I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Back on topic a little what with me being a Trustee/rip off Landlord
A little bit of good news in that the Governments U Turn on EPC ratings for new tenancies in 2025 and all by 2028.
We try to make our properties as efficient as possible for our tenants, all now have boilers sub 10 years old, new double glazing in the past 10 years and also we've just re insulated all lofts to a higher spec.
Our problem is all bar about 5 of our properties are pre 1900, so no cavity wall. We had a couple of surveyors look at the houses and they like I expected due to their terrace nature and build are not suitable to clad them externally. Therefore in reality the only option would be to clad internally. I won't bore you with all the details around wiring and plumbing but in essence to get to a C for these properties would likely mean between 30-35k each. It would have been just another nail in the coffin. It would also mean any tenant would need to move out for around 6-8 weeks.
So at least that for now has not been the final nail, just a few more nails to deal with!
Back on topic a little what with me being a Trustee/rip off Landlord
A little bit of good news in that the Governments U Turn on EPC ratings for new tenancies in 2025 and all by 2028.
We try to make our properties as efficient as possible for our tenants, all now have boilers sub 10 years old, new double glazing in the past 10 years and also we've just re insulated all lofts to a higher spec.
Our problem is all bar about 5 of our properties are pre 1900, so no cavity wall. We had a couple of surveyors look at the houses and they like I expected due to their terrace nature and build are not suitable to clad them externally. Therefore in reality the only option would be to clad internally. I won't bore you with all the details around wiring and plumbing but in essence to get to a C for these properties would likely mean between 30-35k each. It would have been just another nail in the coffin. It would also mean any tenant would need to move out for around 6-8 weeks.
So at least that for now has not been the final nail, just a few more nails to deal with!
You can clad terraced houses with EWI mate. Its easy and probably costs about £6k on average.
Internal is pretty crap IMHO but again doable for alot less than £10k on average depending upon what enabling needs to be done,
The advice we were given by two surveyors that on the specific properties external cladding would be difficult to not be possible, there was also a debate in two of the streets (more than half our stock) whether it would be allowable as a permitted development due to amongst other things flying freeholds and neighbour land overhanging. Internal is doable but the suggestion was that if the property hadn't recently been rewired then it should be before the cladding, would also mean having to move tenants out, remove kitchens, bathrooms etc, hence why it would not be something we could sensibly do. I can't envisage saying to our members, heh can we spend north of £1m (inc lost rent) all so that your ROI reduces to an even lower amount. I won't bore you with the added central capital levy we would also have to pay.
I'm already up against a declining ROI, I've been working on a paper this week to try to minimise the issue but it'd still likely mean selling property by property as and when a tenant gives notice rather than all in one hit, I suspect that's where we will land. That'll please some on here knowing we are further reducing the rental stock in Dartford which is already in massively short supply and worsening by the month.
Fair dos. I’ve put EWI on all sorts of houses as long as they have solid walls it’s a goer.IWI is a pain unless it’s a basic empty room.
Back on topic a little what with me being a Trustee/rip off Landlord
A little bit of good news in that the Governments U Turn on EPC ratings for new tenancies in 2025 and all by 2028.
We try to make our properties as efficient as possible for our tenants, all now have boilers sub 10 years old, new double glazing in the past 10 years and also we've just re insulated all lofts to a higher spec.
Our problem is all bar about 5 of our properties are pre 1900, so no cavity wall. We had a couple of surveyors look at the houses and they like I expected due to their terrace nature and build are not suitable to clad them externally. Therefore in reality the only option would be to clad internally. I won't bore you with all the details around wiring and plumbing but in essence to get to a C for these properties would likely mean between 30-35k each. It would have been just another nail in the coffin. It would also mean any tenant would need to move out for around 6-8 weeks.
So at least that for now has not been the final nail, just a few more nails to deal with!
Back on topic a little what with me being a Trustee/rip off Landlord
A little bit of good news in that the Governments U Turn on EPC ratings for new tenancies in 2025 and all by 2028.
We try to make our properties as efficient as possible for our tenants, all now have boilers sub 10 years old, new double glazing in the past 10 years and also we've just re insulated all lofts to a higher spec.
Our problem is all bar about 5 of our properties are pre 1900, so no cavity wall. We had a couple of surveyors look at the houses and they like I expected due to their terrace nature and build are not suitable to clad them externally. Therefore in reality the only option would be to clad internally. I won't bore you with all the details around wiring and plumbing but in essence to get to a C for these properties would likely mean between 30-35k each. It would have been just another nail in the coffin. It would also mean any tenant would need to move out for around 6-8 weeks.
