Own a BTL... Tenant can buy it off you at reduced rate.

[Du1point8]

Labour wants to bring a right to buy against private landlords and will sell your property under market rates.

So does this mean if you did a BTL on 10% and interest only (hoping the property gains value) and would pay it off with inheritance later on, then along comes your long term tenant and does a right to buy at 30% off...

Who picks up the 20% of the mortgage and the deposit you just lost? Labour?

[blueg33]

RTB is idiotic whether its for private or state owned housing. We build social housing and RTB is one of the fundamental barrier to delivering more of it

[996owner]

Been looking at this.

We have 1 BTL, We had to let it out when my job changed and we needed to move (We had no choice)
Bought in 2007, crash in 2008, needed to sell in 2010(job change) but sale value didn't cover mortgage by £25K. so let the place out.
Tenant still in place. I will not be selling for below market value. We make zero profit and barely cover costs.
As it happens the house is still not worth the pre crash price.

This could just be the end of BTL as most if not all landlords just give up.
Yep lots of houses on the market but those in power don't seem to grasp that not everyone wants to own and not everyone can secure a mortgage.

[B210bandit]

More horsest from McDonnell. Fund local authorities to build council housing. Enforce high regulatory standards for all rentals ruthlessly. Regulate private renting to relatively low returns for landlords to avoid speculators entering a market for an essential service.

[blueg33]

B210bandit said:

More horsest from McDonnell. Fund local authorities to build council housing. Enforce high regulatory standards for all rentals ruthlessly. Regulate private renting to relatively low returns for landlords to avoid speculators entering a market for an essential service.

Local authorities already fund building of council houses. My current company is doing exactly that and only that we have a capacity of 10k units pa
.
The problem with LA's isn't funding building of new houses (taking people out of B&B etc sorts that), the problem is that the decision making processes are horrifically slow and procurement rules mean that they are always running scared of committing.

I have one council wanting me to build on 35 sites they own, all will be council housing, all 2 and 3 bedroom houses with gardens etc. These are currently blocked by:

1. Procurement fears
2. Right to buy fears, a real risk on council owned stock

[nikaiyo2]

B210bandit said:

More horsest from McDonnell. Fund local authorities to build council housing. Enforce high regulatory standards for all rentals ruthlessly. Regulate private renting to relatively low returns for landlords to avoid speculators entering a market for an essential service.

When you say "Low Returns" what do you have in mind?

I would imagine that this would drive out all but speculators, who use capital growth to subsidize rents.

If you want to end speculators using rental to subsidize their speculation then enforcing a minimum return would make far more sense, but I would imagine be deeply unpopular with the morons of momentum.

Would you also like to see similar regulation of other essential services? For arguments sake farmers only being allowed to make a certain % gross margin?

Is this also not completely at odds with his stance on the EU? How can he campaign for remain and advocate things that are clearly never allowed within the EU?

[dazwalsh]

the man is a fking lunatic, how they expect that to work in the real world is beyond me.

Banks would refuse to lend on btl, landlords would exit en masse, choosing to take their money with them, and the losers would be 4/5 million renters fighting over a smaller pool of properties.

[R Mutt]

Same question of who pays for the equity in companies that employees will be given shares in under Labour.

But Right to Buy under Thatcher which made sense under the conditions of the time, on properties the council wouldn't have even counted as an asset and were happy to selll, is still causing outrage.

[Earthdweller]

They need to sort out the tenant for life issues first

There are too many single people or couples sitting in 4/5 bed council houses or kids of inheriting the rental blocking the stock for young families who are struggling to find accommodation

In my view, if the state is housing you, it should be providing a housing need and should be regularly reviewed

If you only need a one bed flat .. that’s what you get

It’s totally different for private renters paying a market rate .. in that case I have no issue with a single person renting a 10 bed house on 100 acres

But, when the taxpayer is paying for it

[blueg33]

R Mutt said:

Same question of who pays for the equity in companies that employees will be given shares in under Labour.

But Right to Buy under Thatcher which made sense under the conditions of the time, on properties the council wouldn't have even counted as an asset and were happy to selll, is still causing outrage.

IMO it was always a stupid idea unless the Council's were funded to replace the stock, which they were not, and haven't been since.

RTB calculates the value based on the original cost to build, so when the right is exercised say 15 years since the property was built, inflation means that you cannot replace the stock you have sold with the capital receipt.

I think that once people get to the point where they can afford to buy, they should not be allowed to buy council stock, but should be buying shared equity affordable housing, or if they can afford it buy privately. It ludicrous that people are allowed to buy a home really cheap and then have a PCP Audi on the drive costing them £500 per month, whilst people who really need homes are either in B&B or worse out on the streets.

Likewise, empty nest council tenants should be made to move into a smaller property to free up the larger council houses.

[Vizsla]

blueg33 said:

Likewise, empty nest council tenants should be made to move into a smaller property to free up the larger council houses.

I agree, but this does happen already. I know one person who was forced by the Council to move to a smaller council house when her daughter moved out.

[R Mutt]

blueg33 said:

IMO it was always a stupid idea unless the Council's were funded to replace the stock, which they were not, and haven't been since.

They got paid. How much had values increased?

