The Housing Shortage

[Barbe bleu 832]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

It’s really not difficult to solve. Simply build council houses at a rate of knots so young families currently priced out of homeownership can rent off the council rather than being forced into renting privately. Take away the demand for private rentals and you’ll see large numbers of them coming back onto the market as they’re no longer profitable, which in turn should reduce house prices.

Rents could also be set in the council houses at 25% of household income, which would leave these families with cash to either save a deposit or spend in the wider economy creating jobs and economic growth 

It's not as easy as that though. 

Your plan assumes councils have the money and the infrastructure to build and maintain en masse.  And if they only build houses for social rent they will be delivering the same problems of unbalanced communities that blighted a lot of places in decades gone by.

You are right that we need more housing and more affordable housing but there is no magic wand in most places.  For instance, in London there is an identified need for 66,000 new homes (all types) per year but capacity for only about 50,000 pa. Even if housing goes all guns blazing in every authority there's not going to be a solution as things stand.

 

Edited March 31 by Barbe bleu

[Barbe bleu 832]

43 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Is there an issue with availability of suitable land?

Define 'suitable'. There's enough land for sure, but whether or not its suitable depends on what you value

 

[Fen Canary 866]

9 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

It's not as easy as that though. 

Your plan assumes councils have the money and the infrastructure to build and maintain en masse.  And if they only build houses for social rent they will be delivering the same problems of unbalanced communities that blighted a lot of places in decades gone by.

You are right that we need more housing and more affordable housing but there is no magic wand in most places.  For instance, in London there is an identified need for 66,000 new homes (all types) per year but capacity for only about 50,000 pa. Even if housing goes all guns blazing in every authority there's not going to be a solution as things stand.

 

How many billions does the government currently spend annually topping up peoples wage so they can afford the rent in private rentals, effectively subsidising the sector? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to spend that on building house, so at least the state gets an asset for that outlay?

Ive got no real issue with towns becoming unbalanced if you prioritise young families. There’s many towns that are that way already, either by pricing the poor out or having been taken over by the elderly so I don’t really see having one largely populated by young families as a problem.

As for capacity if space is at a premium then we have to build higher and engage in densification, plenty of other cities manage it

 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,192]

12 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Define 'suitable'. There's enough land for sure, but whether or not its suitable depends on what you value

 

That's a good question 

The answer would be land that all stakeholders agree is acceptable to build on. Councils, local communities, contractors...

Nimbyism might get in the way. There was also an issue with developers buying land and sitting on it for years, I don't know if this is still a problem?

[Fen Canary 866]

1 minute ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

That's a good question 

The answer would be land that all stakeholders agree is acceptable to build on. Councils, local communities, contractors...

Nimbyism might get in the way. There was also an issue with developers buying land and sitting on it for years, I don't know if this is still a problem?

Any consented land that’s undeveloped should incur taxes to discourage the practice. 10% of the land value annually should do the trick 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,192]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Any consented land that’s undeveloped should incur taxes to discourage the practice. 10% of the land value annually should do the trick 

That sounds ok to me, but If the developers have influence over local and/or national politicians, it might be awkward to implement 

Another option is to bring all the empty homes the UK already has back into use

[TheGunnShow 5,989]

Just because land isn't built on doesn't mean it's available to be built on - we still need farmland, national parks, parks / green space and that's before we even look at fauna and flora. Makes more sense to build up instead of out, but then road networks will need looking at.

Also, as for that 1 in 21 being a landlord statistic, I'm pretty sure close to half of all landlords will have just the one property, so probably an inherited one that they choose to rent out.

[dylanisabaddog 4,973]

15 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I've not heard of this policy commitment, do you have a link?  

The ratio of market to affordable housing is currently determined locally and I'd imagine that if you averaged out the requirements across the country they would arrive at over 30% affordable so I'm not sure what this would acheive, or whether 30% is actually right for all areas. Looks good on paper but ultimately hollow is my assessment of the headline.

One thing I did like with Labour is the (admittedly very very niche)  promise to set up a group that could provide advice to local authorities about 'viability'.  I've my doubts that this could really be done but it's certainly something to be considered seriously if we want to get housing right.

I like that Labour are looking to get some difference to the Conservatives on housing and planning (and that they are rowing back a bit on the 'build on the greenbelt' stuff they were coming up with before.  As you rightly say though it's tough yo find a point of difference when the parties have been so aligned so so long. 

