Jump to content

Single woman buys narrowboat to get on property ladder


David Mack

Featured Posts

39 minutes ago, IanD said:

This is what happens when interest rates go up rapidly thanks to the Kwarteng/Truss fiasco; people locked in on fixed-rate mortgages (owners and landlords) are fine, new buyers are clobbered

Those locked in to long term fixed rates are fine. Those whose fix came to an end just after the Trussterfuck have already been clobbered.

My daughter's 2 year fix was due to end in November, but her lender had already offered her a new deal in August and she signed up to a 5 year fix at more than the previous rate, but a lot lower than current rates, before the September 'Fiscal event'. That proved to have been a wise decision!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

 

You speak as though this is a new thing? People have been renting their homes for decades, (centuries?), and, in the context of your questions, it seems to have worked reasonably well over the years.

 

Given the above, the problems you seem to be suggesting "could" happen, will already have happened, so you could do a bit of research and find out for yourself?

If you look at the simple statistic of property price v earnings you will find that the current situation has not happened in the last 100 years. The last time it was 8:1 was in about 1905. Before that it was even higher. 

 

It is impossible and pointless to predict the future but the trend is suggesting a return to pre Victorian times in this regard. In those days there was no state support. Now there is. One wonders going forward how it will deal with this problem. 

 

Graph 

 

https://www.schroders.com/en-gb/uk/individual/insights/what-174-years-of-data-tell-us-about-house-price-affordability-in-the-uk/

 

It is basically wrong for people to own more than one land based property. 

 

Legislation should be enacted to ensure this does not continue. It won't be because people in a position of influence all have loads of properties and do good money out of it. 

 

It is still wrong. 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/02/2023 at 12:22, doratheexplorer said:

And that root cause could be easily addressed with a direct wealth tax.  Of course, any politician advocating such a thing would be thoroughly vilified in the press and many, many people would obediently genuflect to that vilification, all the while telling themselves that they've made up their own minds.

A wealth tax would hit the likes of Rishi Sunak and others in the same boat, so it's not going to happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If you look at the simple statistic of property price v earnings you will find that the current situation has not happened in the last 100 years. The last time it was 8:1 was in about 1905. Before that it was even higher. 

 

It is impossible and pointless to predict the future but the trend is suggesting a return to pre Victorian times in this regard. In those days there was no state support. Now there is. One wonders going forward how it will deal with this problem. 

 

Graph 

 

https://www.schroders.com/en-gb/uk/individual/insights/what-174-years-of-data-tell-us-about-house-price-affordability-in-the-uk/

 

It is basically wrong for people to own more than one land based property. 

 

Legislation should be enacted to ensure this does not continue. It won't be because people in a position of influence all have loads of properties and do good money out of it. 

 

It is still wrong. 

 

 

It not not wrong. Its how the country works. Your socialist judgement is clouded by your lack of participation in buy to let.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a socialist ! 

 

I could participate in this scheme if I wanted to and the woman will have the option of buying her council flat at half price shortly but neither of those things will happen. This is because we both have some morals and completely disagree with these models. 

 

Fine to make money no problem but making money out of basic non negotiable needs? No thanks.

 

You are in danger of making unfounded judgements against people whose circumstances you are not privy to. 

 

Be careful doing this. 

To suggest someone is only against the BTL profits because they are not receiving any is either a joke or just being gratuitously offensive. 

 

I expect and hope it was the former ! :)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/02/2023 at 11:06, ditchcrawler said:

I think lots are interest only, not repayment. So in reality the owner is renting off the lender and reletting to the tenant 

folowing that logic, many owner occupiers are merely tenants of their lenders.

 

It is, of course, a ridiculous notion. At the end of the term, a lender of an interest only mortgage gets their money back, just like a lender of a repayment mortgage gets their  money back in a different way.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

It is basically wrong for people to own more than one land based property. 

 

Legislation should be enacted to ensure this does not continue.

 

 

So who or what, is going to own all the properties that people want/need to rent. Not everybody wants to own a property, and not everybody can afford to own a property, so there is obviously a demand for rental properties......

 

Your plan would mean no homes for all these people, thus making them homeless...

 

Yet another ridiculous notion to which you give no thought :( 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

So who or what, is going to own all the properties that people want/need to rent. Not everybody wants to own a property, and not everybody can afford to own a property, so there is obviously a demand for rental properties......

