The ITV Property Trap show has a connection to Shelter.

The show makes the case that home ownership has grown from around 10% to a maximum of 70%. The peak was about or more than a decade ago so the fall back from the peak is not tied to the credit crunch.

Shelter create an infographic to stimulate conversation or to advocate a position. The first sentence after the title says:

Quote:Three-quarters of people say they want to own a home within the next two years.

What does that mean? The present level of home ownership is around 60%. That says that we are pretty close to 3/4 of the households are owner occupied. Even when the peak was reached it was 'only' 70%. That is an all time peak from what I know and it is the top rate of ownership in the world.

Which three-quarters are we talking about? All people. Only people who are above 18 years of age and working? Do people who are not working and are living on state benefits factor in to the aspirational group of future home owners (in the next two years)?

Or do we mean 75% of the boomerang kids? That is a label used by the show to talk about people living with their parents. Just how many are there in the UK?

While I get there is some sort of problem with housing, I am not sure that it makes sense for 75% to own their own home if we include everyone. Students, people in certain professions, people on housing benefits and others might not want to or might not be suitable to be an owner with a mortgage. Part of the reason we had the credit crises is lenders were offering loans to people who did not have enough cash and marginal ability to pay when interest rates change. Countries that expect 20% or 25% down payments / deposits were much less impacted by the credit crunch. Even if someone is forced to sell, knowing the debt can be paid off stops the seller from dumping the house and driving down the prices.

Your views?

(13-10-2012 08:47 PM)john_corey Wrote:  The ITV Property Trap show has a connection to Shelter.

The show makes the case that home ownership has grown from around 10% to a maximum of 70%. The peak was about or more than a decade ago so the fall back from the peak is not tied to the credit crunch.

Shelter create an infographic to stimulate conversation or to advocate a position. The first sentence after the title says:

Quote:Three-quarters of people say they want to own a home within the next two years.

What does that mean? The present level of home ownership is around 60%. That says that we are pretty close to 3/4 of the households are owner occupied. Even when the peak was reached it was 'only' 70%. That is an all time peak from what I know and it is the top rate of ownership in the world.

Which three-quarters are we talking about? All people. Only people who are above 18 years of age and working? Do people who are not working and are living on state benefits factor in to the aspirational group of future home owners (in the next two years)?

Or do we mean 75% of the boomerang kids? That is a label used by the show to talk about people living with their parents. Just how many are there in the UK?

While I get there is some sort of problem with housing, I am not sure that it makes sense for 75% to own their own home if we include everyone. Students, people in certain professions, people on housing benefits and others might not want to or might not be suitable to be an owner with a mortgage. Part of the reason we had the credit crises is lenders were offering loans to people who did not have enough cash and marginal ability to pay when interest rates change. Countries that expect 20% or 25% down payments / deposits were much less impacted by the credit crunch. Even if someone is forced to sell, knowing the debt can be paid off stops the seller from dumping the house and driving down the prices.

Your views?

Aren't you manipulating the stats to suit your argument a little here. You've gone from 60% - 3/4 and then used the 75% figure as the basis of your point.

I have no reason to doubt that 75% of the population (or whichever section of it) would like to own a home in 2 years time. However, that doesn't mean that they are viable aspirations for the individuals or society as a whole. It is, imho, an inappropriate soapbox for shelter - surely their drive should be in the aea of homelessness - and it is unrealistic to even dream of more than a tiny minority of todays homeless to be home owners in 2014.

I would like to own a BMW 5 series in 2 years time - but I suspect I will still be driving around in my Astra estate.

(14-10-2012 10:50 AM)John Flower Wrote:  Aren't you manipulating the stats to suit your argument a little here. You've gone from 60% - 3/4 and then used the 75% figure as the basis of your point.

No.

I said the ownership level peaked at close to / north of 70%. That we are north of 60% now. I think the number is 67% but it could be a bit lower.

Shelter says that 75% (the 3/4 reference) want to be owners in 2 years.

One version of reality is we have already been pretty close to Shelter's desired number and the percentage fell back long before the credit crunch. In other words, the goal is was close and the credit crunch is not a direct cause.

Second, there is a practical limit that has to factor in alternative lifestyles based on many factors including people who are just not in a position to buy (various reasons). I would argue that the social housing sector is about 11%, students are another few percent, recent immigrants, people who are closer to independent contractors in terms of predictable income for a mortgage all add up to more or less fill the 30% who are not owners.

If we are already close to, have been close to or near enough to 75% just what was Shelter trying to say? Was it anything more than an emotional string being pulled for attention?

Assume that Shelter just made a mistake. How many more would switch from being a renter to an owner? Are we talking about 10% or less of the adult population?

Renting is a valid lifestyle compared to the compromises that people make to be an owner.

