The discgrace that is the UK Property Market
Discussion
michael gould said:
The British love a good moan……..it’s the same in business, Business owners constantly whinge about red tape and all the add on costs of employing people. The cost of employing somebody in France is about double their wages and if you want to make somebody redundant, you have to find a job for them first.
A bigger problem for this country is we have allowed the creation of a litigious society. There are too many lawyers …….a great example is that you are 30X more likely to have a neck injury in the UK than you are in Germany.
Presumably, you mean that claims for neck injuries are 30x higher in the UK than in Germany, rather than a discrepancy in actual rates of injury? I'd like to see figures, but there are plenty of reasons that this might be the case: strict German rules on evidence, statute of limitations, etc. (I'm not German-qualified). This may well be a good thing. Some legal systems make it hard for those injured by the negligence of others to claim damages. A friend is in a wheelchair. The adaptations to her home and car, were all paid for by a claim against the guy who caused the injury. The ability to make claims is a good thing, and it's right that she didn't have to pay for that.
I'm not saying there aren't problems in the PI field, I'm not saying there aren't abuses and scam merchants, there are lots, but I have found that complaints that society is "too litigious" generally mean "I've heard about some claims that I personally deem to be without merit". Fortunately, we have judges to decide, on the evidence, which claims have merit.
</santimoniouslawyermode>
A common lawyer said:
michael gould said:
The British love a good moan……..it’s the same in business, Business owners constantly whinge about red tape and all the add on costs of employing people. The cost of employing somebody in France is about double their wages and if you want to make somebody redundant, you have to find a job for them first.
A bigger problem for this country is we have allowed the creation of a litigious society. There are too many lawyers …….a great example is that you are 30X more likely to have a neck injury in the UK than you are in Germany.
Presumably, you mean that claims for neck injuries are 30x higher in the UK than in Germany, rather than a discrepancy in actual rates of injury? I'd like to see figures, but there are plenty of reasons that this might be the case: strict German rules on evidence, statute of limitations, etc. (I'm not German-qualified). This may well be a good thing. Some legal systems make it hard for those injured by the negligence of others to claim damages. A friend is in a wheelchair. The adaptations to her home and car, were all paid for by a claim against the guy who caused the injury. The ability to make claims is a good thing, and it's right that she didn't have to pay for that.
I'm not saying there aren't problems in the PI field, I'm not saying there aren't abuses and scam merchants, there are lots, but I have found that complaints that society is "too litigious" generally mean "I've heard about some claims that I personally deem to be without merit". Fortunately, we have judges to decide, on the evidence, which claims have merit.
</santimoniouslawyermode>
I am certainly not talking about a claim that has left somebody in a wheelchair!
But But But there is a really sh*tty end of the market. In Liverpool you are constantly accosted by sales people in the streets asking if you had a trip all fall or an injury at work. They offer £500 as soon as your claim is accepted by one of their solicitors. Most of these claims have nothing to do about what is fair and equitable, and most neck injuries do not exist. I remember a few years ago one of my drivers rolling into the back of another vehicle at traffic lights. The impact was at less than 3 MPH…… no damage, and no claim was made for damage to either vehicle. The claim for neck injuries was settled for the occupants at £7000 and the solicitor’s fee was £8000.
With regards to your comment about Judges …very few of these cases are heard before a judge …it’s cheaper to give the climent £1500 and the firm of solicitors their “cut of the action”
Fortunately the government seems to be doing something about it with the ridiculous referral fee system being banned……No doubt solicitors will target companies to take up the shortfall.
There’s the old joke……….Solicitors are now being used in experiments instead of white mice, 3 reasons are given.
1. There are more solicitors than white mice
2. People like white mice
3. There are some things that white mice just won’t do!
ClaphamGT3 said:
AJS- said:
Including scrapping the planning laws?
Planning addresses issues infinitely wider than housing provision and, without it, we'd probably see fewer home built rather than more.Being a planner, it it politics that restricts house building in my view. I have seen plenty of cases where elected politicians push down hosing targets when new plans are being created and turn down perfectly acceptable application schemes because of their nimby objectors electorate.
But the biggest impact causing the fall in house building over the last 50 years is the withdrawal of the state as a social house builder. This has never really been addressed.
But the biggest impact causing the fall in house building over the last 50 years is the withdrawal of the state as a social house builder. This has never really been addressed.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Planning addresses issues infinitely wider than housing provision and, without it, we'd probably see fewer home built rather than more.
So you are in favour of planning laws then. That's fine, but it is entirely inconsistent with your statement that:ClaphamGT3 said:
"If you read my posts through this thread, you'll see that I constantly advocate zero Govt intervention.
You support planning laws.Planning laws are a form of government intervention
Therefore you support some form of government intervention
Stop pretending you advocate no intervention as it is patently not true. It does not matter whether planning laws are good or bad. You advocate government intervention.
Edited by TheMonster on Friday 6th September 23:31
TheMonster said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Planning addresses issues infinitely wider than housing provision and, without it, we'd probably see fewer home built rather than more.
