupt Parasites in my experience .

[mark99]

34 minutes ago, Parahandy said:

Ive no time for Estate Agents , they are little more than corrupt Parasites in my experience .

 

 

I'm tempted to agree. But I have met one or two independants who were very professional.

[Richard10002]

10 hours ago, frahkn said:

I am retired and my mortgage is paid so perhaps my view is biased. I simply have never understood "negative equity"; every house I have bought has been for my family to live in. If the house is worth less than the outstanding mortgage, so what, I'm not paying more and it doesn't affect the property (e.g. the roof won't leak as a result of the negativeness). I'll have a smaller deposit if I have to move but presumably I'm in a falling market so I'll need less.

 

Your shelter should not be treated as an investment, whatever the current state of the market. Also "hardworking families" has become a political term with very little real meaning, unless we also assume that there are "dossing families" who deserve what they get.

You are right!

 

Nobody "loses" any money until they sell their house at a time when the "loss" is crystallised. In the same way, nobody "makes" any money until they sell.

 

During the periods when a house is worth less than the mortgage owed, most people don't need to sell, don't need to raise any money, don't need to change mortgage provider, and so on. Time is usually a great healer in the property market and, unless something changes, once enough time has gone by, positive equity returns.

 

I agree that it is a real thing for anybody who is "forced" to either sell, or remortgage.

 

I often met with people who thought they needed to sell their home due to negative equity, and generally talked myself out of a possible job by finding a way for them to wait until the market improved.

 

I think the media create, or promote, some terms for their own benefit, and harp on about them at every opportunity, in order to sell their product, (not always a newspaper these days).

 

Having said that, I think "hard working families" was a political creation.

[Machpoint005]

15 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

there are billions of people still alive that were around in the 1970s.

 

Given that many of the billions of world population are in less developed countries, with low life expectancies, I rather doubt that. 

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Not many people do agree with it. Just my opinion old bean  The problem is houses are homes for the majority not investments for the few.  Whilst ever people with disposable incomes keep buying them up then they creep upwards and onwards away from working people on low wages. There is a programme on daily showing people with spare cash buying up terraced proerties and what they call " Adding Value " in other words forcing the price ever upwards. Those people then take rent from the less fortunate and so the cycle escalates. Its very true to say that people like estate agents could never be NHS staff, a different outlook on life entirely. I know of course that it takes all kinds ?

You keep ignoring the fact that every rental property is a home. Without the Private Rented Sector, all of those people would have no home - you have already agreed that no government is going to provide for them. 

 

So what are you going to do for all these people when you have got rid of all the landlords?

 

Recent government action has resulted in quite a few landlords selling up and leaving the business. This has meant fewer properties available to rent and, GUESS WHAT??? rents have increased.

 

If you truly wanted rents to be cheaper, you would be championing the rental landlord, and urging something to be done to make more rental properties available. Instead, you would like their to be fewer, and for them to suffer - the actual consequence of this desire, would be to screw the very people you seem to want to help.

 

 

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

You keep ignoring the fact that every rental property is a home. Without the Private Rented Sector, all of those people would have no home - you have already agreed that no government is going to provide for them. 

 

So what are you going to do for all these people when you have got rid of all the landlords?

 

Recent government action has resulted in quite a few landlords selling up and leaving the business. This has meant fewer properties available to rent and, GUESS WHAT??? rents have increased.

 

If you truly wanted rents to be cheaper, you would be championing the rental landlord, and urging something to be done to make more rental properties available. Instead, you would like their to be fewer, and for them to suffer - the actual consequence of this desire, would be to screw the very people you seem to want to help.

 

 

If the private landlords have sold up and left the business who is living in those houses? I spose they are just bought by another landlord wanting to make a fast buck. We need councils to provide housing as they do in some areas at a decent affordable price. It will not happen as Maggie made a huge blunder when she sold off council stock years ago. That has been further compounded by succesive governments of all flavours failing to build many more properties so as to bring property prices down. There are too many people like yourself who want property to remain expensive to make easy money so it will not happen. After covid I sincerely hope there is a massive property crash as it will benefit youngsters further down the line. This will have a knock on effect and reduce boat prices also, another good thing so people who wish to live on a boat can afford one without huge debt.  You and I have had it easy when we bought they just doubled in price for doing nowt ( houses ) this has brought us to where we are for youngsters. Look what you paid way back as a percentage of your income and what they have to do now.

[Athy]

7 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

If the private landlords have sold up and left the business who is living in those houses? I spose they are just bought by another landlord wanting to make a fast buck.

Or "making a prudent investment which will provide a steady income for them and their families", as it is also known.

[Machpoint005]

Regardless of whether they are social housing, buy-to-rent, or buy to live in, the reason why house prices have rocketed is that there are not enough of them. The big housebuilders are sitting on huge land banks but will not build houses/flats on them because they do not want to affect their own bottom lines.

 

Build enough houses, and rents and selling prices will fall as sure as night follows day.

