Gov allowing tenants to buy PRS housing

[flexy]

Quite! Stay there for 3 years and you could get up to £82k off!

Trying to figure out when is the best time to jump!! Now or after Brexit?! Sales are usually more buoyant in the Spring - who know's what mess we'll be in by then!

When does this removal of S21 start? I forget the conditions of it right now.

[JK0]

You can almost hear the sales pitch in estate agents...

'Okay, I realise you can't afford any of the places we have for sale. How about one of our rentals? You just pay rent for a year, and then you get 10% off the price.'

Could almost make traditional selling redundant.

[flexy]

I don't think you have anything to worry about. The tenants that are causing the problems are not the kind of people that will ever be offered a mortgage so would never be in any kind of position to buy your property..

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.

[scot22]

As someone who has spent decades in education the attitudes and values in current society concern me.
However, I have gone off the thread, apologies people.
Finally may I give you my respect.

[AndrewDod]

Is your final sentence a true statement of your situation ? I could mind my own business but it concerns me that I can see your reasons. Unless you experience something it is impossible to fully understand.

Yes, except that I was going to edit an error just as your post came in. I am not gay, but my child is. I am a racial minority group and an immigrant to the UK (albeit of 20+ years duration). The population of the UK are totally ignorant and child-like in terms of their fanciful perception of the way in which the world works when it goes "bad". We live in a place where we are having ad-nauseum discussions about Brexit, but none about why our children do not wish to be Hotel Chambermaids, but prefer that Poles and Slovacs do those jobs while they sit at home accepting a variety of "benefits". That seems almost normal to them.

[scot22]

Is your final sentence a true statement of your situation ? I could mind my own business but it concerns me that I can see your reasons. Unless you experience something it is impossible to fully understand.

[AndrewDod]

This is never going to happen (private LLs being required to sell their homes to tenants at discounted prices).

I'm not so sure at all. But it might be done in a sneaky way (as outlined before) which will amount to the same thing.

And regardless of the verbal effluent that the Labour Party perpetually spews forth (and have done for decades), they are not actually "the party of the masses". Its a long standing deception perpetrated on the masses, by the privileged/the ones in control, and who just have different coloured flags, emblems, endless drivel, etc.

Well that is totally true, and well put

Private property is a key underpinning of "relatively free" societies.

True

If such a policy came into being, not only would the property market be devastated/collapse overnight, but almost every person's personal wealth and all their possessions would be subject to government theft, confiscation or "re-appropriation", by some fluffy and "the right things to do" policy, or perhaps by some policy which starts of not doing exactly that, but rapidly builds to that.

Yes it would collapse. And that is exactly what would happen if they got into power, let alone got into big time theft from ordinary people.

But that is not a reason to say it is unlikely to be implemented.

Labour's park wino hasn't got a snowflake's chance in hell of getting the keys to No.10.

If the voters were intelligent -- and not ignorant kids with no perception of history or any understanding of how they got into the position they are in (and why labour policies will not only not solve the very real problems they have, but will devastate their generation and country) - then they would have no chance. But there is a significant chance - I would have said 50% over the next year given the right circumstances. And as a racial minority and gay person in this country and as an immigrant I will be leaving as soon as I can.

[Mogino]

This is never going to happen (private LLs being required to sell their homes to tenants at discounted prices).

And regardless of the verbal effluent that the Labour Party perpetually spews forth (and have done for decades), they are not actually "the party of the masses". Its a long standing deception perpetrated on the masses, by the privileged/the ones in control, and who just have different coloured flags, emblems, endless drivel, etc. The same goes for the Democrat party in the US. Same BS/MO. Ergo, Politics doesn't really exist and its all part of the same deception. Voting is an illusion too.

Private property is a key underpinning of "relatively free" societies. If such a policy came into being, not only would the property market be devastated/collapse overnight, but almost every person's personal wealth and all their possessions would be subject to government theft, confiscation or "re-appropriation", by some fluffy and "the right things to do" policy, or perhaps by some policy which starts of not doing exactly that, but rapidly builds to that.

Labour's park wino hasn't got a snowflake's chance in hell of getting the keys to No.10.

[AndrewDod]

I don't think you have anything to worry about. The tenants that are causing the problems are not the kind of people that will ever be offered a mortgage so would never be in any kind of position to buy your property.

One thing I do get concerned with, is the kneejerk reaction of some around here which seems to be "I'm gonna raise the rent" or "I'm issuing a section 21 as soon as I can" to the slightest bit of bad news. This is just inviting action from the government who could step in with even further regulations. It was agents taking the proverbial that ended up with us getting the TFA. The more we keep screwing over the tenants for something they have now power over, the more likely government intervention will be.

Well the market does what the market does.

Rent is not raised as a punishment -- it is raised to offset loss and risk.

And no amount of dictat from government is ever going to change that in the long run. That is why communist countries end up as the poverty ridden, crime ridden messes that they all became and will become. And which we hopefully will not become - although it is looking as if our youth are pretty dumb about their futures.

Tenants are being screwed over by legislation not by the "we" -- of which I doubt you are one (of the "we").

[AndrewDod]

Maggie didn't present it as stealing from the tax payer, but rather as returning the money stored up in social housing to them. Arguably it was actually stealing from the non-tax payers, in the longer run.

You mean because folk in the future would not have access to even more taxpayer funded facilities. That's a bit like saying that police catching burglars is stealing from the later family of burglars.


Because of course the taxpayers did not only have their assets stolen by council tenants at knockdown price - those folk selling at unimaginable profits, but they now also have to pay the housing benefits of 5 million families who somehow deserve it.

[AndrewDod]

Could this be Labour's way of preventing social mobility? If a person gets a better job in another part of the country they might not be able to get a PRS house because the PRS would have sold off so many properties, leading to that person not being able to take the job.

Well yes -- that is the most important point of all. The fossilised restrictive non-flexible nanny-state legislation-ridden housing market is the biggest constraint of all on social mobility and indeed flexibility of employment in every part of the population.

[leaseholder64]

Maggie didn't present it as stealing from the tax payer, but rather as returning the money stored up in social housing to them. Arguably it was actually stealing from the non-tax payers, in the longer run.

[ExpertInAField]

I don't think you have anything to worry about. The tenants that are causing the problems are not the kind of people that will ever be offered a mortgage so would never be in any kind of position to buy your property.

One thing I do get concerned with, is the kneejerk reaction of some around here which seems to be "I'm gonna raise the rent" or "I'm issuing a section 21 as soon as I can" to the slightest bit of bad news. This is just inviting action from the government who could step in with even further regulations. It was agents taking the proverbial that ended up with us getting the TFA. The more we keep screwing over the tenants for something they have now power over, the more likely government intervention will be.

[Berlingogirl]

Could this be Labour's way of preventing social mobility? If a person gets a better job in another part of the country they might not be able to get a PRS house because the PRS would have sold off so many properties, leading to that person not being able to take the job.

[flexy]

For any other sort of pension saving you would be told to diversify your investments. It seems that people relying on BtL as a savings vehicle violate this by only investing in the single, market. Diversity isn't just having properties in several parts of the country it is spreading investments across different sorts of venture that won't be affected by the same legislation changes.

Unlike sellers of other investments, estate agents aren't regulated to give investment advice.

You are correct, but I think you're making some wrong assumptions on my pension strategy!

This however doesn't stop some marxist going through and stealing your pension, regardless of how diverse the investments are!

Quite frankly, I'm more likely to be dead before I reach this new so called pension age of 75. Maybe the idea is to steal everything and then say you can't retire anyway. I'm not in the baby boomer generation with a final salary pension, unfortunately.