Buying a house (and renting)

As someone who's considering buying my first place in less than 12 months my issue isn't with saving for a deposit (even though it's been a slow progress) it's that getting a decent mortgage on my wage is going to be the limiting factor. Especially since I'm single.

Drumstick wrote:Young people with deposits still cannot buy homes - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45776289

Onward, a think tank, has suggested that the government should give UK private renters a chance to buy their home by rewarding landlords who sell to long-term tenants.

It says buy-to-let properties should be eligible for 100% capital gains tax relief if sold to a sitting tenant who has lived there for three years.

Onward says the average gain per property would be £15,000, or £7,500 divided between the landlord and tenant.

The centre right think tank estimates 88,000 households would be eligible to take up the relief each year, costing the Treasury around £1.32bn a year.

An absolute nonsense idea that no landlord would ever take up.

Also "rewarding landlords", strawberry float off.

Surely I'd then just use the money I made from the sale of the house to buy a new house and repeat the process, meaning more and more money is transfered from the public purse to me as a private individual.

Sandy wrote:

Drumstick wrote:Young people with deposits still cannot buy homes - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45776289

Onward, a think tank, has suggested that the government should give UK private renters a chance to buy their home by rewarding landlords who sell to long-term tenants.

It says buy-to-let properties should be eligible for 100% capital gains tax relief if sold to a sitting tenant who has lived there for three years.

Onward says the average gain per property would be £15,000, or £7,500 divided between the landlord and tenant.

The centre right think tank estimates 88,000 households would be eligible to take up the relief each year, costing the Treasury around £1.32bn a year.

An absolute nonsense idea that no landlord would ever take up.

Also "rewarding landlords", strawberry float off.

Surely I'd then just use the money I made from the sale of the house to buy a new house and repeat the process, meaning more and more money is transfered from the public purse to me as a private individual.

The idea comes from a Tory think tank. It’s only going to benefit affluent people.

Using the “compare rent affordability in your area with Britain as a whole” facility, the London average for a 2 bed is £1,450, or 64% of a 22-29 year old’s income. A 1 bed is £1,237, or 55% of average income.

£17,400 a year on rent. Silliness.

The people next door to us pay £1,600 a month in rent (3 bed semi). Our mortgage is less than half that, it's crazy really but if that's the market rate, that's the market rate.

KK wrote:Using the “compare rent affordability in your area with Britain as a whole” facility, the London average for a 2 bed is £1,450, or 64% of a 22-29 year old’s income. A 1 bed is £1,237, or 55% of average income.

£17,400 a year on rent. Silliness.

They've got to be using pre-tax figures for those income comparisons I presume? I imagine that £1,450 is not far off 100% of an average take-home salary for someone in their 20s!

The housing situation is just completely strawberry floated up now. I know several people at work who are only about 10-15 years older than me but were able to buy 3/4-bed semis in their 20s for prices that would just be unthinkable now.

London (and other parts of the U.K). is not on its own in this regard though. New York, San Francisco, places in Australia (yes, I’ve forgotten the specific cities)...all going through the same issues of sky high rents and very expensive living costs.

It's all just oligarchs in London now.

Jenuall wrote:It's all just oligarchs in London now.

It's all travel bookshop owners living in blue-doored townhouses in Notting Hill, more like!

Sandy wrote:

Drumstick wrote:Young people with deposits still cannot buy homes - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45776289

Onward, a think tank, has suggested that the government should give UK private renters a chance to buy their home by rewarding landlords who sell to long-term tenants.

It says buy-to-let properties should be eligible for 100% capital gains tax relief if sold to a sitting tenant who has lived there for three years.

Onward says the average gain per property would be £15,000, or £7,500 divided between the landlord and tenant.

The centre right think tank estimates 88,000 households would be eligible to take up the relief each year, costing the Treasury around £1.32bn a year.

An absolute nonsense idea that no landlord would ever take up.

Also "rewarding landlords", strawberry float off.

Surely I'd then just use the money I made from the sale of the house to buy a new house and repeat the process, meaning more and more money is transfered from the public purse to me as a private individual.

Haha Brilliant!

I suppose the offer will only stand for a short ish period (less than 3 years)?

Jenuall wrote:

KK wrote:Using the “compare rent affordability in your area with Britain as a whole” facility, the London average for a 2 bed is £1,450, or 64% of a 22-29 year old’s income. A 1 bed is £1,237, or 55% of average income.

£17,400 a year on rent. Silliness.

They've got to be using pre-tax figures for those income comparisons I presume? I imagine that £1,450 is not far off 100% of an average take-home salary for someone in their 20s!

The housing situation is just completely strawberry floated up now. I know several people at work who are only about 10-15 years older than me but were able to buy 3/4-bed semis in their 20s for prices that would just be unthinkable now.

It's amazing that London still thrives, as it would seem that no one would have any money left after rent. Mind you 1450 split between 2 people isn't so bad.

After emailing all the documents to a solicitor on Friday, I’ve been waiting for them to call. They ended up emailing me back to say they have nobody that can take the case at the moment and so advise I look at other firms.