I heard a Labour person talking about it on LBC. May have been David Lammy. 

The reason that in general there is little difference between the parties is that there is no money to spend. The country is in its worst state financially since 1945, in fact it's so bad we can't borrow any more.

That's partly due to Covid but the Conservative Government somehow managed to double the national debt between 2010 and 2020 and then of course we had Brexit (although some people are still in denial about that). 

 

 

[Barbe bleu 832]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I heard a Labour person talking about it on LBC. May have been David Lammy. 

The reason that in general there is little difference between the parties is that there is no money to spend. The country is in its worst state financially since 1945, in fact it's so bad we can't borrow any more.

That's partly due to Covid but the Conservative Government somehow managed to double the national debt between 2010 and 2020 and then of course we had Brexit (although some people are still in denial about that). 

 

 

You can't blame everything  on funding.

The reason there is general consensus on planning rules is because both sides agree or, more likely,  neither set of politicians undestands the process not thinks its something they can turn into votes. its very little to do with funding

I'm not advocating a big change but there could be lots of difference between the parties on the issue.  It takes nothing to de-designate the greenbelt and allow lots and lots of house building.  It wouldn't take much to employ lots more people I'm the business either.

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,973]

5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You can't blame everything  on funding.

The reason there is general consensus on planning rules is because both sides agree or, more likely,  neither set of politicians undestands the process not thinks its something they can turn into votes. its very little to do with funding

I'm not advocating a big change but there could be lots of difference between the parties on the issue.  It takes nothing to de-designate the greenbelt and allow lots and lots of house building.  It wouldn't take much to employ lots more people I'm the business either.

 

I'm not sure about that. It would probably cost around £50bn to build around 300,000 council owned homes. 

It would be a wonderful thing to do but we don't have £1bn let alone £50bn

[littleyellowbirdie 2,586]

8 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You can't blame everything  on funding.

The reason there is general consensus on planning rules is because both sides agree or, more likely,  neither set of politicians undestands the process not thinks its something they can turn into votes. its very little to do with funding

I'm not advocating a big change but there could be lots of difference between the parties on the issue.  It takes nothing to de-designate the greenbelt and allow lots and lots of house building.  It wouldn't take much to employ lots more people I'm the business either.

 

As the originally story states though, there's already enough housing. What there isn't is legislation that ensures everyone can get access to housing through possible approaches like deterring buy to let while encouraging people to take lodgers.

Existing stock needs to be used more efficiently. Less people living alone and less people using housing to generate their own income.

[TheGunnShow 5,989]

Conversion of old industrial/commercial units into residential stock should be part of the strategy too (says the guy who lives in an apartment in a converted Victorian spinning mill). We've done a fair bit of that in Bolton and it's a nice synergy - preservation of industrial heritage, use of brownfield sites, practical places for people to live.

In fact, the old tax office in the town centre got converted and I think the old main post office did as well. Which brings me to my next point. Town centres will probably shrink a bit in terms of retail due to the development of online shopping, so allow for more residential property within such town centres as that might rejuvenate places where footfall has fallen.

[Barbe bleu 832]

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

As the originally story states though, there's already enough housing. What there isn't is legislation that ensures everyone can get access to housing through possible approaches like deterring buy to let while encouraging people to take lodgers.

Existing stock needs to be used more efficiently. Less people living alone and less people using housing to generate their own income.

There's enough housing if you make benefits claimants live in a two bed in Stoke on Trent, or if you force people to share a house if they want to live in the south east. If that's where we want to be as a society then we saw probably OK on housing.

 It's not just about raw numbers,it about size, tenure and,  crucially, location.

 

[Barbe bleu 832]

24 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm not sure about that. It would probably cost around £50bn to build around 300,000 council owned homes. 

It would be a wonderful thing to do but we don't have £1bn let alone £50bn

Free up the green belt and every farmer will become a development company. Wouldnt cost the state a penny and the short term economic boost would be immense.  It would be a very bad idea but money isn't always the problem or the solution.

Edited April 1 by Barbe bleu

[dylanisabaddog 4,973]

29 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Free up the green belt and every farmer will become a development company. Wouldnt cost the state a penny and the short term economic boost would be immense.  It would be a very bad idea but money isn't always the problem or the solution.

Who is going to buy the houses? Like many, I couldn't afford to buy the house I live in now if I was 30. 

We need affordable social housing. There is no money to provide it. 

