X

Sign Up

or

By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions


Already a PT member? Log In

Sign Up

Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google

or


By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions


Already a PT member? Log In

Log In

or


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Forgot Password

To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.


Already a PT member? Log In

Don't have an account? Sign Up

  • Tax

    George Osboune you are the cause of much pain

    Agreed DL. The problem is the majority of Tory MP's are totally out of touch with their constituents.

    Last week I read comments made by the chairman of GO's local party endorsing his appointment as editor of the Evening Standard!

    All I can say is I despair of the whole system.

    1
    0

    That`s a sad story.

    I get similar  inquiries every day from hopefuls who hear I do HB

    They have hope when i answer the phone .

    But by the end of the call more often than not  their hopes have been  dashed

    I scribble their details halfheartedly on a scrap A4 bit of paper which then gets put on top of the last one

    My list of prospective tenants on that  A4 pile is  is now about an inch thick

    That pile maybe 50 + pages deep . Each one hoping I will call them back one day. That call is never made now

    I was the last chance for many.  The fall out will only get worse

    The government can see the issues. They understand but they simply have a different  agenda

    There is no effective  opposition and no effective  pressure groups to really trouble them or challenge them

    They just bulldoze their way through with their own agenda

    The hidden hurt will go largely unnoticed. It will hit the headlines once in a while then just fade away

    Sustained direct but legal action  will get the hurt noticed.

    But the appetite for that is still some way off I believe.

    1
    0

    Jonathan Clarke. http://www.buytoletmk.com


    JC you are correct in your assessments.

    However is all lost!?

    Clearly we have the very  nearby and direct experience of the Irish Govt.

    The Irish Govt carried on regardless

    However it reached a tipping point eventually.

    This then caused the Irish Govt to U turn on their S24 version

    What caused the Irish Govt to change their behaviour!?

    Surely that experience could be advised to the UK Govt.

    Wouldn't the UK Govt take note of what happened in the Irish experience?

    Or would the UK Govt wait for exactly the same circumstances to occur?

    Of course the damage would have been done and I am not sure what that damage was.

    Perhaps Govt should be advised as to what happened especially to the tenants.

    As far as I am aware rents increased by 50% largely due to the Irish S24!!

    They have NOT reduced to pre Irish S24 times.

    I don't know what happened to the LL.

    As far as I am aware the Irish S24 only affected new LL

    There was no retrospection involved.

    Clearly the UK experience is largely of a retrospective nature.

    So we can only guess what might happen to LL.

    But even if LL weren't affected that would still mean rents possibly increasing by 50%!!!

    Surely Govt doesn't want rents increasing by so much!?

    Well they will.

    Yes there may be fewer mortgaged sole trader LL but rents will be 50% higher.

    Is that a price worth paying!?

    There certainly won't be anymore FTB having bought as a result of S24.

     Why does the UK Govt seemingly refuse to consider what happened in Ireland!?

    0
    0

    I must admit I'm baffled by the whole council home sell-off that is still going on to this day when need has never been greater. Soon there will be no council housing in London if this carries on.

    1
    0

    RTB is one of the most bonkers policies ever enacted

    The only time it makes sense is if a property is sold for FULL market value and the FULL sales proceeds are used to provide more social housing.

    All other RTB should be banned.

    0
    0

    Right to buy is a very subtle but clever government trick to create capital wealth in the population which can be traded for debt and used in the economy to drive growth. The hope behind it, is that inflation will erode said debt and allow for yet further borrowing to continue the cycle.

    The problem is a lack of inflation or a house price falls knocks the whole plan off. Obviously a nation of renters is not part of this clever agenda hence the governments attack on the LL.

    I agree with you though, if any house is purchased on a RTB all proceeds should go towards the building of more and if you think about it, this would further serve their agenda to create more populous wealth, however the government could never be accused of joined up thinking!

    0
    0

    Landlord with 25 years’ experience in the property market and a specialist in tenant referencing ID and credit screening. Creator of identity, credit and anti-money laundering system ValidID.co.uk


    London does not need more council homes it needs less. The thing most people do not know about council homes is that they were not built uniformally across the country. Some councils build as little as 10% of the stock in their areas as council stock while others build close to a whopping 60% of all the homes in their area as council. So there is a huge variation across the country. Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever to say there isn't enough social homes because you have to state where you are talking about

    Even to this day I would argue zone 2 London has far too many council homes. Even to this day an area called inner East London is almost 50% council homes which is clearly too much (by comparison the uk average is closer to 17%) and London is above the UK average at 24%

    What should happen is that London should sell down its stock so no council has more than 25% of its stock as social if its more than that all it does it draw in poor people from across london and even the south east. In fact I recall in the 1990s when there was an excess of social homes in inner London that is exactly what happened people from outside the area were getting taken to two or three or four different social homes to pick the one they wanted. In effect places like Hackney and Tower Hamlets became a ghetto becuase they were housing all of Londons poor in their hugely disproportionatly large social stock

    Also of the new builds in London close to 50% of them are social so London social stock is NOT GOING DOWN but is GOING UP both in numbers and in percentage of the stock. So dont say there wont be any left when the numbers are growing year on year. I would make the argument that what we have is bad for London that 100% of new builds should be social and the councils with more than 25% social in their areas should sell them down until they get to 25% but thats a debate for another time

    0
    0

    Sorry but I can't agree with you here. Council housing in London should primarily be for key workers first who need assistance instead of that Shared Ownership scam currently being rammed down their throats. You can't have paramedics and police (for example) on £30K pa hiking all the way in from who knows where ready to do a 12 hour shift nice and fresh.

    Council housing entitlement should be reviewed every 5-10 years and alternatives offered to keep the tenants moving on if they don't need to be there instead of a home for life which is blocking others more needy.

    So I would say don't sell it off unless another has been built!

    0
    0

    Don't forget the 2008 housing debacle, BTL contributed to the house price increase in the UK between 1997 and 2008, pushing the wages to house price ratio from 3 times wages to over 5 times wages.

    The figures/charts show that house price increase is resuming.

    I think they felt something must be done to protect the banks, so they put they dampers on BTL to slow down the house price rise, and wage to house price ratio, and avoid an increased wage inflation.

    0
    0

    That's right the PRA has done a good a but annoying job

    S24 is not needed and is a bonkers way to control BTL expansion

    All that was required was the PRA

    But of course that won't gain any CGT receipts just in time for the next GE!!


    0
    0