Official UK Property Thread

[JM2K6]

I've been actually managing to save money during lockdown and am approaching "reasonable deposit" levels of savings. I quite like the idea of owning a house, and with our company really embracing WFH for the forseeable I don't need to be as close to central London any more.

My gf doesn't earn a lot at the moment so I can't rely on her income - we've basically decided that the effort was all well and good, but buying in the next 12 months is just asking for trouble. It feels like there's too high a risk of being caught in the crash, and putting it on the backburner makes sense.

Am I being stupid? Is this just going to continue indefinitely? I find it very hard to judge the risk here and am erring on the side of caution.

Take this FWIW because it's me but I would be very wary of buying anywhere that was considered a hotspot ATM. One of my friends sold her Lanhdahn house for £1.8m (Cheese-wick) and I've told her to go into rented and watch and see.

Since you are almost as anal as I am on facts/data, you might want to use this site
http://www.acadata.co.uk/downloads/

to see if the localised stats there help guide you. There are other dynamics to be wary of. There is a trend now (COVID + WFH) for Londoners to want to move out of the circle and so you are seeing odd discrepancies like prices within London falling but rising on the periphery of the M25 or decent rail links in.

If it were my money, I'd sit on it for the moment.

Nice, cheers. Yeah, definitely being cautious at the moment.

[Sandstorm]

I've been actually managing to save money during lockdown and am approaching "reasonable deposit" levels of savings. I quite like the idea of owning a house, and with our company really embracing WFH for the forseeable I don't need to be as close to central London any more.

My gf doesn't earn a lot at the moment so I can't rely on her income - we've basically decided that the effort was all well and good, but buying in the next 12 months is just asking for trouble. It feels like there's too high a risk of being caught in the crash, and putting it on the backburner makes sense.

Am I being stupid? Is this just going to continue indefinitely? I find it very hard to judge the risk here and am erring on the side of caution.

Take this FWIW because it's me but I would be very wary of buying anywhere that was considered a hotspot ATM. One of my friends sold her Lanhdahn house for £1.8m (Cheese-wick) and I've told her to go into rented and watch and see.

Since you are almost as anal as I am on facts/data, you might want to use this site
http://www.acadata.co.uk/downloads/

to see if the localised stats there help guide you. There are other dynamics to be wary of. There is a trend now (COVID + WFH) for Londoners to want to move out of the circle and so you are seeing odd discrepancies like prices within London falling but rising on the periphery of the M25 or decent rail links in.

If it were my money, I'd sit on it for the moment.

Tough one here. Will JMK finally agree with Torq? Is his money more important than their bored history?

[Torquemada 1420]

Tough one here. Will JMK finally agree with Torq? Is his money more important than their bored history?

Think of the burden I am carrying.

[Paddington Bear]

I've been actually managing to save money during lockdown and am approaching "reasonable deposit" levels of savings. I quite like the idea of owning a house, and with our company really embracing WFH for the forseeable I don't need to be as close to central London any more.

My gf doesn't earn a lot at the moment so I can't rely on her income - we've basically decided that the effort was all well and good, but buying in the next 12 months is just asking for trouble. It feels like there's too high a risk of being caught in the crash, and putting it on the backburner makes sense.

Am I being stupid? Is this just going to continue indefinitely? I find it very hard to judge the risk here and am erring on the side of caution.

Take this FWIW because it's me but I would be very wary of buying anywhere that was considered a hotspot ATM. One of my friends sold her Lanhdahn house for £1.8m (Cheese-wick) and I've told her to go into rented and watch and see.

Since you are almost as anal as I am on facts/data, you might want to use this site
http://www.acadata.co.uk/downloads/

to see if the localised stats there help guide you. There are other dynamics to be wary of. There is a trend now (COVID + WFH) for Londoners to want to move out of the circle and so you are seeing odd discrepancies like prices within London falling but rising on the periphery of the M25 or decent rail links in.

If it were my money, I'd sit on it for the moment.

Tough one here. Will JMK finally agree with Torq? Is his money more important than their bored history?

[Yeeb]

I've been actually managing to save money during lockdown and am approaching "reasonable deposit" levels of savings. I quite like the idea of owning a house, and with our company really embracing WFH for the forseeable I don't need to be as close to central London any more.

My gf doesn't earn a lot at the moment so I can't rely on her income - we've basically decided that the effort was all well and good, but buying in the next 12 months is just asking for trouble. It feels like there's too high a risk of being caught in the crash, and putting it on the backburner makes sense.

Am I being stupid? Is this just going to continue indefinitely? I find it very hard to judge the risk here and am erring on the side of caution.

First of, congrats on the saving , one small benefit of what had been a godawful year and a bit for most people.
Being cautious is never a bad thing really, and with the ‘new world ‘ of wfh the whole being in central London thing is a big question indeed. But in terms of renting or buying, perhaps think of this perspective: everyone needs a roof over their head, whether they pay £1000 per month rent for a one bed flat in London , or £500 per month mortgage for a starter home an hours commute away (plus not forgetting the deposit paid) , they are still going to be paying something toward the roof over their head. If property prices fall, if you rent then it may also fall to say £800 a month, happy days - and if you owned you’d still be paying £500 on the mortgage. But so what ?
It’s still costing you less per month on the mortgage , than renting. Negative equity only bites if you can’t afford the payments , if you can then you still have your own roof over your head.

Those figures are rough but from memory are close enough to what I was paying in rent , and then paying in mortgage which (like most people) was pretty near to the max I could borrow from those nice bank chaps.

Good luck anyways, we’ve had differences of opinion in the past but I’m being genuine here in whatever you decide.