I agree it's a huge problem but I'm not sure the ploughing up large areas of countryside to provide huge houses is the answer. Once it's gone it's gone. 

What would help locally would be a huge social housing estate on the Carrow Works site but I've no idea how the economics would work. Perhaps Housing Associations could borrow against future rents? You may know better than me.

One thing is for sure, we need to stop a generation being forced to pay £1k a month plus to rent a 2 bed property. That's £400 too much and that £400 would otherwise be spent on goods creating profits, VAT and Corporation /Income tax. The current situation is hugely damaging to the economy. 

[SteveN8458 64]

An interesting topic, my thoughts:

Part of the problem is too many young families expect too much and are not prepared to for-go 'essentials/luxuries' to better themselves.

Now before  get lynched, by 'essentials/luxuries' I means holidays/latest Iphones (other makes available) multiple cars etc.

When my wife & I were dating we bought our first house together. Her salary went 100% on the mortgage (circa 15% at that time)

It was a 2 bed terrace, and we spent 18 months renevating before we got married & moved in. We had 1 car, an old Avenger, our honemoon was in the UK for 7 days. Every penny we had went on the house. When we moved, we again bought a property needing renovating. Our first holiday abroad was on our 10th aniversary.

Feels a bit like a Monty Python sketch!!

My wife now works part-time in an infants school. Most of the families have 2 holidays abroad each year. Christmas on the credit card. The thought of NOT having the latest mobile is painfull to them. Yet the complain when prices go up, inc the rent! They feel 'entitled'

Now I agree that there should be more council houses available to rent, I was brought up in one. Nothing wrong with social housing, just there isn't enough. Why is there so few? Didn't a certain M.T. encourage people to buy their council house at a discount? Yet at the same time restrict councils from using the income this generated from building more social housing.

 

The tories & labour both have-it-in for private landlords, yet if they didn't exist would the tenants they house be able to afford to buy the house?? would they pass the 'tests' to be offered a mortgage to buy the house? there are no tests to rent a property. My youngest son rented for a while. His rent was higher thatn a mortgage for the same property yet he could not get a mortgage as he failed the affordability test for the mortgage yet the rent for the very same house was £100+/month more than the mortgage.

Then we have to consider those people who cross the channel in boats, once they have bee granted official entry into the UK they will need homes, where will these come from?

Sorry need to get off the soap box 😞

[littleyellowbirdie 2,586]

14 minutes ago, SteveN8458 said:

An interesting topic, my thoughts:

Part of the problem is too many young families expect too much and are not prepared to for-go 'essentials/luxuries' to better themselves.

Now before  get lynched, by 'essentials/luxuries' I means holidays/latest Iphones (other makes available) multiple cars etc.

When my wife & I were dating we bought our first house together. Her salary went 100% on the mortgage (circa 15% at that time)

It was a 2 bed terrace, and we spent 18 months renevating before we got married & moved in. We had 1 car, an old Avenger, our honemoon was in the UK for 7 days. Every penny we had went on the house. When we moved, we again bought a property needing renovating. Our first holiday abroad was on our 10th aniversary.

Feels a bit like a Monty Python sketch!!

My wife now works part-time in an infants school. Most of the families have 2 holidays abroad each year. Christmas on the credit card. The thought of NOT having the latest mobile is painfull to them. Yet the complain when prices go up, inc the rent! They feel 'entitled'

Now I agree that there should be more council houses available to rent, I was brought up in one. Nothing wrong with social housing, just there isn't enough. Why is there so few? Didn't a certain M.T. encourage people to buy their council house at a discount? Yet at the same time restrict councils from using the income this generated from building more social housing.

 

The tories & labour both have-it-in for private landlords, yet if they didn't exist would the tenants they house be able to afford to buy the house?? would they pass the 'tests' to be offered a mortgage to buy the house? there are no tests to rent a property. My youngest son rented for a while. His rent was higher thatn a mortgage for the same property yet he could not get a mortgage as he failed the affordability test for the mortgage yet the rent for the very same house was £100+/month more than the mortgage.

Then we have to consider those people who cross the channel in boats, once they have bee granted official entry into the UK they will need homes, where will these come from?

Sorry need to get off the soap box 😞

Point of order: There are tests, including credit checks, to rent properties.

Renters in the private sector also have little in the way of rights. If the owners want to up the price on them or sell then hard luck.