 

Your plan would mean no homes for all these people, thus making them homeless...

 

Yet another ridiculous notion to which you give no thought :( 

I don't agree with magnetman's original suggestion but it's not ridiculous.

 

If, as he suggests, legislation was enacted to prevent one person owning two or more properties, this would make no difference to the number of properties available - just to their ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

So who or what, is going to own all the properties that people want/need to rent. Not everybody wants to own a property, and not everybody can afford to own a property, so there is obviously a demand for rental properties......

 

Your plan would mean no homes for all these people, thus making them homeless...

 

Yet another ridiculous notion to which you give no thought :( 

 

 

I think the idea is that the council or the guvvermint should own the necessary stock of rental homes. 

 

Like in the good ol' days. Remember? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

 

So who or what, is going to own all the properties that people want/need to rent. Not everybody wants to own a property, and not everybody can afford to own a property, so there is obviously a demand for rental properties......

 

Your plan would mean no homes for all these people, thus making them homeless...

 

Yet another ridiculous notion to which you give no thought :( 

 

It isn't ridiculous at all. 

 

One of the obvious outcomes would be that property prices would be far cheaper in proportion to wages. 

 

Therefore more people would be able to afford to buy homes as they would not be competing against people who already own other property.

 

Are you saying that most people renting have no interest in owning their homes when they retire? People won't become homeless. The market would adapt to the demand. That's how economics works. 

 

What you say is a ridiculous suggestion, which you clearly have not thought through.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a world where only certified landlords could let out property. Bring back the mortgage tax relief but in return the landlord has to be thoroughly vetted and closely monitored.

I know there's nightmare tenant stories but we also have nightmare landlords. The problem tenants have nowadays is that they can be evicted from their home for no reason, as long as the correct procedures are followed. Tenants that complain about mould, damp, no heating, no hot water, etc will risk finding themselves on the street in a very short time frame.

I know many landlords are responsible and moral - we let out our house while we were living aboard and resolved any problems our tenants had as soon as practically possible. We also froze the rent during the whole of their tenancy because we appreciated the fact that they paid the rent on time every month and looked after the property.

Unfortunately the law doesn't stop unscrupulous landlords from behaving despicably to vulnerable people. 

There should be a legal framework to protect both landlords and tenants - individuals shouldn't be able to buy and let a house on a whim, imposing their own morality on other people's lives and responsible landlords should be able to get their house back quickly if the tenants stop paying their rent.

Sorry if I'm naive - maybe my solutions are simplistic but surely a road can be found that improves the current situation 

 

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

It isn't ridiculous at all. 

 

One of the obvious outcomes would be that property prices would be far cheaper in proportion to wages. 

 

Therefore more people would be able to afford to buy homes as they would not be competing against people who already own other property.

 

Are you saying that most people renting have no interest in owning their homes when they retire? People won't become homeless. The market would adapt to the demand. That's how economics works. 

 

What you say is a ridiculous suggestion, which you clearly have not thought through.

 

 

I remember Gibbo saying a house should never be an investment, it's somewhere to keep out the snow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

I think the idea is that the council or the guvvermint should own the necessary stock of rental homes. 

 

Like in the good ol' days. Remember? 

 

 

Hell, no, that's communism!   

 

The councils couldn't wait to off load their housing stock, repairs and the bad tenants were causing problems. Putting them into private ownership made the tenants respect their property more.

They only came onto the buy to let market because the original  tenants who became owners took the profit and moved up market once they had had a taste of better living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

I think the idea is that the council or the guvvermint should own the necessary stock of rental homes. 

 

Like in the good ol' days. Remember? 

 

 

Aha! I have no problem with that.

 

It could start with government building the 300,000 homes a year that they keep promising, but failing to deliver. That would keep them busy for a decade or so.

 

Like I said..... its a ridiculous notion :)

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Hell, no, that's communism!   

 

Shhhhh I know! 

 

I was playing to the (small) crowd here of raving loonie hard left nutjobs in here by saying that. 

 

Let's hope they don't notice me posting this, or they might suss out I'm not one of them....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, magnetman said:

I'm not a socialist ! 

 

I could participate in this scheme if I wanted to and the woman will have the option of buying her council flat at half price shortly but neither of those things will happen. This is because we both have some morals and completely disagree with these models. 

 

Fine to make money no problem but making money out of basic non negotiable needs? No thanks.