So you are in favour of planning laws then. That's fine, but it is entirely inconsistent with your statement that:ClaphamGT3 said:
"If you read my posts through this thread, you'll see that I constantly advocate zero Govt intervention.
You support planning laws.Planning laws are a form of government intervention
Therefore you support some form of government intervention
Stop pretending you advocate no intervention as it is patently not true. It does not matter whether planning laws are good or bad. You advocate government intervention. It just so happens that you support a form of government intervention that keeps prices high, and you don't like a form of government intervention that may reduce prices.
A common lawyer said:
It always makes me smile to see UK landlords moan about things being skewed in favour of tenants -- try France (or almost any other European country. It is a nightmare for landlords. You can't evict between October and April because it's considered inhumane to make people homeless in winter. Some people just stop paying in January, knowing that you can't do anything quickly enough to get them out before October, so they're good until April. Insurance against it is a chunk of change, and really affects profitability. Some landlords don't bother, and just make sure they have the best tenants. They demand (illegally) parental guarantees, employment contracts, payslips, bank statements, etc etc!
In the UK, there is still an increasing population, changing society (divorce, now you need two houses, etc) doesn't this mean demand will not drop? If that assumption is correct, without massive building, nothing will change the supply side, either. So barring intervention, the only way is up?
You've hit the nail on the head there. It's a case of supply not keeping up with demand, and the fact that housing is a necessity. In the UK, there is still an increasing population, changing society (divorce, now you need two houses, etc) doesn't this mean demand will not drop? If that assumption is correct, without massive building, nothing will change the supply side, either. So barring intervention, the only way is up?
Gwagon111 said:
You're not allowed to disagree with anyone on here.
A disagreement is a good way of starting a debate with someoneNow making up a pack of lies to somehow get you internet nerd points,and then failing to give in before you are ousted as a lying dillusional little twerp who still lives with his mum in a her council house.
Now thats just plain weird
Kudos said:
Where is the law that states that everyone must own a house nowadays?
If you can't afford, rent.
And breath...If you can't afford, rent.
BJG1 said:
I love the way "owning a house isn't a right" is always trotted out in these scenarios - usually by those that do own a house and have benefitted massively from the way the market has gone in the last 30 years and referring to those massively disadvantaged by it.
You're right, nobody has a right, but isn't it kind of the point of a democratic society that we attempt to build a country that is as optimal to live in as possible? Shouldn't we look at the housing market as an area where we should be making it as beneficial for society overall as possible? Is it not fair to say that lower priced housing would help more people than it would disadvantage? That tackling exorbitant rents, particularly in the south and London, would be for the good of the many rather than the few?
It bugs me too. I always find those who are recipients of what is a generational wealth transfer try and defend it. This is why Kudos's point is invalid as many people miss whats really happened. Its so distorted that where I am renting is 3x more expensive than buying. Its also normally the same people who promote renting as a viable alternative but I could write a book about my experiences of renting over the last 10 years and suffice to say a private rented house can never be a stable viable home. You're right, nobody has a right, but isn't it kind of the point of a democratic society that we attempt to build a country that is as optimal to live in as possible? Shouldn't we look at the housing market as an area where we should be making it as beneficial for society overall as possible? Is it not fair to say that lower priced housing would help more people than it would disadvantage? That tackling exorbitant rents, particularly in the south and London, would be for the good of the many rather than the few?
Its also now financially unwise but the alternative is out of reach for most and this is the problem. You only need read the stats of many families with a single child spending most of their income on rent. Of course the response is always "they shouldnt have had kids" or "move to a different area" but the former is just silly and the latter misses the point. Why do we want to make living a content life so difficult for the average sustainable family? And as for aspiration! How are they meant to aspire to owning a house when they cant even save!
While ClaphamGT3 makes a good point about mobility, it is completely unfair to a generation to artificially inflate a market by several key policy's, the latest of which is Help2Buy. The problem with Help2Buy is that it artificially inflates an asset bubble that was stalling only to make it more difficult for those struggling. Of course the short term help is fine, but when that runs out the recipients find themselves in more debt. So, why is it OK for the conservatives to have a policy of none intervention except for this market? voters. David Willets even wrote a book about it!
And so yet again a policy that will allow many young couples to be screwed over while others do a 'pump and dump'. Despite all the bias in the media the BOE will raise interest rates, just watch the MPC meetings and read the documentation and youll see all the break clauses. It will protect sterling and after more people will be in the s
t because of Gidiots encouragement of debt to those who cant afford it for an asset priced out of their reach by a generation who now think its OK to mock. hornet said:
Absolutely not intended to be a political point, but couldn't it be argued that's what the right to buy scheme was?
The difference there was that it was long term renting off the state that worked (in terms of rent agreements and stability for a family). And although subsidized living isn't great for the tax payer, selling off the houses at rock bottom prices was unforgivable. And the state requirement was then replaced by private landlords charging full whack with the tenants contributions made up by the tax payer. This disparity is just subsidizing private landlords AGAIN with tax payers money! IMO its just shows a complete lack of long term thinking as do schemes like Help2Buy. ClaphamGT3 said:
In answer to the poster above, the unpalatable reality is that a lot of people are going to have to get used to a much lower standard of living than their parents enjoyed.
