One of the real issue with demand for housing - particularly the smaller accommodation, is that very few people now feel inclined to take on a lodger. A massive number of single people used to 'lodge' but now feel it's necessary to find their own accommodation.
Lodging should be encouraged and the Government should raise the current £4,250 tax free theshold for this - a win win situation for landlord and lodger as far as I can see and a reduction in the demand for housing.
Nice idea in theory but as society becomes ever more warped and twisted the traditional widowed landlady for lodgers may feel vulnerable allowing strangers into her home.
I lodged once. Whilst studying down in Guildford. I hated every minute of it. He was high up in Hampshire Police, she was a Negligence solicitor. Not that their occupations have got anything to do with it, but the only DVD they owned was 'Cold Feet'. Cold Feet ffs. I also had a room on the 1st floor with an en-suite bathroom adjoining it. They had their own shower attached to their bedroom but one night decided to share a bath together, whilst I was in my room
They also decided that the bed sheets they gave me weren't being washed often enough so one Sunday upon my return I arrived back to a stripped bed and a mattress. He text me to tell me this but I was already on the train on the way down. I appreciate they were his bed sheets but I'm the one sleeping in them. It's not going to make a blind bit of difference if they don't get washed till I leave, and they probably weren't ever going to use them again anyway.
In conclusion I thought they were both tossers and I can honestly say it was a shit year in a house where the occupants owned a 'Cold Feet' DVD. I couldn't advocate lodging in anyway after that
Did you stain the sheets while they were in the shower together?
One of the real issue with demand for housing - particularly the smaller accommodation, is that very few people now feel inclined to take on a lodger. A massive number of single people used to 'lodge' but now feel it's necessary to find their own accommodation.
Lodging should be encouraged and the Government should raise the current £4,250 tax free theshold for this - a win win situation for landlord and lodger as far as I can see and a reduction in the demand for housing.
Nice idea in theory but as society becomes ever more warped and twisted the traditional widowed landlady for lodgers may feel vulnerable allowing strangers into her home.
I lodged once. Whilst studying down in Guildford. I hated every minute of it. He was high up in Hampshire Police, she was a Negligence solicitor. Not that their occupations have got anything to do with it, but the only DVD they owned was 'Cold Feet'. Cold Feet ffs. I also had a room on the 1st floor with an en-suite bathroom adjoining it. They had their own shower attached to their bedroom but one night decided to share a bath together, whilst I was in my room
They also decided that the bed sheets they gave me weren't being washed often enough so one Sunday upon my return I arrived back to a stripped bed and a mattress. He text me to tell me this but I was already on the train on the way down. I appreciate they were his bed sheets but I'm the one sleeping in them. It's not going to make a blind bit of difference if they don't get washed till I leave, and they probably weren't ever going to use them again anyway.
In conclusion I thought they were both tossers and I can honestly say it was a shit year in a house where the occupants owned a 'Cold Feet' DVD. I couldn't advocate lodging in anyway after that
Did you stain the sheets while they were in the shower together?
As with all these things, I don't understand the bit about landlords offseting their mortgage interest payments against their income and that being reduced to the basic rate of 20%. But it seems according to the commentary that neither party is happy, ie the landlord with one property that they have bought as an investment for their children, or it would seem the hapless renter who might be hit with increased rents.........
hypothetically what would happen if a government tried to introduce legislation limiting to buy to let? Is this too simple a solution?
A restriction on buy-to-let is then itself a restriction in supply of rental accommodation. That would likely increase prices of rented accommodation. It would also reduce house prices as there would be less demand.
Depending on how strict you are about existing landlords (and lodgings), it could freeze would-be tenants and anyone who doesn't have a deposit or can't get a mortgage out of finding anywhere to live. And anyone who finds their rents going up because of the change might find it harder to save for a deposit anyway.
Whether you think the above is a good or bad thing depends on what you think the problem is, but this tinkering at the edges is a zero sum game. An increase in the housing stock would cool off the rental market and potentially the property bubble too. A longer term solution would be investing in infrastructure and encouraging companies (and therefore people) to move to areas with less congestion and less heated markets. The UK is far too centralised, in my opinion.