 

You are in danger of making unfounded judgements against people whose circumstances you are not privy to. 

 

Be careful doing this. 

To suggest someone is only against the BTL profits because they are not receiving any is either a joke or just being gratuitously offensive. 

 

I expect and hope it was the former ! :)

I never said you were a socialist but that  your judgment was socialist in its outlook. Wind your neck back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bother using the words "your socialist judgment" then? I don't have a socialist judgment. 

 

I see you didn't use a capital S so I do get what you meant now but you did use an unnecessary word. 

 

It has nothing whatever to do with socialism or any other -isms. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not making a political statement. 

 

It makes logical sense for affordability of  a home not to be be increased by others who already have homes outbidding potential purchasers. 

 

This is what is happening. This will lead to negative outcomes. 

 

I don't care about the politics of it at all. 

 

Having a home is a human right. 

 

Okay let's not legislate to ban multiple property ownership let's legislate to force landlords to reduce rent according to their tenants' means and allow them a full life tenancy. By law. 

 

Landlords are there to help after all so won't object to this provision of homes at all. 

 

This would go down like a lead balloon because the motive is profit NOT provision of housing stock. 

 

It's so obvious !!

 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Having a home is a human right. 

 

 

How do you work that one out?!

 

Yes its something a civilised society should make sure everyone has access to, but I struggle with the concept of 'human rights' unless coupled up with a corresponding 'human responsibilities'. 

 

Ever since I was evicted from my residential mooring by a council claiming to be doing it for my own good, to save me "having to live in the conditions of squalor that must exist on a boat", to quote my local councillor at the time. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Okay let's not legislate to ban multiple property ownership let's legislate to force landlords to reduce rent according to their tenants' means and allow them a full life tenancy. By law. 

 

 

I think you must be living on a different planet to the rest (most) of us.

 

So a tenant is a single mother, unemployed, has an expensive drug habit 5 children and no income apart from Government handouts - you are saying that it should be a law that a private landlord must provide this person with a house at (probably) zero rent (as that is all they can afford) for life, irrespective of how they treat the owners' house, & the owner should maintain it and repair it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I think you must be living on a different planet to the rest (most) of us.

 

So a tenant is a single mother, unemployed, has an expensive drug habit 5 children and no income apart from Government handouts - you are saying that it should be a law that a private landlord must provide this person with a house at (probably) zero rent (as that is all they can afford) for life, irrespective of how they treat the owners' house, & the owner should maintain it and repair it ?

 

With five kids surely the Housing Benefit would fund her renting a four bedroom house?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

With five kids surely the Housing Benefit would fund her renting a four bedroom house?

 

 

Yes the taxpayer pays.  But it won't fund an expensive drugs habit and provide for the children. I suspect they will end up in less than ideal circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I think you must be living on a different planet to the rest (most) of us.

 

So a tenant is a single mother, unemployed, has an expensive drug habit 5 children and no income apart from Government handouts - you are saying that it should be a law that a private landlord must provide this person with a house at (probably) zero rent (as that is all they can afford) for life, irrespective of how they treat the owners' house, & the owner should maintain it and repair it ?

Can you not see that social problems like that will just get worse and worse as housing costs go up?  

 

Housing is a basic need. You really can't do much without it. Some people are suggesting that ownership of property you do not need is some sort of good deed by the landlord. No it isn't. All it is is hoarding of a basic need. 

 

You can't do this. It is a basic problem for a society if this happens. 

 

I know you hate the smackhead mother with 5 kids but have you considered why she exists in the first place? 

 

Do you think this is something which somebody would actually choose ? 

 

The whole thing is screwed and yes I do live on another planet. It is B-612 as shown in my profile. 

 

Edited by magnetman
Edit to remove
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

yes I do live on another planet. It is B-612 as shown in my profile. 

 

 

Hence the question !

 

I was thinking about this book recently. About B612 - the name of the asteroid the little prince lives on – his home “planet”. Suddenly, out of the blue, came this idea. Could this be a possible meaning of B612:

F is the 6th letter of the alphabet.
A is the 1st letter of the alphabet.
B is the 2nd letter of the alphabet.

612 = fab.......B612 = B fab.......
B fab = Be fabulous.......
B612 = Be fabulous

Perhaps “Be fabulous” is one of the messages in this wonderful, heart-warming book to all of us?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.