So at least that for now has not been the final nail, just a few more nails to deal with!
You can clad terraced houses with EWI mate. Its easy and probably costs about £6k on average.
Internal is pretty crap IMHO but again doable for alot less than £10k on average depending upon what enabling needs to be done,
The advice we were given by two surveyors that on the specific properties external cladding would be difficult to not be possible, there was also a debate in two of the streets (more than half our stock) whether it would be allowable as a permitted development due to amongst other things flying freeholds and neighbour land overhanging. Internal is doable but the suggestion was that if the property hadn't recently been rewired then it should be before the cladding, would also mean having to move tenants out, remove kitchens, bathrooms etc, hence why it would not be something we could sensibly do. I can't envisage saying to our members, heh can we spend north of £1m (inc lost rent) all so that your ROI reduces to an even lower amount. I won't bore you with the added central capital levy we would also have to pay.
I'm already up against a declining ROI, I've been working on a paper this week to try to minimise the issue but it'd still likely mean selling property by property as and when a tenant gives notice rather than all in one hit, I suspect that's where we will land. That'll please some on here knowing we are further reducing the rental stock in Dartford which is already in massively short supply and worsening by the month.
Fair dos. I’ve put EWI on all sorts of houses as long as they have solid walls it’s a goer.IWI is a pain unless it’s a basic empty room.
anyway , it’s Saturday. COYR
Unfortunately as you can tell the properties we have are very old and due to varying reasons not straight forward and yes internally would have in reality been a no, but for now it's not going to be a requirement so I've no need to worry!
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
I really like CE’s advice earlier and how he and his Son and his Son’s friends have all stayed at home and lived with parents until they’ve managed to get a property. For me it was the opposite, the consensus among our friends seemed to be move out asap and live independently, even if it meant renting. This was prior to the housing boom in London, or just about, before prices skyrocketed. Looking back I would’ve taken the live at home option again.
I will certainly be encouraging my boy to save and suffer the consequence of living with me for as long as it takes for him to have a deposit to put down, that’s one good thing that has come out of it. For how cavalier I’ve been with money over the years, the best thing about being fortunate enough to own, and having got their at a later stage in life, is that I will look to instill the discipline in him I didn’t have.
I agree re CE’s words about having the awareness, but I don’t think it’s a question of intelligence. You are brought up the way you are, and whilst Rob7Lee and CE share the same upbringing in terms of being taught/learning to save, others aren’t. Doesn’t make them any less intelligent, as wisdom comes in all different ways. Ultimately, people should take on what they’ve both said, but I absolutely sympathize with those that try and get on the ladder. The market is ridiculous now, particularly in London and the south East, and given the demographics of our fan base and those on this thread, this is the area we’re ultimately talking about, give or take. Yes, people can move out and buy further afield, and working from home has given people that accessibility, but companies are now generally quite keen to get people back in the office, even if it’s 2 days a week. That means things like travel come back into play if you are commuting into London.
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
And I get them having the hump. I bought my first place in 98. But is it my fault I was born when I was born? And the housing market does affect alot of people Most of us that have done alright have children or grandchildren who are the between 20 and 30
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
Thinking left field, could the government open a bank specifically to lend to BTL landlords at a competitive rate? That way they can indirectly recoup benefits paid out on housing and reinvest profits to build social housing rather than relying on taxation and political will.
Probably goes against the current lots capability and political beliefs but could potentially offer a longer term solution. Unless someone can point out obvious flaws that I've missed?
Years ago I naively thought that people only got a mortgage for their house, and bought other stuff with savings or loans or wealth.
Most specifically with housing I thought a landlord would have to have bought the whole property free and clear, and then rent it out.
These buy to let mortgages seem to me like the landlord is the middleman or woman, maximising the squeeze with dare I say no risk, and in the end owning a property somebody else paid for.
You can even structure the rent to cover management and maintenance charges, so you don’t pay a penny there. I know there are variables and realities of some kind, but it seems to me that buy to let doesn’t mean you buy first and let second, but it runs parallel with no great risk to the landlord, and as I say they get a free place someone else paid for.
When it comes to people and their homes I see it as an enterprise that is not a usual business, like getting a car on HP, and using it as a taxi or hire car, lots of things like that depreciate but over the long term property values never seem to.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that the value of a house is…one house!