 

 

 

[mrsmelly]

27 minutes ago, Athy said:

Or "making a prudent investment which will provide a steady income for them and their families", as it is also known.

Yes, but at the expense of less fortunate families who havnt the income to buy their own and have to rent at silly prices to keep the fortunate in more money.

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Regardless of whether they are social housing, buy-to-rent, or buy to live in, the reason why house prices have rocketed is that there are not enough of them.

Or, the other way of looking at it is that that the birth rate and number of 'incomers' is growing by more than the death rate.

 

You can either say "too few houses" or the "population is too big".

 

I'd actually go with the latter - it is not just the number of houses, but the capacity of sewage works, schools, Doctors surgeries, Hospitals etc etc that are problems.

 

 

[Athy]

12 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Yes, but at the expense of less fortunate families who havnt the income to buy their own and have to rent at silly prices to keep the fortunate in more money.

Or, "Providing reasonably priced rental homes for people", as it is also known.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Athy

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Or, "Providing reasonably priced rental homes for people", as it is also known.

If only!! Reasonably priced? not even in Yorkshire let alone daarrnn saarrfff. As a percentage of income rentals are getting worse and worse. Its not the fault of anybody in particular, more a problem among many others in society.

[Phil.]

20 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Thanks Ian, you are right and yes Ive taken solicitors advice. There is much to it and one thing is that we cannot be forced to sell it quickly nor to hang on to it. What I mean is that I will not be trying to eek every last penny out of it and playing cricket with offer and counter offer. It will be marketed at a price to sell to those with money rather than in a bloody chain. someone who can actualy afford to but it and improve it thus avoiding tyre kickers. In short someone will get it for bottom value and good luck to them, we will however not be mugging it away as we dont need to sell it at all realy but it has to go sometime as non of us want it. Im just miffed that I am sat in it and not on my boat ? It needs much doing to it and even though is valued at 225k before this recent event anyway so I intend flogging it at say 180 to cut out the eejuts and twoing and froing with offers and such nonsense.

A hundred and eighty quid, I will buy it now. I tell you what, I won’t even split hairs with you, I’ll buy it unseen, without survey, and throw in you legal expenses.

[George and Dragon]

11 hours ago, frahkn said:

If the house is worth less than the outstanding mortgage, so what, I'm not paying more and it doesn't affect the property (e.g. the roof won't leak as a result of the negativeness). I'll have a smaller deposit if I have to move but presumably I'm in a falling market so I'll need less.

 

The house being worth less than the outstanding mortgage makes it impossible to sell unless you have other means to cover the shortfall. You won't have a deposit for your next house either.

 

Not that I like the overinflated housing market but we are where we are.

[mrsmelly]

23 minutes ago, Phil. said:

A hundred and eighty quid, I will buy it now. I tell you what, I won’t even split hairs with you, I’ll buy it unseen, without survey, and throw in you legal expenses.

Your all heart innitt ?

[frahkn]

58 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Or, the other way of looking at it is that that the birth rate and number of 'incomers' is growing by more than the death rate.

 

You can either say "too few houses" or the "population is too big".

 

I'd actually go with the latter - it is not just the number of houses, but the capacity of sewage works, schools, Doctors surgeries, Hospitals etc etc that are problems.

 

 

I suppose that on average people have more than two children whereas, on average, they don't have more than one house. The inevitable result is that more houses are always required.

[Cheshire cat]

33 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

The house being worth less than the outstanding mortgage makes it impossible to sell unless you have other means to cover the shortfall. You won't have a deposit for your next house either.

 

Not that I like the overinflated housing market but we are where we are.

At least the mortgage lenders haven't been offering 110% - 120% mortgages recently in the expectation that price inflation would take care of it. 

 

It's really only a big issue for couples who are on their first purchase. Everyone else should have some capital in their property but if you are just starting out you might have scraped together a 10% deposit  and could easily be looking at that being wiped out if you are forced to move to find work. Back to square one in effect.

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Or, the other way of looking at it is that that the birth rate and number of 'incomers' is growing by more than the death rate.

 

You can either say "too few houses" or the "population is too big".

 

I'd actually go with the latter - it is not just the number of houses, but the capacity of sewage works, schools, Doctors surgeries, Hospitals etc etc that are problems.

 

 

That's an interesting view. I have no idea but wonder what is happening in Japan, given their declining population.

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

Amen to the above.

 

What gets up my nose is the use of the word 'property' to describe bricks and mortar.

Property implies, to my mind at least, a commodity that can be bought or sold in a market for profit or loss.

 

But what we are talking about here are people's homes, their place of safety, of rest at the end of a day, their safe place.

NOT something to be traded for profit by a third party.

The trouble is that I have never heard of anyone being prepared to sell their home for what they paid for it plus CPI - housing has generally risen faster. Instead they hang out for the best possible price.

 

Some people here either do not have pension provision that has a significant property component or realise just how much of their 'conventional' pension is equally dependent. I doubt that anyone who has a pension is not in some way benefiting from property inflation.