Those who sneak across the channel are the first priority for state housing here in the Medway Towns, where they have to deal with quite a lot of it with Dover down the road.

[SteveN8458 64]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Point of order: There are tests, including credit checks, to rent properties.

Renters in the private sector also have little in the way of rights. If the owners want to up the price on them or sell then hard luck.

Those who sneak across the channel are the first priority for state housing here in the Medway Towns, where they have to deal with quite a lot of it with Dover down the road.

Credit checks are optional, it is up to the landlord/agency to decide if they want them done (most do). Though how a credit check can tell if the renter can afford the current rent is beyound me.

Renters in the private sector do have rights. If they have signed a Shorthold Tenancy Agreement the rent is fixed for the term of the tenancy, then they can sign a further S.T.A. or they move to a 'periodic' tenancy

They have the right to challenge a rent increase, should one be proposed.

Edited April 1 by SteveN8458

[TheGunnShow 5,989]

1 hour ago, SteveN8458 said:

An interesting topic, my thoughts:

Part of the problem is too many young families expect too much and are not prepared to for-go 'essentials/luxuries' to better themselves.

Now before  get lynched, by 'essentials/luxuries' I means holidays/latest Iphones (other makes available) multiple cars etc.

When my wife & I were dating we bought our first house together. Her salary went 100% on the mortgage (circa 15% at that time)

It was a 2 bed terrace, and we spent 18 months renevating before we got married & moved in. We had 1 car, an old Avenger, our honemoon was in the UK for 7 days. Every penny we had went on the house. When we moved, we again bought a property needing renovating. Our first holiday abroad was on our 10th aniversary.

Feels a bit like a Monty Python sketch!!

My wife now works part-time in an infants school. Most of the families have 2 holidays abroad each year. Christmas on the credit card. The thought of NOT having the latest mobile is painfull to them. Yet the complain when prices go up, inc the rent! They feel 'entitled'

Now I agree that there should be more council houses available to rent, I was brought up in one. Nothing wrong with social housing, just there isn't enough. Why is there so few? Didn't a certain M.T. encourage people to buy their council house at a discount? Yet at the same time restrict councils from using the income this generated from building more social housing.

 

The tories & labour both have-it-in for private landlords, yet if they didn't exist would the tenants they house be able to afford to buy the house?? would they pass the 'tests' to be offered a mortgage to buy the house? there are no tests to rent a property. My youngest son rented for a while. His rent was higher thatn a mortgage for the same property yet he could not get a mortgage as he failed the affordability test for the mortgage yet the rent for the very same house was £100+/month more than the mortgage.

Then we have to consider those people who cross the channel in boats, once they have bee granted official entry into the UK they will need homes, where will these come from?

Sorry need to get off the soap box 😞

Can't really agree with that top bit, and the stats bear it out, at least in terms of getting on the housing ladder. They might have the odd luxury simply as houses are out of their price range. To put it in perspective, the average house nowadays costs close to nine times the average annual salary. The last time that was so high relative to annual salary was back in the late 1800s, according to a report from Schroders.

What 175 years of data tell us about house price affordability in the UK (schroders.com)

I do agree that the lack of social housing is a problem and you've nailed the middle bit - nowhere near enough houses were built after they were sold, and also agree that there's an odd quandary in that rent is often more than a mortgage repayment, but it's harder to get one. Not so sure what the solution is there.

Basically I reckon that if houses were much more affordable you'd see more of the behaviour you exhibited as then getting going on the property ladder would be more attainable.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 19/03/2024 at 12:48, Yellow Fever said:

Just saw this article - really very thought provoking and slays a few myths.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis

In a way tells you much about what's gone wrong with the UK.

The article fails to mention some pretty big factors. For example, it says that private rented property fell significantly after the War and reached its lowest level in the early 1980s, but doesn't mention that after the War, governments built several new towns and moved populations out of the cities into the new towns. Even Norwich took on many Londoners when HMSO and other agencies moved into Anglia square.

The article also makes no mention of the boom in financial services in the 1980s which saw the reversal of the population drain from London and the building of private rental accommodation for the new generation of yuppies. Gentrification of cities is mentioned in passing but no mention that this came about as those cashed up yuppies partnered-up and moved into bigger spaces.

Then there is no mention that since the Millenium there has been so much quantative easing and falling interest rates that it is difficult for savers to make any decent returns on savings, whereas rising property prices and cheap mortgages made buy-to-let an interesting proposition for pension portfolios.