Years ago I naively thought that people only got a mortgage for their house, and bought other stuff with savings or loans or wealth.
Most specifically with housing I thought a landlord would have to have bought the whole property free and clear, and then rent it out.
These buy to let mortgages seem to me like the landlord is the middleman or woman, maximising the squeeze with dare I say no risk, and in the end owning a property somebody else paid for.
You can even structure the rent to cover management and maintenance charges, so you don’t pay a penny there. I know there are variables and realities of some kind, but it seems to me that buy to let doesn’t mean you buy first and let second, but it runs parallel with no great risk to the landlord, and as I say they get a free place someone else paid for.
When it comes to people and their homes I see it as an enterprise that is not a usual business, like getting a car on HP, and using it as a taxi or hire car, lots of things like that depreciate but over the long term property values never seem to.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that the value of a house is…one house!
They're taking all the risk, it's not a tenants name on the debt to the bank.
I really like CE’s advice earlier and how he and his Son and his Son’s friends have all stayed at home and lived with parents until they’ve managed to get a property. For me it was the opposite, the consensus among our friends seemed to be move out asap and live independently, even if it meant renting. This was prior to the housing boom in London, or just about, before prices skyrocketed. Looking back I would’ve taken the live at home option again.
I will certainly be encouraging my boy to save and suffer the consequence of living with me for as long as it takes for him to have a deposit to put down, that’s one good thing that has come out of it. For how cavalier I’ve been with money over the years, the best thing about being fortunate enough to own, and having got their at a later stage in life, is that I will look to instill the discipline in him I didn’t have.
I agree re CE’s words about having the awareness, but I don’t think it’s a question of intelligence. You are brought up the way you are, and whilst Rob7Lee and CE share the same upbringing in terms of being taught/learning to save, others aren’t. Doesn’t make them any less intelligent, as wisdom comes in all different ways. Ultimately, people should take on what they’ve both said, but I absolutely sympathize with those that try and get on the ladder. The market is ridiculous now, particularly in London and the south East, and given the demographics of our fan base and those on this thread, this is the area we’re ultimately talking about, give or take. Yes, people can move out and buy further afield, and working from home has given people that accessibility, but companies are now generally quite keen to get people back in the office, even if it’s 2 days a week. That means things like travel come back into play if you are commuting into London.
Thanks Cabbles, I was talking about financial intelligence. I mean some people earn millions and still end up bankrupt. I had customers who earnt well over £100K and were apparently skint.
Years ago I naively thought that people only got a mortgage for their house, and bought other stuff with savings or loans or wealth.
Most specifically with housing I thought a landlord would have to have bought the whole property free and clear, and then rent it out.
These buy to let mortgages seem to me like the landlord is the middleman or woman, maximising the squeeze with dare I say no risk, and in the end owning a property somebody else paid for.
You can even structure the rent to cover management and maintenance charges, so you don’t pay a penny there. I know there are variables and realities of some kind, but it seems to me that buy to let doesn’t mean you buy first and let second, but it runs parallel with no great risk to the landlord, and as I say they get a free place someone else paid for.
When it comes to people and their homes I see it as an enterprise that is not a usual business, like getting a car on HP, and using it as a taxi or hire car, lots of things like that depreciate but over the long term property values never seem to.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that the value of a house is…one house!
They're taking all the risk, it's not a tenants name on the debt to the bank.
Is there a risk? Isn’t the debt to the bank secured against the property?
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
Not sure who lo'ld me, but I know it's possible because I just looked on Rightmove & there are 327 properties within 10 miles of Bromley for £200K or less, incuding one on Widmore Road.
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
Not sure who lo'ld me, but I know it's possible because I just looked on Rightmove & there are 327 properties within 10 miles of Bromley for £200K or less, incuding one on Widmore Road.
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
The chances of you getting a mortgage with a 5% deposit on a credit card...
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
I doubt picture framer's salaries have even doubled since 1999 and the same property would now be valued at well north of £400k. I suspect lenders would laugh in my wife's face if she tried to do the same today (even if I was buying it with her).
Years ago I naively thought that people only got a mortgage for their house, and bought other stuff with savings or loans or wealth.
Most specifically with housing I thought a landlord would have to have bought the whole property free and clear, and then rent it out.
These buy to let mortgages seem to me like the landlord is the middleman or woman, maximising the squeeze with dare I say no risk, and in the end owning a property somebody else paid for.