The only way out is to enable robust and sustainable economic growth in real terms so that wages can rise without causing undue inflation. To do that, we have to work out what we can make or do that other countries want to buy from us. That is what our politicians should be focusing on, not fiddle-round-the-edges intervention in specific areas of the economy
BFDThe only way out is to enable robust and sustainable economic growth in real terms so that wages can rise without causing undue inflation. To do that, we have to work out what we can make or do that other countries want to buy from us. That is what our politicians should be focusing on, not fiddle-round-the-edges intervention in specific areas of the economy
Edited by embeddedbob on Friday 13th September 20:16
menousername said:
thought you needed that kinda deposit to get a good rate mortgage
just seems crazy times to me, people are having to work harder for less, just to pay the bills
i dont feel particularly optimistic about the near future
just seems crazy times to me, people are having to work harder for less, just to pay the bills
i dont feel particularly optimistic about the near future
Condi said:
As a young person trying to get on the housing ladder it does seem a bit of a laugh at the moment. Houses seem to be going up in value all around, but my wages have been frozen and so it becomes ever more difficult. At least if wages were rising as well you could realistically save for something.
Ah but now you can BORROW MORE! Dont worry, its backed by the government *cough* for a limited time *cough* and because of forward guidance we know (lol) interest rates will stay low! What youre supposed to do is get leveraged up in debt to support the ponzi. Welcome to generation serf! 
GT03ROB said:
menousername said:
also - im too young to really know for sure... but the idea of having to have a partner to get on the ladder, joint mortgage etc
was it always like this?
For as long as I can remember!was it always like this?
Edited by embeddedbob on Friday 13th September 20:13
All i've seen within the last 10 years is constantly moving goalposts in my area of the country, when it comes to the dream of property ownership.
First we were told "You will have to borrow 90%", then "If you want more than a 1 bedroom shoebox, then you will have move out of London and wave goodbye to your friends and family", swiftly followed by "Sorry, but you now need 2 incomes of £30000, £40000 Cash Deposit, a significant amount in Stamp Duty and a hefty solicitors fee ".
Now the rhetoric is "Nobody has the right to own a property, maybe you should rent a modest flat for £1000pcm and stop complaining..."
My father paid £10000 for his first house. His salary was average at the time - £3000pa.
First we were told "You will have to borrow 90%", then "If you want more than a 1 bedroom shoebox, then you will have move out of London and wave goodbye to your friends and family", swiftly followed by "Sorry, but you now need 2 incomes of £30000, £40000 Cash Deposit, a significant amount in Stamp Duty and a hefty solicitors fee ".
Now the rhetoric is "Nobody has the right to own a property, maybe you should rent a modest flat for £1000pcm and stop complaining..."
embeddedbob said:
Really? One salary with the second taken into account but it wasnt double like it is now. I.e. one salary was the main multiplier 3x 4x.
Edited by embeddedbob on Friday 13th September 20:13
My father paid £10000 for his first house. His salary was average at the time - £3000pa.embeddedbob] said:
GT03ROB said:
menousername said:
also - im too young to really know for sure... but the idea of having to have a partner to get on the ladder, joint mortgage etc
was it always like this?
For as long as I can remember!was it always like this?
Edited by embeddedbob on Friday 13th September 20:13
Edited by GT03ROB on Friday 13th September 23:22
ClaphamGT3 said:
In answer to the poster above, the unpalatable reality is that a lot of people are going to have to get used to a much lower standard of living than their parents enjoyed.
This is very true. A lot of economic migrants (that i have met) living and working in this country already have a 'lower standard of living' than us. They don't have any delusions about owning a £300000 asset and they just seem to get on with their life, work hard and live within their means.
They will sometimes live with their partner in a shared house (with other couples), live in a frugal manner, buy inexpensive clothes and run a crappy old car on a budget.
We have to compete for jobs with these people in a competitive market and we will eventually realise that a large number of us can't have the same things that our parents had.
My expectations are now vastly different to what they were 5 years ago.
GT03ROB said:
Yes Rob, really. I grew up in East Berkshire. As a highly paid grad, I could get 2.5x income as a mortgage. It bought nothing when the cheapest property was 5x income. The only way I got on the ladder was with a partner.
The point I was trying to make is that there has been a long term shift in the housing AND that one of the reasons for this was the increase in credit and deregulation which has meant people now MUST rely on two wages to purchase a family home. Not only that but now rents take up any slack in income preventing people from saving.
The policy now is to increase this upwards (again) which is happening due to all the tax payer funded loans. Which is EXACTLY what happened in the US before it all crashed spectacularly.
What I find silly is that policy's like tax credits, help to buy and all the rest are wage subsidies so asset prices can be kept high. Its just not sustainable.
H22observer said:
My father paid £10000 for his first house. His salary was average at the time - £3000pa.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff