Buy To Let-The scourge of Britain..

[Vlad_Dracul]

Take a look at this picture...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dooper786/BTL.jpg

This street is in North Manchester,only about three or four miles north of the busy City centre. It is just a small snapshot of this general area. There are rows and rows of similar streets in this area just like it. Good quality terraced housing,all shuttered up and all awaiting demolition.

This scenario is repeated all over Manchester and probably in other parts of the country also.

I can recall,in the Thatcher years that all these properties were owner occupied,all proudly maintained by their occupants,streets relatively clean,some sense of community and relatively little crime compared to today. Slowly the occupants got old,moved away or died. The era of the buy to let landlord was about to be born, fuelled by a housing benefits system that was overly generous and open to abuse.

People had greater expectations of life and many didnt see why they had to work for what they wanted-nor accept their position in life.

Many would rent such homes,areas became degraded and the rest of the owner occupiers would either flee as their property prices fell,or else be driven out by the worst excesses of their new neighbours.

The overly generous housing benefit system fuelled this market for a number of years until Government seized control and limited the amount that could be paid in benefits to landlords. Suddenly the rich pickings were not so rich,rent prices dropped,houses were abandoned or not maintained. By this time such houses had very little value as bricks and mortar. They were just a vehicle by which landlords could obtain payments from the state for housing benefit claimants. Soon,as pictured, the houses became empty,were vandalised,burned out,squatted or used as drug dens.

Well meaning councils compulsory purchased great blocks of them and earmarked them for demolition. They had a plan. They could sell vast tracts of land which they had obtained cheaply under compulsory purchase, and sell it for huge profits for private big building PLC's to landbank for development. Part of the deal of course was that such developers had to produce a proportion of the new homes for social housing. (New houses for dolehoppers)

So then everyone is happy. Landlords get rid of useless houses and get some money from councils,councils buy old houses and land cheaply and sell the land for big profits,developers get precious land for development and so increase share price and profits, councils get a pat on the back for producing social housing, lazy feckless ner to wells get a brand spanking new house for nothing-everyones a winner.

Or are they?

Well there are two clear losers. One knows he is a loser and the other will eventually know he is a loser.

The first loser is the original owner occupier who's home value was develued as a result of BTL landlords and over generous housing benefits schemes.

The second loser is the poor soul who flogs his/her guts out to buy a new home,only to find when they move in ,that a proportion of their neighbours are social housing tenants who are getting the same,but for free.

The cycle is now being repeated. Houses such as these are now being let out to asylum seekers. They are the new comers to be exploited.

Of course there was a time when housing benefit claimants knew their place and were glad of a home on a council estate. Not now though. They have greater expectations.

Not long ago,.i was in a terraced house occupied by a young teenage mother and her bullet headed boyfriend. The house was a tip and the girl was mouthing off about the effing P**i landlord,etc etc,racist ignorant rantings. Her mother,obviously concerned at what she had spawned,dared to suggest that her daughter go to the local council to see if she could get help there. Her response,along the lines of..." I'm not living in no effing council house, I've seen a nice semi. and i have seen the landlord. The social will pay most of the rent and we'll make the rest up out of our (your!) money"

So then, The modern day buy to let landlord has distorted the market. Dolehopping wastes of space can now aspire to apartments and semis near to where you, the hard workers and achievers live.

BTL landlords are happy to inflict misery on YOU whilst they take profits and live somewhere nice,away from all that nastiness.

BTL landlords are blighting previously nice places to live. Ordinary hard working people are having to take flight from the worst excesses of their tenants.

Who are the mugs in this game?

[Xaccers]

If it wasn't for BTL landlords, myself and many other people in my situation wouldn't have a place to live.
My gf certainly wouldn't, it's not like she can get social housing, being an immigrant and all.
Each month on rent, I pay less than half what it would cost me if I owned the house and had a mortgage (not that I can get one).
I don't have to worry about the upkeep of the property, if the boiler breaks down, I don't pay for it.
BTL has contributed to pushing the price of properties up, but to be honest, even without BTL, house prices would be out of many people's reach, simply because the demand for houses is so high.

I'm surprised the young woman knew anything about council housing..I thought it had all been sold off and social housing was almost a matter of history...