You can even structure the rent to cover management and maintenance charges, so you don’t pay a penny there. I know there are variables and realities of some kind, but it seems to me that buy to let doesn’t mean you buy first and let second, but it runs parallel with no great risk to the landlord, and as I say they get a free place someone else paid for.
When it comes to people and their homes I see it as an enterprise that is not a usual business, like getting a car on HP, and using it as a taxi or hire car, lots of things like that depreciate but over the long term property values never seem to.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that the value of a house is…one house!
They're taking all the risk, it's not a tenants name on the debt to the bank.
Is there a risk? Isn’t the debt to the bank secured against the property?
You don't think defaulting on a mortgage is a risk? Or even covering a mortgage because tenants aren't paying?
I really like CE’s advice earlier and how he and his Son and his Son’s friends have all stayed at home and lived with parents until they’ve managed to get a property. For me it was the opposite, the consensus among our friends seemed to be move out asap and live independently, even if it meant renting. This was prior to the housing boom in London, or just about, before prices skyrocketed. Looking back I would’ve taken the live at home option again.
I will certainly be encouraging my boy to save and suffer the consequence of living with me for as long as it takes for him to have a deposit to put down, that’s one good thing that has come out of it. For how cavalier I’ve been with money over the years, the best thing about being fortunate enough to own, and having got their at a later stage in life, is that I will look to instill the discipline in him I didn’t have.
I agree re CE’s words about having the awareness, but I don’t think it’s a question of intelligence. You are brought up the way you are, and whilst Rob7Lee and CE share the same upbringing in terms of being taught/learning to save, others aren’t. Doesn’t make them any less intelligent, as wisdom comes in all different ways. Ultimately, people should take on what they’ve both said, but I absolutely sympathize with those that try and get on the ladder. The market is ridiculous now, particularly in London and the south East, and given the demographics of our fan base and those on this thread, this is the area we’re ultimately talking about, give or take. Yes, people can move out and buy further afield, and working from home has given people that accessibility, but companies are now generally quite keen to get people back in the office, even if it’s 2 days a week. That means things like travel come back into play if you are commuting into London.
Thanks Cabbles, I was talking about financial intelligence. I mean some people earn millions and still end up bankrupt. I had customers who earnt well over £100K and were apparently skint.
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
Not sure who lo'ld me, but I know it's possible because I just looked on Rightmove & there are 327 properties within 10 miles of Bromley for £200K or less, incuding one on Widmore Road.
Years ago I naively thought that people only got a mortgage for their house, and bought other stuff with savings or loans or wealth.
Most specifically with housing I thought a landlord would have to have bought the whole property free and clear, and then rent it out.
These buy to let mortgages seem to me like the landlord is the middleman or woman, maximising the squeeze with dare I say no risk, and in the end owning a property somebody else paid for.
You can even structure the rent to cover management and maintenance charges, so you don’t pay a penny there. I know there are variables and realities of some kind, but it seems to me that buy to let doesn’t mean you buy first and let second, but it runs parallel with no great risk to the landlord, and as I say they get a free place someone else paid for.
When it comes to people and their homes I see it as an enterprise that is not a usual business, like getting a car on HP, and using it as a taxi or hire car, lots of things like that depreciate but over the long term property values never seem to.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that the value of a house is…one house!
They're taking all the risk, it's not a tenants name on the debt to the bank.
Is there a risk? Isn’t the debt to the bank secured against the property?
You think banks don’t lose money to bad debts? You think the borrower isn’t liable for any gap between debt outstanding versus proceeds from an enforced sale?
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
The chances of you getting a mortgage with a 5% deposit on a credit card...
you'd be surprised, 1999 would have been around the time of Egg Money, still was the only credit card you could transfer a credit balance into cash. So take out a 0% balance transfer card with say Barclays, balance transfer to egg and cash into your bank. Of course the mortgage lender would know you had £x on credit card, but people used to do it all the time (granted I didn't know anyone who did it for a mortgage deposit, was mostly used for savings, but was certainly do-able).
Just to balance out all the older posters and their tales of struggle getting on the housing ladder. My wife bought her first property in 1999. It was a two bedroom flat in a mansion block in Forest Hill and cost less than £60k. She told me she even managed to put the 5% deposit on a credit card. This was all done on an assistant picture framers salary. When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
Agreed, but could you do similar today? Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
The chances of you getting a mortgage with a 5% deposit on a credit card...
you'd be surprised, 1999 would have been around the time of Egg Money, still was the only credit card you could transfer a credit balance into cash. So take out a 0% balance transfer card with say Barclays, balance transfer to egg and cash into your bank. Of course the mortgage lender would know you had £x on credit card, but people used to do it all the time (granted I didn't know anyone who did it for a mortgage deposit, was mostly used for savings, but was certainly do-able).