Finally, and because the article is in the guardian, we are not surprised to find no mention of the effect of immigration on property rental rates.

The real narrative behind this story is that homeownership is not welcome. First we will get rid of the private rental sector, which is quite easy to do. And then we will wrestle the private ownership of property away in order to finance the NHS or whatever. After all, we can't have some aged Aunty holed up in a five-bedroomed house when the new local Imman needs a place to live.

[dylanisabaddog 4,973]

15 hours ago, SteveN8458 said:

An interesting topic, my thoughts:

Part of the problem is too many young families expect too much and are not prepared to for-go 'essentials/luxuries' to better themselves.

Now before  get lynched, by 'essentials/luxuries' I means holidays/latest Iphones (other makes available) multiple cars etc.

When my wife & I were dating we bought our first house together. Her salary went 100% on the mortgage (circa 15% at that time)

It was a 2 bed terrace, and we spent 18 months renevating before we got married & moved in. We had 1 car, an old Avenger, our honemoon was in the UK for 7 days. Every penny we had went on the house. When we moved, we again bought a property needing renovating. Our first holiday abroad was on our 10th aniversary.

Feels a bit like a Monty Python sketch!!

My wife now works part-time in an infants school. Most of the families have 2 holidays abroad each year. Christmas on the credit card. The thought of NOT having the latest mobile is painfull to them. Yet the complain when prices go up, inc the rent! They feel 'entitled'

Now I agree that there should be more council houses available to rent, I was brought up in one. Nothing wrong with social housing, just there isn't enough. Why is there so few? Didn't a certain M.T. encourage people to buy their council house at a discount? Yet at the same time restrict councils from using the income this generated from building more social housing.

 

The tories & labour both have-it-in for private landlords, yet if they didn't exist would the tenants they house be able to afford to buy the house?? would they pass the 'tests' to be offered a mortgage to buy the house? there are no tests to rent a property. My youngest son rented for a while. His rent was higher thatn a mortgage for the same property yet he could not get a mortgage as he failed the affordability test for the mortgage yet the rent for the very same house was £100+/month more than the mortgage.

Then we have to consider those people who cross the channel in boats, once they have bee granted official entry into the UK they will need homes, where will these come from?

Sorry need to get off the soap box 😞

That's about as far away from the reality I see as it's possible to get. I live on an estate with a mix of properties from 1 bed flats up to 6 bed houses that sell for in excess of £750k. So in my daily life I see a complete mix of circumstances. Firstly, the very expensive houses are usually occupied by people who have had a large inheritance. 

A lovely young couple in my street live in what I would call a one and a half bedroom house, the second bedroom being tiny. The kitchen is tiny as well. No garage, just one allocated parking space. He is a scaffolder, she is a teaching assistant. Their rent is £1,100 a month which is around half their take home pay. They have a 6 year old French hatchback and their only holiday is achieved by swapping houses with a family member up north. Their entertainment is provided by a cracked firestick. They don't drink much and don't smoke. It's not exactly living the dream is it? 

When I was the same age on an average salary I could afford to buy a property and although my lifestyle wasn't extravagant I could afford to do whatever I wanted, albeit in a modest way. 

They won't inherit and they have no prospect of ever owning a property. God knows what they'll do when they reach retirement age as they won't be able to afford the rent. 

At the moment they are scraping along trying to work out how to afford a child. At the moment they can't which is a bit of a problem for the country because we need every couple to have at least two. 

Of course I see couples who have expensive cars and nice holidays but they are big earners. The housing crisis doesn't affect them, it affects ordinary young people who 40 years ago could easily have got on the housing ladder. 

[SteveN8458 64]

51 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That's about as far away from the reality I see as it's possible to get. I live on an estate with a mix of properties from 1 bed flats up to 6 bed houses that sell for in excess of £750k. So in my daily life I see a complete mix of circumstances. Firstly, the very expensive houses are usually occupied by people who have had a large inheritance. 

A lovely young couple in my street live in what I would call a one and a half bedroom house, the second bedroom being tiny. The kitchen is tiny as well. No garage, just one allocated parking space. He is a scaffolder, she is a teaching assistant. Their rent is £1,100 a month which is around half their take home pay. They have a 6 year old French hatchback and their only holiday is achieved by swapping houses with a family member up north. Their entertainment is provided by a cracked firestick. They don't drink much and don't smoke. It's not exactly living the dream is it? 