[Xaccers]

I have to ask Dooper, what are you doing in the homes of so many deprived unmarried mothers?

Giving the massive debts incurred by people having the buy houses, and then forever paying for it. Surely buy-to-let makes sense. You safer from unexpected interest rate raises and crippling debt.

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Giving the massive debts incurred by people having the buy houses, and then forever paying for it. Surely buy-to-let makes sense. You safer from unexpected interest rate raises and crippling debt.

Buy to Let is what causes the shortage in smaller houses and thus drives up house prices

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Damien

Giving the massive debts incurred by people having the buy houses, and then forever paying for it. Surely buy-to-let makes sense. You safer from unexpected interest rate raises and crippling debt.

Simple solution: Buy a house, pay it off. Don't buy a second one.

[rogerdraig]

i also remember from the thatcher years all those loosing thier houses because of interest rates


buy to let landlords have help get houses back into occupation often buying those houses which have been left empty for a long time

yes there are those who abuse the system but that not about over generous housing benefit ( its not in our area any how ) but more about over occupancy and or not real tenants both of which can be dealt with in law any how

and in any case its still cheaper for the average person to rent over a life time than it is to own a property

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Wicked_and_Crazy

Buy to Let is what causes the shortage in smaller houses and thus drives up house prices

no the fact that more and more people wish to live alone is what is causing it

see

http://www.24dash.com/socialhousing/16851.htm

[Escapee]

Personally my situation means my mortgage is about £150-200 a month less than renting a similar size property. I am happy to buy because I do not consider moving and its far cheaper in the long run because rents will always increase far more than interest rates, buy to rent people will always have to increase costs if interest rates rise and they will always increase prices in line with inflation an wages.

It costs about £500-550 a month for a house/land of my size around here and it costs about £1000 a month in Cardiff for the same.

I think its very rare to rent a property cheaper than it is to buy for a long term proposition, after all you are paying someone elses mortgage and x amount on top. Renting may be seen as less hassle with no maintenance, but would all these BTR landlords bother if it wasn't such a money spinner and long term investment?

[Ramrod]

Suddenly the rich pickings were not so rich,rent prices dropped,houses were abandoned or not maintained.

Abandoned? Eh?
I can't see a private individual abandoning a house

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

no the fact that more and more people wish to live alone is what is causing it

see

http://www.24dash.com/socialhousing/16851.htm

How can you say "No" i know many people that own 2 and 3 bedroom houses to rent out. If they didnt own those houses they would be avaialble as starter homes and therefore if everyone who owned these sort of houses sold up the market would be flooded with starter homes and therefore prices would drop.

I agree more people living alone, people leaving the nest earlier and people living longer all have an impact, but not as much as people buying to let

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Abandoned? Eh?
I can't see a private individual abandoning a house

i you cant sell it what are you going to do? A house only has value if someone want to buy it or rent off of you.

[BBKing]

new homes for social housing. (New houses for dolehoppers)

Care to explain or, preferably, apologise for this disgraceful slur against council house tenants? Council housing does *not* equal no job, it quite often means a hard, low paid one. Have some respect.

I can't see a private individual abandoning a house

It does happen, particularly if it's in an area where the worth of the house drops to zero or near nothing, for instance in former mining areas and blighted inner cities (see below).

its far cheaper in the long run because rents will always increase far more than interest rates

My rent in 1999 was £953.33 for a two-bed flat. Last year for a bigger 2 bed flat in the same area it was £950, so it doesn't always hold true, particularly in a market where everyone's scrambling to buy. Indeed, buy to let is suffering from its own success, as people can't rent them out for enough to cover the mortgage. It's not as bad as second homes, for instance, which benefit from tax breaks (no council tax on them, for instance). It's pertinent to ask what would happen if all the buy to lets were forced to be sold - house prices would fall and rents would rise. Neither would be particularly good news for UK plc, I suspect.

Anyway, no one's had a go at Prescott yet, so can I point out that the blighting of northern terraces is his fault, since he is behind the insane 'Pathfinder' scheme to convert perfectly acceptable terraced housing (if renovated imaginatively using a bit of British flair) into rubble and developer profits (helped by the insane zero-VAT-rating on new build and 17.5% on restorations). The question of embedded energy is far from unimportant these days, either.