Was being the key word. It's harder to get a mortgage these days (for good reason) and to not have £10k in savings is a massive red flag to mortgage lenders.
Shame, as it would make it very easy to activate a companion voucher. 😉
Years ago I naively thought that people only got a mortgage for their house, and bought other stuff with savings or loans or wealth.
Most specifically with housing I thought a landlord would have to have bought the whole property free and clear, and then rent it out.
These buy to let mortgages seem to me like the landlord is the middleman or woman, maximising the squeeze with dare I say no risk, and in the end owning a property somebody else paid for.
You can even structure the rent to cover management and maintenance charges, so you don’t pay a penny there. I know there are variables and realities of some kind, but it seems to me that buy to let doesn’t mean you buy first and let second, but it runs parallel with no great risk to the landlord, and as I say they get a free place someone else paid for.
When it comes to people and their homes I see it as an enterprise that is not a usual business, like getting a car on HP, and using it as a taxi or hire car, lots of things like that depreciate but over the long term property values never seem to.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that the value of a house is…one house!
They're taking all the risk, it's not a tenants name on the debt to the bank.
Is there a risk? Isn’t the debt to the bank secured against the property?
I am a landlord with 4 properties in the borough of Bexley.These all bought with my hard earned savings from construction working all hours in all weathers. I ventured into the housing market to secure a pension and security for myself and family including my children.My property was bought at auction and all in an undesirable state with various structural and other issues the risk is in the money paid and value not being worth the outlay once renovated. The other risk is the tenants are not always as reliable financially and care about the properties as much as others do, resulting in property with damage and rents unpaid, meaning mortgages being covered by my own means. I now have my property in with local authority receiving less than market rate however with security and bonds in place to avoid the above, I rent to those that would not normally get a place on the open market, this I feel is a service that others should do to help those less advantaged. I’ve been reading this thread and cringe when some blinkered comments levied at all landlords being greedy etc etc. yes I’m in it for security and financial gain however greedy I’m not. so Seth risks are taken as if the market turns and as recent interest rates prove the mortgages can perform badly and cost thousands, so if you lose your property you lose your minimum 25% deposit and all the hard work that’s gone into it hope this makes sense
Years ago I naively thought that people only got a mortgage for their house, and bought other stuff with savings or loans or wealth.
Most specifically with housing I thought a landlord would have to have bought the whole property free and clear, and then rent it out.
These buy to let mortgages seem to me like the landlord is the middleman or woman, maximising the squeeze with dare I say no risk, and in the end owning a property somebody else paid for.
You can even structure the rent to cover management and maintenance charges, so you don’t pay a penny there. I know there are variables and realities of some kind, but it seems to me that buy to let doesn’t mean you buy first and let second, but it runs parallel with no great risk to the landlord, and as I say they get a free place someone else paid for.
When it comes to people and their homes I see it as an enterprise that is not a usual business, like getting a car on HP, and using it as a taxi or hire car, lots of things like that depreciate but over the long term property values never seem to.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that the value of a house is…one house!
They're taking all the risk, it's not a tenants name on the debt to the bank.
Is there a risk? Isn’t the debt to the bank secured against the property?
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
I think I may have posted this a while back, but I think it's worth repeating.
About 7 or 8 years ago a block of 8 flats were being built near where one of my mates lives. ( Maidstone area ). When he enquired about the cost of the flats he was told that all 8 had been bought by a Chinese man off plan. He was told that this is common practice and that a good % of new builds are being sold to foreign businessmen. I also keep seeing on the news about how many places in London are now owned by people from abroad that purely buy as an investment.
Now I have no idea what % of properties in and around London are being bought up like this but to me it's wrong. All this achieves is driving up the price of property over here and putting money in the hands of rich overseas buyers.
I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit.
Should that last point be extended to everyone, regardless of nationality?
Definitely a limit as to how many properties you can own.yes.
Yeah... I think that is your key point - not the targeting of foreign ownership. Blaming the mess on Johnny Foreigner is a distraction.
Not putting the blame on johny Foreigner at all. They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
Sure...and your key point is that nobody (foreign or local) should be allowed to own property that they won't/don't live in, right?
