Rental market is utterly broken

lol, even if a joke, time and place...

Not read the entire thread but the market is dysfunctional, mainly because of voters.
Political campaigns since 1940 onwards were all about building, look at the banners and figures.
Governments knew natural population growth, encouraging immigration and the lack of building was going to be a problem starting ~2000.
But 'the average voter' doesnt like building; some valid reasons and some people are just selfish, and the "we struggled, the next generation should have too" BS too

The house I own, only recently, has increased 300% since 2000 (in the south west) !!!
Inflation due to central bank increasing money supply accounts for 40% of the increase.
60% of that increase is due to demand and cheap rates, also due to central bank policy.
Oh and then FTB face difficulties because of 'property investors' leveraging cheap money (also central bank policy) and buying starter homes when supply is already down.

I rented for years, hated every minute of it but stamp duty and moving every ~3 years meant meant it didnt make sense.
Stamp duty needs to be ditched, its an utterly ludicrous tax and causes issues with mobility.
In hindsight I should have bought and rented some place myself but was preoccupied with working long hours.

If I was in the same position in the current market, and couldn't live with relatives, Id live unconventionally i.e. van, motorhome, canal boat, tiny home on some land...etc.
I convinced a couple of people in their 20's todo this as they were really struggling; it allowed them to save over ~5 years, including 5k from government via Lifetime ISA, and managed to put down a deposit (you've got to be really careful with inflation and cash though).
Anyway, they should not have to do this, it shows a huge intergenerational failure.

Interesting series of documentaries on the BBC at the moment about the housing market.

So much less that the rental market is broken, more so that the whole property market is broken, with out of control inflation, fuelled to a large extent by the Governments own actions, and inability / unwillingness to place any kind of control on the housing market generally.

But the rental market is close to the bottom of the property market, and the pile of inflationary pressures are rolling down the hill from the very top. And it's rental and social housing that are appearing in the firing line, after all those pressures have built a good deal of momentum.

So rather than have an overall plan on how to manage the hosing market, and preventing rampant property inflation, the Government, of pretty much any colour has introduced rental reforms. Poor show, and demonising landlords - deflecting from the fact that politicians got it so badly badly wrong.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001rkn5/br...

A council estate personally. Because one has security and is able to put down roots and build a life/start a family. The rent is likely to be half of what it would be privately, you're unlikely to be evicted on a whim because the landlord thinks you're shifty/wants the house back after splitting up with the missus/just found someone else who'll pay more etc etc... Your entire post assumes that everyone wants to own their own home and would only consider renting temporarily inbetween travelling or whatever. But ideally, there should be more social housing to rent. And to rent as a lifestyle choice as opposed to a temporary last resort. The fact that a lot of council estates these days are stholes can be blamed on a lot of other factors rather than the general idea. I'm sure they weren't like that when they were first built. Not everyone wants to spend all their free time doing DIY and servicing a colossal mortgage.

I've seen how social housing can be a success in europe, and indeed, was here until it was all sold off. My grandparents spent their entire lives in a council house. I have nothing but great memories from that time and they were some of the most happiest people I knew. My grandad worked whilst gran took care of the children/house. Very house-proud and contented. I imagine that same house has either been sold off and now privately rented for ££££.

Had that twice now, second time an alternative spark said it was fine. Cowboys abound and often know it’s a time bound legal obligation so take advantage.

‘All new’ being the key part of that post.

My own house is early 70’s and had a very solid grey steel consumer unit with rewireable fuses when we bought it. Swapped out ten years ago for rcds and plastic. Should have kept the old one!
The EICR is a racket. I’ve had all sorts as requirements - siliconing bits of chopped up plastic conduit across the cable entries on the consumer unit is popular. Latest was combining two unprotected lighting mcbs together and sliding that across onto the sockets/cooker RCD feed as “bathroom lights need rcd protection”. I thought whole idea of unprotected lights was so you’d be able to see when the rcd tripped. Everyone has phone torches these days I suppose. He did try and add a second rcd first and spent a long time under the stairs wondering why the new rcd kept tripping. That’ll be cos you’ve only got one neutral din rail you fully qualified electrician you.
Still, I am fully legal. And that’s what counts.

Even the early metal boxes from 3/4 years ago are now out of date. I’ve just had two flips rewired, both had newish metal boxes, both did not meet todays requirements for a full rewire. One was fitted around 3 years ago and had no grommets, it also had some rubber wiring from 50+ years ago connected. It looked good on the face of it but the new box was hiding a multitude of sins.

Well thats no surprise. I was one of them. Message is "get out", so i did. You cant win against government.

My understanding of labour policies is that they will make it a bit worse again.

The idea that streamlining planning policy, even if it were to be done, is going to have any effect is fantasy.

There is no incentive for the big house builders to build more houses. Doing so will drive down house prices. That would be like turkeys voting for christmas. A constrained supply is perfect for them.

Given net inflows of people is, roughly double current house building rates, that means, just to stand still, means doubling house building, which, logically, would slow or stop price growth but not reverse it.

But there simply isnt the people to double house building. Even if you managed to get rid of the other obstacles, a big increase just cant happen.

The only way to slow things down is to limit demand. That means less people. Not going to happen under any government any time soon.

Split families, old folk not dying, more people priced out of inner London, that sort of thing.

It's not so much due to a rise in population but as much down to the social shift within that population that means more properties are needed by family units etc

Combine that with the hundreds of local councils refusing to enforce their own delivery numbers for social and affordable housing for at least two decades and you have thousands of people who should be entitled to proper housing support being forced into the more expensive private sector.

Rents also like ok to be being priced not by wages as they ought to be but by the cost of borrowing etc.

Over 600k people arriving into the UK last year, and pretty big numbers before that. We struggle to build 300K houses a year.

Id say its pretty obvious that cant work long term.

You either increase supply, (impossible) or limit demand, (no political will).

It is after all a demand V supply issue.

As niether supply nor demand is likely to be addressed in the near term, expect more of the same.