When I was the same age on an average salary I could afford to buy a property and although my lifestyle wasn't extravagant I could afford to do whatever I wanted, albeit in a modest way. 

They won't inherit and they have no prospect of ever owning a property. God knows what they'll do when they reach retirement age as they won't be able to afford the rent. 

At the moment they are scraping along trying to work out how to afford a child. At the moment they can't which is a bit of a problem for the country because we need every couple to have at least two. 

Of course I see couples who have expensive cars and nice holidays but they are big earners. The housing crisis doesn't affect them, it affects ordinary young people who 40 years ago could easily have got on the housing ladder. 

Not sure where you live, but £1100/m will get you a 2 1/2 bed terrace in Norwich (circa £225k).

or a 3 bed semi needing work https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/146202140#/?channel=RES_BUY

Some of the children where my wife works (as a teaching assistant) come from Mile Cross

It's all about choices, and yes they do have some.

Example, my daughter has just bought her first home, a small one bed flat (she earns circa £17k/yr). The kitchen was rank, it had to go. She chose to buy a kitchen from fb marketplace for £30 second hand. It's best part of 40 years old, but been cared for. I am nearing the end of installing this into her kitchen. She is painting ALL of the doors, and wrapping (fablon for those who know 🙂 ) the worktops. Her total spend on the kitchen will be less than £150 all-in.  Her flat cost less than half the cost of a terrace property.

 

Now the couple you describe appear to be in a similar position to my wife & I all of 40+ years ago, where 50% of the household income goes on the house. The BIG difference is (guessing here) that they fail affordability tests for a mortgage, which did not exist when we bought our first house. And this for a lot of families is the elephant in the room. As I said earlier there are no (few) constaints on rent affordability unlike mortgages.

They have chosen to rent, what we do not know is why they chose that route?

Could they have afforded a mortgage on a similar property?

What could they have afforded?

Don't get me wrong, I do sympthise with the couple you refer to and ALL in their position.

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

18 hours ago, SteveN8458 said:

Part of the problem is too many young families expect too much and are not prepared to for-go 'essentials/luxuries' to better themselves.

Now before  get lynched, by 'essentials/luxuries' I means holidays/latest Iphones (other makes available) multiple cars etc.

This is an old debunked chestnut.

The young are feckless hence they can't afford to buy/rent whereas us 'oldies' weren't.

Not withstanding the 'affordability' index of buying being at at all time high the young are generally less feckless than we we were! It's why pubs and night clubs are closing, smoking has declined enormously etc. Mobile phones are generally now not renewed ever 2 years (it's causing the manufactuers issues), cars last a lot longer (EV aside) but overseas holidays are generally a lot cheaper than the UK ones. What I would agree with is that there is a greater inequality than ever.

Your observation is just that in the modern world people tend to spend/waste money differently to what we did.

Edited April 2 by Yellow Fever

[SteveN8458 64]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

This is an old debunked chestnut.

The young are feckless hence they can't afford to buy/rent whereas us 'oldies' weren't.

Not withstanding the 'affordability' index of buying being at at all time high the young are generally less feckless than we we were! It's why pubs and night clubs are closing, smoking has declined enormously etc. Mobile phones are generally now not renewed ever 2 years (it's causing the manufactuers issues), cars last a lot longer (EV aside) but overseas holidays are generally a lot cheaper than the UK ones. What I would agree with is that there is a greater inequality than ever.

Your observation is just that in the modern world people tend to spend/waste money differently to what we did.

My comment regarding 'expecting too much' is based on comments my wife makes based on the families at her school.

Not based on any other evidence

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

26 minutes ago, SteveN8458 said:

My comment regarding 'expecting too much' is based on comments my wife makes based on the families at her school.

Not based on any other evidence

Yes - but its not an objective observation and can be applied (and was) to any previous generation including mine (I recall being bathed as a child next to the fire in a galvanised tin bath).  'It was better in my day', 'We had it worse etc'. I often comment that even Romans had noticed this very human generational put down too ! 

That's why you actually have to look at affordability - house prices / rents in comparison to average incomes (let alone the issues of child care).  

Standards of living have definitely risen but I really think its incredibly tough for the young now to set up home.

[dylanisabaddog 4,973]

4 hours ago, SteveN8458 said:

Not sure where you live, but £1100/m will get you a 2 1/2 bed terrace in Norwich (circa £225k).

or a 3 bed semi needing work https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/146202140#/?channel=RES_BUY

Some of the children where my wife works (as a teaching assistant) come from Mile Cross

It's all about choices, and yes they do have some.

