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

  • Section 24 HQ

    This is the reason why S24 is here to stay



    One of Britain’s biggest mortgage lenders has found that 70% of young people now believe that the homeownership dream is over for their generation.

    Having carried out the largest-ever survey of potential first-time buyers, Santander said its own figures suggest less than 25% of 18- to 34-year-olds will be in a position to buy a home by the year 2026.

    The Spanish-owned bank said that while 91% of the young people interviewed still aspire to own a home, over two-thirds said it was unlikely to happen unless they received the deposit from their parents.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/j...urvey-says

    1
    1

    Learn Change and Adapt ?????

    All comments are for casual information purposes only. If you wish to rely on any advice I have given please ensure you obtain independent specialist advice from a third party. No liability is accepted for comments made.

    Hi Dixlexic.

    How does S24 affect more young people to get on the housing ladder?

    Doesn't it just make it harder for the small landlord to survive?

    I am not in favour of S24 and it's the reason why i have put the breaks on in expanding into more properties (I currently have 2 in the UK). While i think S24 is unfair I am in favour of more affordable housing for young people in general.

    1
    1

    S24 is there to try and put Landlords off buying more property as you have stated

    I am not in favour of S24 and it's the reason why i have put the breaks on in expanding into more properties

    The idea is, if we don't buy, FTB have a chance of buying

    The Tories introduced S24 because they want more home ownership long term.

    1
    0

    Learn Change and Adapt ?????

    All comments are for casual information purposes only. If you wish to rely on any advice I have given please ensure you obtain independent specialist advice from a third party. No liability is accepted for comments made.

    The reason most people cant buy property is because its too expensive in relation to their wages.  Makes no difference whether landlords are buying it or not IMO.

    6
    3

    The former concensus view was that BTL was "hoovering up" a lot of the available cheaper homes - and thus availing less choice for aspiring FTBs - so if 4000 BTLs are being offloaded on the market monthly (BBC Monday) there will be more choice for FTBs.

    1
    0

    mmmm, well i can understand that, but i wonder what % of the market we are talking about, has to be tiny tiny tiny so probably has very little affect, just my view but seems logical to me.  Main problem IMO is real estate is just too expensive

    1
    2

    where supply = demand is the price.  if demand falls then all other things being = the price falls (and more ftb are in the game!).  simples economics.

    1
    1
    Except that it isn’t ‘simple economics’. The transaction can only be enacted by one person. If theres 1 landlord and 9 ftbs competing, and the landlord’s offer is accepted, the media says the landlord pushed up the price. If an FTB buys it, there’s a good chance the other FTBs will assume or blame the landlord. In reality, the price only increases when multiple bidders are gazumping each other, but this doesn’t happen in normal retail sales - an offer is made, accepted and proceeded, with the house coming off the market - not multiple competing bids on the same property and only in the rarest circumstances do people willingly pay above the asking price. In your version, you said lower prices equals more FTB opportunity, but you didn’t factor that that only works if there is a single offer on each property. If more FTBs join the fray, a larger number of FTBs fail to win the bid (not to mention that, as recently, it is their bids keeping the price up rather than the landlord’s).
    1
    2

    ALL I SAID WAS:

    less buyers = less demand = lower price.

    ARE YOU SERIOUSLY DISAGREEING WITH THAT?

    1
    0
    Yes. Only if buyers completely desert the market does that hold true. If you have 15 putative buyers going for a property, or 2 (or, for that matter, just 1), the price remains the same even though there are only 1/15 the number of buyers.
    0
    2

    of course not.  if a large resource rich group such as landlords stop buying the the market slows, repossessions increase, forced fire sales increase, expectations fall, optimism reduces and eventually those who want to sell or have to sell reduce their asking prices to reflect the new economic reality.

    1
    0