[heisthegaffer]

Earthdweller said:

They need to sort out the tenant for life issues first

There are too many single people or couples sitting in 4/5 bed council houses or kids of inheriting the rental blocking the stock for young families who are struggling to find accommodation

In my view, if the state is housing you, it should be providing a housing need and should be regularly reviewed

If you only need a one bed flat .. that’s what you get

It’s totally different for private renters paying a market rate .. in that case I have no issue with a single person renting a 10 bed house on 100 acres

But, when the taxpayer is paying for it

Agreed.

There needs to be closer scrutiny on council renters. I won't go into some examples I know of but suffice to say there are a number who currently or previously have taken the mick big time.

[menousername]

The idea of forcing council tenants to downsize ignores a few things like but not limited to -

1. there aren’t enough options out there, particularly one and two bedrooms

2. people in the position to would happily consider it but are distrustful of the local authorities, and fear they will be forced to accept something inadequate / run down / in a rough area, and that if they object they will be penalised / chucked out. The process and the people involved are a deterrent and so they do not want to put themselves forward

3. A not insignificant portion of council tenants work and pay rent and will have renovated and decorated the property through their own money. Hence they need another property in a similar condition. Any local authority property that comes available that needs work is frequently sold (often at auction) as the local authority does not want to invest in the repairs

4. Most in this option will be OAPs. A second floor apartment is not realistic. They need a small maisonette or bungalow with a small garden

[kev1974]

Bit cheeky of Captain Commie McDonnell to blame Thatcher when
- Right To Buy was actually a Labour Party idea ... it's right there in their 1959 manifesto ... check it out in the last paragraph under "Housing". http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1959/195...
- Right To Buy isn't a totally terrible idea, but the idea was that the money it raised for the councils should have been spent on building replacement properties. We've had quite a few Labour governments since Thatcher, and they didn't build much in the way of replacement housing either. Hence the shortages now.

I presume Son of Corbyn will be one of the first to lead the way and return his Right To Buy property to the State?
And the Blair mob will dismantle their rather tasty Buy To Let empire too? Or is that why Blair appears to be worried about Corbyn (and his puppetmaster McDonnell) too?

[Ian Geary]

dazwalsh said:

the man is a fking lunatic, how they expect that to work in the real world is beyond me.

Banks would refuse to lend on btl, landlords would exit en masse, choosing to take their money with them, and the losers would be 4/5 million renters fighting over a smaller pool of properties.

But doesn't the argument run that there is still *exactly* the same number of houses as there was before?

Btl landlords would "exit on mass", but they're not going to dismantle their houses and take them with them.

To take the money they will have to sell their btl houses.

In a market, and increased supply reduces price (demand being constant)

So former tenants now have more ability to buy their former residence, and achieve the policy McDonald is after, with the big bad btl landlords taking the haircut as comeuppance for their evil capitalist ways.

[Pesty]

Ian Geary said:

But doesn't the argument run that there is still *exactly* the same number of houses as there was before?

Btl landlords would "exit on mass", but they're not going to dismantle their houses and take them with them.

To take the money they will have to sell their btl houses.

In a market, and increased supply reduces price (demand being constant)

So former tenants now have more ability to buy their former residence, and achieve the policy McDonald is after, with the big bad btl landlords taking the haircut as comeuppance for their evil capitalist ways.

I’d ask the tenants to leave and have the house empty before this was signed into law.

Wait a few months before it got changed back again because of the chaos.

Why would I sell a property for below market to strangers?

So there will be a boat load of houses either empty or in the market at normal value which might push prices down but might not.
Either way a lot of renters won’t get mortgages.

But Corbyn and his commies will have won a victory over perceived rich Tory people who they hate
Even though they all live in expensive houses and other houses for free.

Edited by Pesty on Monday 2nd September 19:10

[Gecko1978]

the car left always confuse me, a policy like this basically says give me that which I have not paid for, which I have not worked for, which I have not taken on risk to acquire.

A landlord has to pay the bills if there is no tennant, if the sitting one does not pay, if there is damage etc the tennant forgoes all that risk in exchange for a single payment. They are free to live where they like not tied in long term. They do use and benefit from the services provided by the local council yet the left want the landlord to pay for this.

A situation where the state takes your property by give force is communism. It's Venezuela, Cuba, Stalinist Russia. An people would vote for this st.

[Mandat]

Du1point8 said:

Who picks up the 20% of the mortgage and the deposit you just lost? Labour?

Presumably that would be down to the BTL owner, on the basis of the large amount of rent received over the years from the long term tenant.

[FazerBoy]

Ian Geary said:

But doesn't the argument run that there is still *exactly* the same number of houses as there was before?

Btl landlords would "exit on mass", but they're not going to dismantle their houses and take them with them.

To take the money they will have to sell their btl houses.

In a market, and increased supply reduces price (demand being constant)

So former tenants now have more ability to buy their former residence, and achieve the policy McDonald is after, with the big bad btl landlords taking the haircut as comeuppance for their evil capitalist ways.

Yes, I think this is what would happen. Property prices would crash as a result of a policy like this being adopted.

Whether this is a good thing or not depends on one’s financial position etc. Some people (generally those not on the property ladder) will think we need a major drop in property prices as property has become effectively unaffordable to all but the most well-off in society.