Good point about tinkering around the edges, but it seems that even new build properties coming onto the market (in London) are beyond the realistic achievement of most, and then some private developer plucks 5.....
As you and others have pointed out it is a combination of things that will help combat this problem, just all feels a bit hopeless at the mo.
I've not looked into those government part own/part rent schemes. I wonder how viable they are for people.
A great way to reduce the housing crisis, would be to tax, buy to rent landlords.
I doubt it will happen, as no doubt, many politicians, are all benefiting from property.
If buy to rent became less attractive, you would suddenly see the market flooded, with sellers & the prices would tumble.
The main reason this is not happening, is surely self interest ?
I'm glad George Osborne took my advice. The buy to letters are getting worried. I think the article doesn't reflect the whole picture, by these particular landlords, suggesting that they only buy properties, that no one else wants. It may be the case for these folk, but not in general. I'd like rates to rise. Buy to let landlords to sell up. Loads of properties for sale. Prices fall substantially and my grown up kids/men may be able to afford somewhere without having to move well away from outer London.
A great way to reduce the housing crisis, would be to tax, buy to rent landlords.
I doubt it will happen, as no doubt, many politicians, are all benefiting from property.
If buy to rent became less attractive, you would suddenly see the market flooded, with sellers & the prices would tumble.
The main reason this is not happening, is surely self interest ?
I'd like rates to rise. Buy to let landlords to sell up. Loads of properties for sale. Prices fall substantially and my grown up kids/men may be able to afford somewhere without having to move well away from outer London.
In your scenario, you forgot the bit about the negative equity meaning that mortgage companies acquire loads of bad debts, to write off, meaning that none of the potential new buyers of the newly cheap property will be able to get a mortgage because the lenders have had their capital stripped away (again).
A great way to reduce the housing crisis, would be to tax, buy to rent landlords.
I doubt it will happen, as no doubt, many politicians, are all benefiting from property.
If buy to rent became less attractive, you would suddenly see the market flooded, with sellers & the prices would tumble.
The main reason this is not happening, is surely self interest ?
I'd like rates to rise. Buy to let landlords to sell up. Loads of properties for sale. Prices fall substantially and my grown up kids/men may be able to afford somewhere without having to move well away from outer London.
In your scenario, you forgot the bit about the negative equity meaning that mortgage companies acquire loads of bad debts, to write off, meaning that none of the potential new buyers of the newly cheap property will be able to get a mortgage because the lenders have had their capital stripped away (again).
I don't think that will happen. I don't recall that happening in the early 90's.
The falling property prices enabled the first time buyers to get on the ladder.
A great way to reduce the housing crisis, would be to tax, buy to rent landlords.
I doubt it will happen, as no doubt, many politicians, are all benefiting from property.
If buy to rent became less attractive, you would suddenly see the market flooded, with sellers & the prices would tumble.
The main reason this is not happening, is surely self interest ?
I'd like rates to rise. Buy to let landlords to sell up. Loads of properties for sale. Prices fall substantially and my grown up kids/men may be able to afford somewhere without having to move well away from outer London.
In your scenario, you forgot the bit about the negative equity meaning that mortgage companies acquire loads of bad debts, to write off, meaning that none of the potential new buyers of the newly cheap property will be able to get a mortgage because the lenders have had their capital stripped away (again).
The falling property prices enabled the first time buyers to get on the ladder.
And left tens of thousands in negative equity - thousands just ended up just handing their house keys over the counter at their Building Society lenders.
Comments
As you and others have pointed out it is a combination of things that will help combat this problem, just all feels a bit hopeless at the mo.
I've not looked into those government part own/part rent schemes. I wonder how viable they are for people.
I think the article doesn't reflect the whole picture, by these particular landlords, suggesting that they only buy properties, that no one else wants. It may be the case for these folk, but not in general.
I'd like rates to rise. Buy to let landlords to sell up. Loads of properties for sale. Prices fall substantially and my grown up kids/men may be able to afford somewhere without having to move well away from outer London.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/i-own-75-buy-to-let-properties-but-i-havent-deprived-other-buyers/ar-AAdZWV2?li=AA54rU
The falling property prices enabled the first time buyers to get on the ladder.