Stop talking rubbish I'm not saying that at all. There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own. I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
Hi. I was being genuine. Maybe I have misunderstood you. Will try to unpick.
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership. Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.
Comments
anyway , it’s Saturday. COYR
When you compare the situation then and now I don't blame those in their 20's and 30's being very, very angry with the hand that they've been dealt.
They are just taking advantage of a situation that allows them to buy up properties in the UK.
I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of British politicians that allows for this to happen.
I agree re CE’s words about having the awareness, but I don’t think it’s a question of intelligence. You are brought up the way you are, and whilst Rob7Lee and CE share the same upbringing in terms of being taught/learning to save, others aren’t. Doesn’t make them any less intelligent, as wisdom comes in all different ways. Ultimately, people should take on what they’ve both said, but I absolutely sympathize with those that try and get on the ladder. The market is ridiculous now, particularly in London and the south East, and given the demographics of our fan base and those on this thread, this is the area we’re ultimately talking about, give or take. Yes, people can move out and buy further afield, and working from home has given people that accessibility, but companies are now generally quite keen to get people back in the office, even if it’s 2 days a week. That means things like travel come back into play if you are commuting into London.
I bought my first place in 98.
But is it my fault I was born when I was born?
And the housing market does affect alot of people
Most of us that have done alright have children or grandchildren who are the between 20 and 30
Buy a 1 bed flat for £200K & put the 5% deposit ( £10K) on a credit card.
Probably goes against the current lots capability and political beliefs but could potentially offer a longer term solution. Unless someone can point out obvious flaws that I've missed?
Most specifically with housing I thought a landlord would have to have bought the whole property free and clear, and then rent it out.
These buy to let mortgages seem to me like the landlord is the middleman or woman, maximising the squeeze with dare I say no risk, and in the end owning a property somebody else paid for.
You can even structure the rent to cover management and maintenance charges, so you don’t pay a penny there.
I know there are variables and realities of some kind, but it seems to me that buy to let doesn’t mean you buy first and let second, but it runs parallel with no great risk to the landlord, and as I say they get a free place someone else paid for.
When it comes to people and their homes I see it as an enterprise that is not a usual business, like getting a car on HP, and using it as a taxi or hire car, lots of things like that depreciate but over the long term property values never seem to.
I forget who said it, but it has been said that the value of a house is…one house!
I mean some people earn millions and still end up bankrupt.
I had customers who earnt well over £100K and were apparently skint.
Isn’t the debt to the bank secured against the property?
Meet you there, bring your Amex.
Yes. There is risk.
Shame, as it would make it very easy to activate a companion voucher. 😉
I ventured into the housing market to secure a pension and security for myself and family including my children.My property was bought at auction and all in an undesirable state with various structural and other issues the risk is in the money paid and value not being worth the outlay once renovated. The other risk is the tenants are not always as reliable financially and care about the properties as much as others do, resulting in property with damage and rents unpaid, meaning mortgages being covered by my own means.
I now have my property in with local authority receiving less than market rate however with security and bonds in place to avoid the above, I rent to those that would not normally get a place on the open market, this I feel is a service that others should do to help those less advantaged.
I’ve been reading this thread and cringe when some blinkered comments levied at all landlords being greedy etc etc. yes I’m in it for security and financial gain however greedy I’m not.
so Seth risks are taken as if the market turns and as recent interest rates prove the mortgages can perform badly and cost thousands, so if you lose your property you lose your minimum 25% deposit and all the hard work that’s gone into it
hope this makes sense
I'm not saying that at all.
There should be a limit to how many homes a person can own.
I think you understand what I'm saying but for some reason you want to misconscew my meaning
You said:
"I would like Starmer to put something in the next Labour manifesto putting a stop to foreign ownership.
Fair enough if the property is being bought to live in but not when they are being bought purely for profit. "
I asked if that was just for foreigners and you said it wasn't. So I sought to clarify (on your behalf, lol) that you weren't just blaming Johnny Foreigner and that your core point was about people- in general, regardless of nationality - owning property that they don't live in I.e. that this was wrong and should be legislated against.
Now it seems I have upset you, so must have got this wrong. Although, you have just said pretty much that, no?
Maybe you are saying thay foreigners must live in properties they buy (as per first point you said re: Starmer), but Brits just need a limit (as per you last post)?
I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, btw. Just trying to figure out what you are saying.