oh dear (tm): Generation rent: the housing ladder starts to collapse for the under-40

[AtW]

if you count a minimum of 2 months quickly and court adjudicated decision a restricted number of reasons 'for any' then you are spot on.

It's 2 months if you are lucky - after assured shorthold tenancy lapses, then it's two billings periods after notice, so if landlord gives you notice 1 day before monthly billing period then you'd have to be out within 29-32 days. That's way too short, should be at least 3 months - I am talking about cases where non-payment is not an issue.

Also I am talking about here tenants who are follow the contract - obviously if you object and squat then you'd buy yourself lots more time, however that could badly influence your future renting agreements, guess it's not important for low end of the market, but renting is wider than low end social housing.

[tractor]

....

if you count a minimum of 2 months quickly and court adjudicated decision a restricted number of reasons 'for any' then you are spot on.

https://www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/overview

If it were a human right then any person who was homeless could walk in to the council and demand housing that hasn't been the case for decades.

In a caring society, that should be the case. Perhaps we should really get away from the pretension that any of us GAF about anyone else, level the playing fields and the toughest can just walk into your mansion and boot you out with no comeback?

For BTL landlords who don't like the risk of damage or prolonged legal action, just up your game and either get better insurance or put your money into something a little safer.

[vetran]

Yeah they are doing it out of the kindness of their hearths and provide invaluable service to society...

The problem is that in 10 years the parents of the current children will not have houses for them to live in as they rented all their lives...

Of course you haven't thought about that having a "portfolio" and such...

BTL is fine for buying outright, BTL where the rent is paying for the 90-100% of the mortgage is wrong on any level.



You mean struggle like the millions forced to rent, spending 40% of their income on rent struggle now? Yes please.

No they are doing it out of self interest like all the other businesses out there. If they are well regulated and fair what better method do you propose?

The councils aren't building houses to rent the Housing associations are buying a few. There are 1.4M buy to let landlords if and many more tenants than any of these can provide.

That was always the case, if you scrimped & saved you could buy a property (I lived on cheese/beans on toast for years with bank interest rates at 10-15% ) and if the government didn't sell it under you for nursing fees or death duties your kids could have it. Alternatively you could rent and the money went nowhere. its not a shock or an entitlement. I always looked at the mortgage as money going into my future not my beer fund when my friends rented.

If 1.4M BTL landlords sell their lets most of them will be swallowed up by those with money to buy outright that excludes pretty much all of those renting.

So the renters will be evicted and if lucky they will be offered a tenancy at a much higher rate. No DSS, Pets, or those without a degree from a decent university need apply. Gobble gobble its XMAS...

why is BTL any more wrong than a shop charging 100% markup on groceries or a Doctor charging for a private appointment? Just because you don't like the fact it costs you money doesn't mean it should be free.

[vetran]

In a caring society, that should be the case.

I agree with you there but it isn't this is partially because the country is subsidising housing for people that don't need it (Bob Crowe for instance) and not building enough housing or encouraging a private rented sector.

However I believe the housing should be temporary and the claimant pushed to better their situation and possibly when on their feet pay back the costs of support.

[shaunbhoy]

In a caring society, that should be the case.

WTF did you get the idea that we have ever lived in a "caring society"?

Perhaps we should really get away from the pretension that any of us GAF about anyone else

Yes, that would do you a lot of good. Us Baby boomers call it "living in the real world".
Start moving away from that umbilical entitlement cord that younger generations have had woven into their psyche and which you seem to imagine will sort everything out for you. You will find it tough, no doubt, but ultimately fulfilling if you can stay the course.

HTH BIDI

[tractor]

...

I agree with you there but it isn't this is partially because the country is subsidising housing for people that don't need it (Bob Crowe for instance) and not building enough housing or encouraging a private rented sector.

However I believe the housing should be temporary and the claimant pushed to better their situation and possibly when on their feet pay back the costs of support.

Indeed, how many Beamers and Chelsea tractors (not a relative btw) do you see outside council houses where the tenants kids have grown up and they have a four bed, two jobs and a very decent income. At that point, they should be made to buy and vacate for others less fortunate. I suggest this would be impossible to police and administer though unless you made entitlement subject to means testing.

You cannot take outliers like you mention as the norm but anyone in Crows position before he died should not have been tolerated. Same with Scargill and the like. I guess there are many others.

[tractor]

...

WTF did you get the idea that we have ever lived in a "caring society"?





Yes, that would do you a lot of good. Us Baby boomers call it "living in the real world".
Start moving away from that umbilical entitlement cord that younger generations have had woven into their psyche and which you seem to imagine will sort everything out for you. You will find it tough, no doubt, but ultimately fulfilling if you can stay the course.

HTH BIDI

I don't think anyone here is labouring under the entitlement bandwagon whichever side of the argument they are on. It's just a card you are playing; akin the to racist card someone always raises when UKIP or immigration is mentioned. I doubt there are many here who are homeless but there is a whole several layers of society who are at the mercy of a ridiculously inflated housing market. People who will forever be chasing a deposit and many that will never get there. It's a simple matter of numbers.

It's the same old story. There used to be a place for unions to protect the interests of the workers but the workers got greedy and destroyed their own unions, now there is very little protection. Tories had a great time in the 80's and got too greedy and stupid about it and were sent to the wilderness for a couple of decades. It always has to be about extremes.

BTL landlords will get mega stuffed in my lifetime and will be crying into their mortgage once again as they did not so long ago when most were in negative equity.

Your chaffinch analogy is still the most ridiculous thing I have read since the last Suity post.

[Placeholder for lots of sarcastic acronyms.]

[shaunbhoy]

Your chaffinch analogy is still the most ridiculous thing I have read since the last Suity post.

[Placeholder for lots of sarcastic acronyms.]

So you don't see anything inherently wrong with producing children before you own a home to raise them in then?
You really are the man who put the Berk in Berkshire, aren't you?

[tractor]

.....

So you don't see anything inherently wrong with producing children before you own a home to raise them in then?
You really are the man who put the Berk in Berkshire, aren't you?

Your analogy is still ridiculous.

You really are the man who put the clot in clotted cream aren't you? Or perhaps you are the Cock in Cockington or even the Crap in Crapstone?

I cant be assed to go past the 'c's but you get the drift. If not, ask an adult to help.

[SueEllen]

And to improve the situation CMD & Gideon have come up with the bright idea of selling off housing association properties to the sitting tenants at a stonking discount.

Luckily the peers in the House of Lords from all parties voted for an amendment to a charities bill that states charities are not “compelled to use or dispose of their assets in a way which is inconsistent with their charitable purposes”.

As lot of Housing Associations are charities......