FFS

Instead of wasting more days on solicitors, I called the property management company, ready for an angry shouting match. The guy there was actually reasonably pleasant, he said he hadn’t been there too long and if I could email him the documents he’d look into it. I told him that his company’s 14 day deadline was up Wednesday and he told me he’d put a note on the file and stop it progressing while he investigates.

I don’t quite believe him, I’ve had too many broken promises with his company, but I emailed him with a long email setting out my complaints and telling him I need more time to appoint legal support.

He’s emailed me back to say he notes my comments and will get back to me shortly.

At least I have the acknowledgment for once, usually they just ignore me.

I’ll give it a day or two and see if they say anything. If not, I’ll start looking at getting a solicitor that actually seems to want my case.

Moggy wrote:

Sandy wrote:

Drumstick wrote:Young people with deposits still cannot buy homes - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45776289

Onward, a think tank, has suggested that the government should give UK private renters a chance to buy their home by rewarding landlords who sell to long-term tenants.

It says buy-to-let properties should be eligible for 100% capital gains tax relief if sold to a sitting tenant who has lived there for three years.

Onward says the average gain per property would be £15,000, or £7,500 divided between the landlord and tenant.

The centre right think tank estimates 88,000 households would be eligible to take up the relief each year, costing the Treasury around £1.32bn a year.

An absolute nonsense idea that no landlord would ever take up.

Also "rewarding landlords", strawberry float off.

Surely I'd then just use the money I made from the sale of the house to buy a new house and repeat the process, meaning more and more money is transfered from the public purse to me as a private individual.

The idea comes from a Tory think tank. It’s only going to benefit affluent people.

Although additional property stamp duty would eat up a healthy chunk of the gain made from disposing of an asset that has been exempt from CGT.

I want nothing short of half a million new homes per year being built, with minimum square metres for overall size and individual bedrooms, if that means building on the "green belt" or the government stepping in to build enough to make up the shortfall, so be it.

The government figure for amount of the UK built on was under 3% last time I checked. It's just not beneficial to the building companies and land owners to release it, so why would they push for it? They can sit on it for 5 years and triple the value. It's also not hard to build houses that are sustainable and don't have a massive foot print if you were to build on the imaginary greenbelt. Which apparently just means land we've already annihilated into farmers fields.

New homes isn't the issue, it's the ability to afford a home old or new. If rents weren't double or treble a normal mortgage people might stand more of a chance.

The problem is greedy landlords hoovering up properties faster than they can be built and then renting them out for exorbitant and immoral amounts. The fact that this it is actually possible to make significant money by doing this is a loophole that needs closing.

Leaseholds for domestic dwellings needs to be chucked as well. Freeholds or nothing as it's too easy to rip people off or take advantage of them.

Drumstick wrote:New homes isn't the issue, it's the ability to afford a home old or new. If rents weren't double or treble a normal mortgage people might stand more of a chance.

That’s partially true and certainly there are a lot of people that will find it next to impossible to save up a deposit.

But as TNAG said earlier, there are also those that can save (or borrow from parents) a deposit but are still priced out because the houses are so expensive that 4 or 5 times their salaries don’t even come close to the price of a house.

I have no idea what the solution is, but a period of mass private house building (to up the supply) plus a period of mass council house building (to lower the demand) would help.

I don't agree. Building new houses just means in increase in the number of houses out of TNAG's price range.

Moggy wrote:But as TNAG said earlier, there are also those that can save (or borrow from parents) a deposit but are still priced out because the houses are so expensive that 4 or 5 times their salaries don’t even come close to the price of a house.

Perhaps banks need to change their formula somehow. I appreciate house prices have skyrocketed and salaries haven't, but it isn't 1990 anymore.

Drumstick wrote:I don't agree. Building new houses just means in increase in the number of houses out of TNAG's price range.

Moggy wrote:But as TNAG said earlier, there are also those that can save (or borrow from parents) a deposit but are still priced out because the houses are so expensive that 4 or 5 times their salaries don’t even come close to the price of a house.

Perhaps banks need to change their formula somehow. I appreciate house prices have skyrocketed and salaries haven't, but it isn't 1990 anymore.

That’s why I said an increase in private homes and council homes. Lots more houses for sale should drop prices, especially if combined with a drop in the demand for rental houses (as council houses would be available).

Moggy wrote:

Drumstick wrote:I don't agree. Building new houses just means in increase in the number of houses out of TNAG's price range.

Moggy wrote:But as TNAG said earlier, there are also those that can save (or borrow from parents) a deposit but are still priced out because the houses are so expensive that 4 or 5 times their salaries don’t even come close to the price of a house.

Perhaps banks need to change their formula somehow. I appreciate house prices have skyrocketed and salaries haven't, but it isn't 1990 anymore.

That’s why I said an increase in private homes and council homes. Lots more houses for sale should drop prices, especially if combined with a drop in the demand for rental houses (as council houses would be available).

They're are obviously concerns over house prices dropping, which would send people into negative equity possibly. But I think it's more that they want the rich (or well off) to stay that way, and the poor to stay poor.

I am going to look at a house tomorrow, it sounds perfect for us and best of all it’s got it’s own private lake! if we get it then the first thing I will be buying is a boat, it’s exciting