Gov allowing tenants to buy PRS housing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Mmm, seizing private property and not paying market level compensation. ..Interesting. But then again, McDonnell and Corbyn come from a Marxist background, as do many of the Momentum people who have taken over a chunk of the Labour Party, so this is to be expected.

    It would be interesting what the UK courts would make of this.

    It is not like seizing private companies like Thames Water and British Gas. In those cases, the government could drive down the share prices to zero by forcing them to lower prices, then it could become very cheap for the state to buy them.

    If they did the same thing in the PRS and forced landlords to charge unfeasibly low rents, and thus sell, there would be v little effect on house prices because still only 20% of stock is in the PRS. So that tactic would not work nor translate over from the corporate world.

    Most tenants could not afford to buy anyway, even at a discount, which is why they rent in the first place, Der!

    Also, what would current mortgage lenders - with BTL loans outstanding - have to say about this. Expect legal challenges from them too.

    Finally, the emerging but growing Build to Rent investors would disappear overnight, if there was even a remote chance their properties could be seized at less than market value at some future point. So, the total housing stock and pipeline would fall off a cliff. Not a good outcome.

    But it is all good vote winning stuff that plays out well with folks whose intelligence levels means they cannot think about the wider consequences of policies.

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by David Lawrenson View Post
      Most tenants could not afford to buy anyway, even at a discount, which is why they rent in the first place, Der!
      Actually that is not at all true - definitely not true for any of my tenants ever - and should not be true in any sort of sensible economy.

      People rent for all sorts of reasons, mostly because it is undesirable for them to buy. They have a 1 year job contract, they are doing a training course, they want to remain economically mobile and nimble, they think that house prices will fall and it is therefore cheaper to rent, they don't want to be locked into a leasehold property with poor protection for leaseholders, they may or may not have a child in 2 years and the sort of home they buy will depend on that .....

      The assumption that always owning a home at a fixed GPS location on the planet is desirable has caused considerable harm.

      Comment


        #48
        Have you written to your MP about this?
        No, because I think the chances of it happening are very small and even if some diluted form of it did come in, I think it could be to my advantage (e.g CGT).

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
          Have you written to your MP about this? Do you think it would make any difference if we all wrote to our MPs?
          There is no point in writing to your MP about some proposal from someone who is not in government.
          By the time he is in a position to try to get it into law, your current MP may no longer be an MP.

          My advice is to stop worrying until there is something to worry about.
          But you might want to start planning what you would do IF such a thing were to have a realistic chance of coming to be.

          Comment


            #50
            It's not going to happen.

            Well. it's so unlikely to happen that it's not worth worrying about.
            Just like the parallel announcement that shares in businesses will be redistributed to employees.

            Politicians desperately need to have some real-world experience, because sometimes the rubbish they spout should embarrass them.

            The shares that would be redistributed are owned by rich and litigious people and organisations, lots of whom aren't British, and operate in countries where the legal system would consider taking other people's property (or significantly devaluing it) as an issue to address, even if the UK parliament made it legal.

            Same with rental property, although on a more limited scale.

            Labour will renationalise the water supply industry?
            Northumbrian Water is owned by a Chinese (Hong Kong) corporation, Wessex Water is owned by a Malaysian corporation and Anglian Water is owned by a consortium of Canadian and Australian investment.

            It used to be possible to appropriate things when the world was in black and white and things tended to live within national borders.
            It's not that simple anymore.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by flexy View Post

              Eh? It will be the ones who can get a mortgage that will be allowed to buy at discounted rates, at LL's expense. This means that even the good tenants will become a threat because they will eventually be able to steal a percentage of a capital asset (dressed up as some extreme left excuse). So then there will be bad tenants and then tenants who are a threat to the asset (= bad tenants) .

              LLs will then have to play the rule of only allowing up to 3 year AST and then tenant moves out at the end of it with no periodic part - but oh look, they're going to remove S21, so can't do that either.

              One thing's for sure, the government will do what the government will do. Knee jerk reaction or not you have to anticipate before it's too late! They have made it clear that the lettings market it dead, but they will have a bigger problem once they've killed it totally.
              What advocates of such "ill thought out/sudden grab policies" don't realize is that the method that is used to try to resolve something ("trying to create a fairer society", "resolve the housing crisis", or any other or similar BS/ideology), will become the SOP for all future policies.
              An analogy I can give is of squatters who think it is quite justified to effectively steal someone's property. I asked one of them on a forum some years back when I was trying to understand their thinking, what will you do, after you have effectively become the owner of a home you have stolen, when someone comes along and decides to squat or steal "your" home? I informed them that they would not be able to utter a single squeak, never mind utter any words, for this is what they clearly opted for. All I heard from the squatter, was 100% silence.

              If this lunacy policy ever did come into being, some years after the UK civil war had ended, the tenant turned property owner and who then wanted to rent their home, would be subject to the same law for any tenant they allowed to rent their home, further diminishing the value of homes and the process spiraling values ever downwards.
              Thus, what we will end up with is homes having little to no value, beyond providing basic shelter and comfort. And we'll all be wearing dungarees like they did in the film 1984, and all that goes with such a demented ideology.
              Thus, with virtually no-one having any interest or investment in their homes, the country may effectively become a huge council estate, with tiny pockets of unimaginable affluence & privilege, where those who create & perpetuate such policies, shield themselves form the effects of those same policies, by living in a security dome or in some kind of highly protected enclave.