It's a hangover from Sixties ideas of 'Comprehensive Redevelopment', which have led to such gems as Hyde and the Glasgow Inner Ring Road. Here's an Observer article which shows just how murky it all is (btw. it's not what it appears at first sight).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...035462,00.html

Achingly hip, but here's a bunch who restore old buildings rather than knocking them down for a quick buck.
http://www.urbansplash.co.uk/us.php

Buy To Let sounds loads better than my Buy To Giveaway x2, maybe I underestimated the power of my 2 ex's law teams...


On a positive note I now have a Buy To Keep...

[Vlad_Dracul]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Abandoned? Eh?
I can't see a private individual abandoning a house

Well the situation is that these houses were only vehicles by which landlords could get big housing benefit payments via their tenants. Once the council/LA clamped and limited such payments,the income to landlords was also limited. By that time though,most of them were tenanted by people who didnt have a days work in them,or by low income families,or by people who did what they liked and didnt give a damn about their neighbours or any combination of these conditions. In such a circumstance,there is not a hope of getting so called "professional people" to rent such houses and pay higher rents. Areas just declined more, the tenants moved on becuase they didnt like to live in the areas which some of them helped create. A house that no one will rent is of no use,especially if no one will buy it either-therefore it is of such little value that it is effectively abandoned. Manchester city council has its own unit dedicated to tracing missing landlords/home owners of such houses. Often they cant be traced or are willing to have their house bought for a nominal compulsory purchase amount just to get it off their backs.

In another area of Manchester a couple of years ago, the council again tried to compulsory purchase streets and streets of such abandoned homes. Some were still occupied by the original owner occupiers who had repfused to be driven out of home which they had bought and had negative equity on due to BTL degradation. When the council tried to compulsory purchase,they refused and dug in. There were banners and barricades in the streets.

If anyone thinks I am taking rubbish, please can you offer another explanation as to why there are row uopn row of homes here which are boraded up? If these houses were sold in the south,I'll bet they'd change hands for near £200,000 a piece!

Believe me, i have lived in manchester for over 40 years, i am in contact with what goes on due to my day to day work. Look around you. BTL degradation can blight anyone. Look in your own area. Do you see many to let signs on homes? if so,do you also see for sale signs nearby?

---------- Post added at 08:09 ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 ----------

Originally Posted by BBKing

Care to explain or, preferably, apologise for this disgraceful slur against council house tenants? Council housing does *not* equal no job, it quite often means a hard, low paid one. Have some respect.

BB King, i suspect from previous postings that you are perhaps a good Socialist. I lean slightly more to the right but that should not be taken to mean that I have a lack of experience of the existence of the "lower orders" or a lack of understanding.

I am in full agreement with you that there are many good ,hard working people who live in Social housing. I was one of them once. I was brought up on Council estates and lived on one until a few years ago. Sure there were many good people on there but I'd say the majoirt had no need to get up early in the morning and many had little respect for their neighbours. It was survival of the fittest. Even today,in my day to day work, i know that if i knock on a lot of doors in such areas before say, 10.00 am ,I will be wasting my time and severely inconveniencing them by rousing them from bed.

But I don't wish to digress from the main debate. I am just saying that i know what social housing life is all about because i was there for a good 39 years of my life during which ,at the same time, i was also fully employed.

Now then, you do indeed raise some very good points, especially Prescott's iniquitous schemes. Did he not also float some recent legislation which gave local authorities the power to effectively seize control of second homes so that they could be rented out?

Urban Splash do indeed do a lot of good work in Manchester and have regenerated a lot of areas which otherwise would have been derelict. No doubt they are making good money in doing it but there is nothing wrong in this as long as the money is made doing good hard work and being enterprising.

[Angua]

We bought in the middle of a former Council estate because the houses were well built and have decent gardens, the majority of our neighbours are blummin hard working (there again you have to try really hard to be unemployed round here as the extortionate house prices testify).

BTW your socially housed neighbours on new estates are probably in better accommodation as the standards for social housing are much higher than regular houses.