Example, my daughter has just bought her first home, a small one bed flat (she earns circa £17k/yr). The kitchen was rank, it had to go. She chose to buy a kitchen from fb marketplace for £30 second hand. It's best part of 40 years old, but been cared for. I am nearing the end of installing this into her kitchen. She is painting ALL of the doors, and wrapping (fablon for those who know 🙂 ) the worktops. Her total spend on the kitchen will be less than £150 all-in.  Her flat cost less than half the cost of a terrace property.

 

Now the couple you describe appear to be in a similar position to my wife & I all of 40+ years ago, where 50% of the household income goes on the house. The BIG difference is (guessing here) that they fail affordability tests for a mortgage, which did not exist when we bought our first house. And this for a lot of families is the elephant in the room. As I said earlier there are no (few) constaints on rent affordability unlike mortgages.

They have chosen to rent, what we do not know is why they chose that route?

Could they have afforded a mortgage on a similar property?

What could they have afforded?

Don't get me wrong, I do sympthise with the couple you refer to and ALL in their position.

When I bought my first property around 1980 I earned £13k and it cost £23k.

When I bought a large 3/4 bed detached house in 1997 it cost £83k when I was earning £40k. It was up for sale recently for £350k.

My current property is valued at £275k. It's quite on ordinary place. 

The property that the friends I was referring to was bought by the landlord for £210k which would need a deposit of £21k. The mortgage repayments over 35 years would be around £1k per month. 

It's not a matter of choice! 

[SteveN8458 64]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The property that the friends I was referring to was bought by the landlord for £210k which would need a deposit of £21k. The mortgage repayments over 35 years would be around £1k per month. 

It's not a matter of choice! 

So if the mortgage cost is the same as the rent, why rent??  genuine question

Halifax (other lenders available) do first time buyer mortgage for £210k property with 5% (£10500) deposit, 35 yr, £1k monthly.

[Barbe bleu 832]

One thing to remember is that when councils identify land for housing development they are looking to meet need that will arise up to 15 years into the future.  It's all very well debating just how bad the current problem is right now but not funding a current problem doesn't mean that a rising  population and changing lifestyles won't mean there won't be one in the medium term.

[king canary 7,654]

34 minutes ago, SteveN8458 said:

So if the mortgage cost is the same as the rent, why rent??  genuine question

Halifax (other lenders available) do first time buyer mortgage for £210k property with 5% (£10500) deposit, 35 yr, £1k monthly.

Because to get a mortgage of £210k you'd need both to save £10,500 (difficult when as Dylan says half their take-home goes on rent) and be earning enough for a mortgage lender to lend you £210k. 

I'm afraid you've just spouted a load of classic 'boomer' talking points that don't actually stand up to reality. It is very simple that house prices have risen at much faster rates that wages meaning the average house price is now multiple times the salary of the average wage.

Take Norwich for example- average house price over 7 times the average wage. In 2002 it was under 5 time the average wage. 

Your daughter managing to purchase a one bed flat on £17k p/y- is she in Norwich? A quick browse of right move shows the cheapest one bed (not studio, not shared ownership, not auction) flat is £110k right now. So I'm going to guess she's either bought shared ownership or she had a reasonably sized deposit, possibly with the help of mum & dad? Because no bank is lending a single person on £17k p/y a mortgage of £100k. 

[SteveN8458 64]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Because to get a mortgage of £210k you'd need both to save £10,500 (difficult when as Dylan says half their take-home goes on rent) and be earning enough for a mortgage lender to lend you £210k.

You are refering to where they are NOW, not when the chose to rent. So go back to my question

So if the mortgage cost is the same as the rent, why rent??  genuine question.

As for my daughter, yes her flat is in Norwich. She saved her deposit & chose a 40 yr mortgage so she could maintain her lifestyle.

But your research shows there are properties available @ £110k, so did Dylans couple 'choose' not to go for a flat?

As for:

"I'm afraid you've just spouted a load of classic 'boomer' talking points that don't actually stand up to reality"

I beg to differ, we do not know all of the relevant info for the couple, but with a rent of £1000/m I feel there were other options they chose not to follow, as is they right. But they CHOSE a route, not had one forced upon them because they had no other options.

No more than that.