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                It's not going to happen.
                Let's make a date on this thread for 6 months after JC (or his friends) take power (if they do).

                I have no doubt they will do pretty dumb things and the economy will be tanked. All the things you suggest cannot be done, cannot be done directly, as you correctly asserted. But they can be done by a circuitous route which achieves the same detriment.

                For example the main topic of this thread - selling of property - by using existing mechanisms. We already have a differential stamp duty on non-own-home property. We already have talk of shifting stamp duty to the seller. We already have incredibly steep gradients of such duty. None of those are inventions of JC. But those mechanisms can be leveraged and exaggerated to achieve exactly the same thing.

                What also worries me is that all of these penalties and punishments of ordinary people will have a grossly disproportionate effect outside of London - the very working class folk Labour claims to represent. Londoners -- even the least wealthy third -- have property wealth that eclipses everyone else in the country - and those folk will be protected because own-home wealth is somehow more sacrosanct.

                We already know that Brexit, for all it's pros and cons, is to a very large extent a vote against London, and is being voted upon by MPs who have their vested interests and chatter in London. A rebellion is on the cards if labour hit non-Londoners any harder.

                In fact, my total property portfolio excluding my own home and property I have in London is worth far less than the average small detached house in Golders Green that would have been bought by a schoolteacher or a nurse in 1985 which now sells at £2 million and will not be touched so far.

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                  Let's make a date on this thread for 6 months after JC (or his friends) take power (if they do).
                  Happy to make a date.

                  As it happens, I don't think they're electable without different leadership.

                  There are going to be 5 blocks in parliament after a general election.
                  What's left of the Tories, what's left of labour (no pun intended), the Brexit party, the Lib Dems and the rest (SNP, DUP, Greens, some independents and so on).

                  What happens then depends on the size of the respective blocks and what compromises that creates, and that's too hard to call right now.

                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                    Londoners -- even the least wealthy third -- have property wealth that eclipses everyone else in the country
                    What, even those who rent and live in squalor?

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by MdeB View Post

                      What, even those who rent and live in squalor?
                      I should have said at the third tertile. In 2018:

                      67.5% of people aged 55 or over in London own their own home
                      31% of people age 35 to 44 own their own home

                      All of these people (i.e well over the half the population of London) have asset wealth which exceeds that of of 90% of the rest of folk in the UK outside of the South East.

                      That is not to say there is a not a lot of squalor - but it is not greater in London than in Pontefract.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        At least in my part of outer London, the least wealthy third have zero property wealth.

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
                          If a house is split into flats (I'm not talking about massive houses in London here, lots of smaller houses up North are split into two flats) would the tenants be able to buy?
                          When Maggie did this, the tenants could buy long leaseholds. A lot of flats in Grenfell were privately owned. It wouldn't surprise me if they were the ones with faulty fire doors.

                          Comment


                            #58
                            What a load of panic. First I dont think the proposal is yet official Labour party policy and I doubt it would become that, official policy is to build a lot more council houses. second it was going to be directed at slum landlords so failing to maintain your property would put you in the firing line, third what governments promise and what they find they can deliver are streets apart.

                            This is a conservatve country. Labour can only win an election if it broadens its appeal. An election might result in coalition government, it isnt going to result in Corbyn ever becoming PM. The only way that will happen is if there is a vote of no confidence in the current government and the Queen invites Corbyn to try and form a government. He could not then implement any of the more extreme ideas, an attempt to do so would soon result in a vote of no confidence in him and a general election.

                            The Tories are hell bent on leaving the EU, something that is going to seriously damage the economy and result in the fall in house prices in London spreading to other parts of the country. .That is a more likely source of disaster for the country. I've sold up - and my child is one of those not buying because of the uncertainty - because the current government is a bigger risk than Corbyn. The sort of Tory government we might actually get after the next election could generate a revolution, because they havent the sense to see that gross inequality could lead to that.

                            I also seriously doubt the figures for assets in London, certainly in central London a lot of property is not even British owned. https://www.propertyweek.com/data/wh...088280.article

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

                              When Maggie did this, the tenants could buy long leaseholds. A lot of flats in Grenfell were privately owned. It wouldn't surprise me if they were the ones with faulty fire doors.
                              The facts don’t fit your agenda;

                              https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.t...thorities/amp/

                              “Fourteen of the 129 properties in Grenfell Tower are owned by leaseholders”

                              “Grenfell Tower homeowners were among the first to raise safety concerns about the high-rise block.”

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                                A lot of flats in Grenfell were privately owned. It wouldn't surprise me if they were the ones with faulty fire doors.
                                Would it surprise you that, according to evidence given to the enquiry,
                                • the fire doors were fitted by the council
                                • the fire doors were not properly maintained by the maintenance staff
                                • the fire doors were not as tested
                                • the fire doors did not have a smoke rating?

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X