Homeownership is an aspiration that has had it's day.
The lenders wont ever lend like they previously did.
There needs to be a MASSIVE council house building programme of about 3 million properties.
Not to be given to immigrants but to people on council waiting lists who have been on it the longest; NOT those deemed to be in the greater housing NEED.
Home ownership is an aspiration too far for the vast majority of the working population.
Work patterns are far too disparate for most lenders.
They like someone in 1 job with a career path.
The itinerant contract worker just won't fit their risk criteria and consequently despite earning good income the banks WON'T lend.
Decent rented accommodation is their only recourse despite their home ownership aspirations.
It is a crying shame that it has come to this; but that is where we are for the foreseeable future.
How can young people plan a future without the stability of their own home.
That is what most of us had.
They will not be able to attain this unless for about 5 years they save very hard whilst living at home with M & D and that is only the ones with standard jobs; which in this present climate are disaappearing rapidly.
So forget home ownership we need high quality rental accommodation which will never be built whilst the civil laws on evicting a tenant in a timely fashion remain.
Change this and then institutional investors will pile in.
No investor will look at investing in a vehicle whereby the consumer of that vehicle would not pay for the service for months until removed; with no real prospect of recovery of rent from the user of the service, namely the tenant.
Instant eviction should be available to the LL; but ONLY in the case of rent arrears.
Until this matter has been addressed there will be no change in the provision of private rental accommodation by anyone.
Instant eviction would bizarrely I believe encourage more entrants into the market, thereby giving more opportunity for chioice in the rental market.for tenants.
The eviction law as it is presently constucted is a massive disincentive to new entrants of all types.
The present letting industry is fundamentally flawed in that the ability to remove a non-rent paying tenant is such a protracted process.
Resolve this fundamental issue and I believe there would be a flowering of rental only accommodation built by housebuilders and anyone else with capital available.
Of course this WILL NEVER happen and so the problems will persist.
Mind you they did change the squatting law! so there is hope, but not a lot I am afraid.
Can you imagine the impact of 2/12 million tenants who happen to be in arrears presently being evicted essentially instantly!?
Which is why long suffering LL will continue to carry the can for the 60 million pounds of rental arrears and damages that existing LL of all types continue to suffer. on an annual basis.
Nothing wiil ever change and as far as I am concerned I manage as best I can to house tenants who are willing to pay and regard my properties as detailed in the tenancy agreements.
Any other tenant types, I am really not concerned with.
It is a truly sorry state of affairs in this country; it just seems no one is prepared to take the issue by the scruff of the neck and deal with the problems that we all know exist and that impact so much on our provision of our services.
Shelter does not sem to understand this very simple problem.
I suggest Shelter have an agenda that will NOT recognise the impact bad tenants have on the industry as a whole.
Which is why the PRS will continue to withdraw from the more difficult market areas to the more reliable ones.
The effect on those borderline trenants will be massive.
The govt cannot expect the PRS to solve the issues with housing.
We can only be part of the solution; NOT the solution.
Banks are NOT lending to the PRS at levels needed to provide all the rental accommodation required and NEVER will.
Govt is ultimately the ONLY solution to the housing crisis.
So get some of that cheap money and spend, spend, spend on building council accommodation for RENT only, NO RTB, anf then thjs country may get back on an even keel and be able to house decently it's growing population,
I'll be dead by the time this is ever achieved.!
I conjecture it will NEVER hapopen.
The politicians just haven't got the guts to proceed with such a massive housing programme.
Funny though isn't it they always have the money to fight wars for OIL but never consider the home population and it's parlous circumstances.
Rant over!!!!????

No other comments on Shelter's statement?

I am getting the impression that Shelter has decided that the best way to deal with homelessness and other housing issues is to focus on the total supply plus the rate that housing is being created. After more than a decade of under delivery (units built vs. demand), Shelter knows you need to focus on the core issue.

As to ownership, I think Shelter is using a convenient club. The marginal difference is just not worth too much attention if people are going to be unable to save for a deposit.

Not a precise comment for now. Too busy getting the paperwork rolling on a couple of HMOs in time to get students in January for next year.

My view is that the political campaigning wing of Shelter is sometimes a bit of a propaganda machine (that's harsh but only slightly) hanging off an admirable organisation, which will carefully select and emphasise out of context, and sometimes traduce, information in support of whatever the current objective is.

A good example is data based on "complaints" reported as a Henny-Penny type shock ! horror ! when:

a - The number of complaints is precisely in line with the growing sector.
b - They report people making complaints not the actual discovered causes.

They simply get too many things wrong.

There are any number of politicians and media bods out there who will run with it because it fits the ideology and scares the voters in their direction, or because they are (usually Oxford) Humanities or Arts Graduates who can make 2 and 2 add up to any number whatsoever except 4.

Or because they are one-track-minded politicians. Consider the MP Graham Jones, who's response to Hyndburn's Selective Licensing consultation process being ruled unlawful in the Courts was not to suggest that the Council obey the law and respect the rights of its citizens, but rather to invent a category of "hard core landlord" (ie those wanting the Council to obey the law) and criticise *them*.
http://hhgrahamjones.blogspot.co.uk/2012....html#more

It wants an RLA or NLA group commentary blog engaging with the media-political world daily.

ML

I won't comment on the original 75% want to own a house stat, because it is meaningless.

Here's another dodgy one I've picked up on, though:

The "complaints up by 27% in 3 years" headline from a couple of weeks ago.

This is precisely in line with a private rental sector which increased by 27-28% market in the last 3 years for which we have data - 2007-8 to 2010-11 - from the English Housing Survey published in July 2012. See figure 1.1 in Annex 1 on this link:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicatio...holdreport

Each group of 100 households continue to make exactly the same number of complaints to Shelter as they did previously.

More seriously, a headline "number of complaints" tells us *nothing* about how many of these alleged problems were actually down to landlords.

Perhaps if Shelter started supplying useful data about the causes of problems rather than an unfiltered total of allegations we might have a chance of coming up with some policies with a chance of working.

It's very convenient for landlord-bashers, but does nothing at all for tenants.
[/quote]

ML

Well noted ML. As the PRS has grown significantly in the last few years, any raw number that has also risen might indication nothing other than steady as she goes.

I hate Shelter