Falling birth rate?

[astrologica]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/falling-birth-rates-could-spell-end-of-the-west---lord-sa...

A very interesting article by Lord Sacks regarding the future of the West.

[fallen-archie]

But it doesn't answer my question about who is fuelling this housing boom? If as you say they are all selling at market rates who is buying them?

[cee-dee]

When an "estate" was built near here about five years ago, before any were completed, half of them were sold.... to buy-to-let outfits.

Modern estates have houses crammed together and those things called "social housing" will be very hard to sell if buyers want to move on.

Over 35 years ago I remember an estate being built and 25% of the houses were so-called "starter homes". Those became very, very hard to sell when buyers wanted to move up the ladder. Some were sold at a loss just to get rid of them. Who bought them? Buy-to-let outfits.

I just can't understand why people want to buy those houses all crammed together when older houses look much nicer, have more garden and room for a proper garage and parking.

Speaking of garages, have you had a look at what passes for a garage on some of those "crammed together" estates (that is, if they've got a garage at all)? They're so narrow, you'd have to squeeze out of the car door as it won't open fully and they're so short, you could only get a very small car inside. No wonder they become hoarding places for junk with the car parked outside!

[evoman3957]

Housing associations & councils are some of the biggest " buy to let " merchants in the country.  The rents they charge MAY be reasonable, compared to some, but they keep hold of the ever increasing assets. If the houses were sold at the same cost as these people paid, when they " bulk " bought them..........the mortgages wouldn't be much more than the rent.........and then the owners would have the an asset they could call their own.

[joe_bloggs*]

We should go the same way as Scotland and Wales shortly and end the right to buy which led to a large shortage of social housing for rent,most of those sold are now in the hands of the buy to let brigade,who charge a lot more rent meaning many councils are now paying a lot more out in housing benefit than they originally paid out when the housing was council stock,madness

[evoman3957]

I assumed the right to buy, gave the sitting tenants the option to buy the house / flat they were in and being tenants in council rented accommodation; presumably meant they did not have another place of their own. If buy to let merchants were getting a look in on that, then they should have been weeded out. Of course, even first time buyers / sitting tenants ( who were financially savvy enough ) could have bought.........rented it out.......and moved into other rented accommodation. They would then have become landlords, owning a property and having the mortgage paid for by their tenants; while having an asset increasing in value, to supplement their pension. Same old story I'm afraid.........create something for the benefit of those that need it and other people will take the P*** out of it.

[cee-dee]

The right to buy scheme went through a few stages. All of them gave the buyer a discount on the value of the property. Initially, the scheme locked-in the buyer for a number of years, if they sold on, they had to pay something back. I believe that since the inception of the scheme, the discount and the locked-in period was altered.

You'd think that the scheme looked quite attractive but that depended on where the property was. From what I saw of it, the houses were almost valued on a blanket basis.

A house at location "A" seemed to have the same valuation as another of the same size, type and build as one at location "B". One house would be "highly desirable" being a corner plot with a large garden but another would be in the middle of a line of houses with no ground at the side.

Today, looking round old council estates you can pick out those in private ownership, they're "different" to those still in council (or housing association) ownership. Some have all the look of a "private" house and are still highly desirable. Others have an almost "neglected" look about them. They're either still owned by the original purchaser or are now owned by the "buy-to-let" merchants who bought them from the original purchasers when they tried to sell (and couldn't) when the locked-in period had ended.

A privately owned house right in the middle of a "council" estate isn't attractive to private buyers when the original purchaser tries to move on and in the end gets snapped up by those buying to let.

[fallen-archie]

I think the right to buy is a good way for people to get onto the housing ladder and should be encouraged. I do not think that individuals should be allowed to build up a private portfolio of houses to rent, 

[joe_bloggs*]

They asked Tony Benn a while ago about those properties,he says You can always spot them-New front door with brass knocker and a tory poster in the window

[cee-dee]

I drive through a couple of "Council" estates now and again and most of the privately owned ones now look a bit tatty because the Council have been re-roofing and "modernising" their houses and some of them have been fitted with Solar panels.

The "best" privately owned ones are still desirable being in a good situation on a decent-sized plot.

[vamo48]

I originally thought Right to Buy was good, giving tenants the chance to get on to the housing ladder, but it would only have been good if councils had been able to build more for those on the waiting list, as we were at first led to believe they would.  However, Government rules prevented councils spending the proceeds of the house sales on building, and the whole idea turned out to be a way of Government reducing the money they gave to local authorities and making them support themselves.  The result is the current housing shortage for people, many of them decent and hard working,  who are unable to afford mortgages at the present prices.

I don't see anything wrong with private individuals having a portfoliio of houses to let, but maybe there should be a cap on the amounts they could charge.

[upthecreekyetagain]

It is too late to cure the problems that the initial "right to buy" scheme caused - my solution now would be to extend the "right to buy" to privately rented properties.

To do this some of the 'tenant rights' that have been removed over the years would have to be restored.  If you are renting from a commercial landlord the default tenancy offered should be an 'assured' one meaning that the tenant cannot be evicted if they don't break the terms of the tenancy and pay their rent on time - fixed term tenancies should only be allowable in exceptional circumstances.

Rent increases for existing tenants should be linked to inflation.

A "right to buy" scheme could then be realistically enacted for private tenants with or without a 'discount' based on the length of time they have been in the property. 

[fallen-archie]

I agree with you that councils should be able to replace what they have sold, I suspect the Construction lobby are behind their unwillingness to allow it due to having a vested interest.  As for the comment made by JB concerning the remarks made by Anthony Wedgwood Benn, He was supposed to help people get onto the housing ladder not criticise them for doing so! Typical double standards of a labour politician, I wonder whether those in momentum propose to buy back all properties without compensation?

[joe_bloggs*]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

I agree with you that councils should be able to replace what they have sold, I suspect the Construction lobby are behind their unwillingness to allow it due to having a vested interest.  As for the comment made by JB concerning the remarks made by Anthony Wedgwood Benn, He was supposed to help people get onto the housing ladder not criticise them for doing so! Typical double standards of a labour politician, I wonder whether those in momentum propose to buy back all properties without compensation?

---

It was meant to be a light hearted remark,not a deep philosohical point,lighten up !

[vamo48]

I agree about the need for assured tenancies.  People should be able to feel secure in their homes.  My parents rented the same house from the same private landlord all their married life, that doesn't happen much nowadays from what I hear, but it used to be quite usual.  Dad couldn't get a mortgage because he worked as a decorator, which lenders thought wasn't a secure enough job.