[Yeeb]

There are also the other pros and cons of renting V buying:
Flexibility
Who pays to fix the boiler when it breaks ?
Can you redecorate or have pets ?
Can you legally rent your spare bedroom out ?
Freedom of moving elsewhere if you suddenly would prefer caversham instead of chalvey
What happens if relationship ends / want to get married and have kids / someone dies ?

[Ymx]

I’d say buy. Just mindful where. Make sure it’s somewhere you’ll want to live for the longer term.

Reason being to buy, even if it falls later it’s not a loss unless you sell it and _don’t_ buy another property. But why would you?

If it tanks, it might even be then a good opportunity to upsize (whilst the differences are reduced) subject to equity held and your financial ability to do so.

Only consideration there really is if you’re buying it jointly. Because then you may need to liquidate your investment at an undesirable market time.

[Biffer]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56777436

Another action taken by government to deliberately keep prices high. This is completely anti any kind of free market thinking, if anyone is of the idiotic belief that there's anything approaching a free market happening in housing. The property market is manager carefully (and has been for 30-40 years) to ensure a never ending increase in prices, which will obviously fail at some point. Nobody could look at the number of different schemes put in place to try to prevent house prices falling over the last few decades and pretend that there's any interest in letting market forces do their thing. Any one of them on their own can be looked at innocently, but put them all together and you see a consistent deliberate policy of artificially inflated house prices. And it's done to push the consumer led economy.

[robmatic]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56777436

Another action taken by government to deliberately keep prices high. This is completely anti any kind of free market thinking, if anyone is of the idiotic belief that there's anything approaching a free market happening in housing. The property market is manager carefully (and has been for 30-40 years) to ensure a never ending increase in prices, which will obviously fail at some point. Nobody could look at the number of different schemes put in place to try to prevent house prices falling over the last few decades and pretend that there's any interest in letting market forces do their thing. Any one of them on their own can be looked at innocently, but put them all together and you see a consistent deliberate policy of artificially inflated house prices. And it's done to push the consumer led economy.

It's nuts to do this when the market is frothy as hell.

[Torquemada 1420]

Negative equity only bites if you can’t afford the payments , if you can then you still have your own roof over your head.

That's not always true:
- if you ever want to move, you either have to save enough to clear the -ve equity or stay put
- there can be the psychological damage of being in a net negative position on your personal balance sheet

[Biffer]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56777436

Another action taken by government to deliberately keep prices high. This is completely anti any kind of free market thinking, if anyone is of the idiotic belief that there's anything approaching a free market happening in housing. The property market is manager carefully (and has been for 30-40 years) to ensure a never ending increase in prices, which will obviously fail at some point. Nobody could look at the number of different schemes put in place to try to prevent house prices falling over the last few decades and pretend that there's any interest in letting market forces do their thing. Any one of them on their own can be looked at innocently, but put them all together and you see a consistent deliberate policy of artificially inflated house prices. And it's done to push the consumer led economy.

It's nuts to do this when the market is frothy as hell.

Not if your macro economic policy is fully dependent on maintaining high house prices. It's a necessity in this economic model.

[fishfoodie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56777436

Another action taken by government to deliberately keep prices high. This is completely anti any kind of free market thinking, if anyone is of the idiotic belief that there's anything approaching a free market happening in housing. The property market is manager carefully (and has been for 30-40 years) to ensure a never ending increase in prices, which will obviously fail at some point. Nobody could look at the number of different schemes put in place to try to prevent house prices falling over the last few decades and pretend that there's any interest in letting market forces do their thing. Any one of them on their own can be looked at innocently, but put them all together and you see a consistent deliberate policy of artificially inflated house prices. And it's done to push the consumer led economy.

It's nuts to do this when the market is frothy as hell.

Not if your macro economic policy is fully dependent on maintaining high house prices. It's a necessity in this economic model.

I saw the bumblecunt, on the News, in a Barretts Homes hi-viz jacket; so presumably he was taking a bow over this policy.

[Yeeb]

Negative equity only bites if you can’t afford the payments , if you can then you still have your own roof over your head.

That's not always true:
- if you ever want to move, you either have to save enough to clear the -ve equity or stay put
- there can be the psychological damage of being in a net negative position on your personal balance sheet

I was speaking broadly , didn’t mean absolute
Unsure how much psychological damage there would be, feeling bad at having to pay £500 a month mortgage for sownthing only now worth £400 a month, or paying £1000 a month rent for a similar property (of course you’d save the deposit though). There are always financial things to feel unhappy about, interest rates are (perma?) low so I hope jmk goes for it and does well and loves owning a place.

It’s all swings and roundabouts, obviously as a landlord I’m delighted some people prefer to rent.

[Ymx]

Agree yeeb. Plus the amount he is throwing away each month not going ok to repay his own property but someone else’s. That loss adds up pretty quickly.

Pissing away what can be thousands each month which is going to someone else’s debt rather than it growing your equity stake. Factor that in to the house prices. Can still be better off if the market is dropping.

Probably worth taking a 5 year fixed to begin if worried about refinancing after any market drop. Rather than a 2 year product.

[Torquemada 1420]

[
I was speaking broadly , didn’t mean absolute
Unsure how much psychological damage there would be, feeling bad at having to pay £500 a month mortgage for sownthing only now worth £400 a month, or paying £1000 a month rent for a similar property (of course you’d save the deposit though). There are always financial things to feel unhappy about, interest rates are (perma?) low so I hope jmk goes for it and does well and loves owning a place.

It’s all swings and roundabouts, obviously as a landlord I’m delighted some people prefer to rent.

Very few people prefer to rent: well, not in the current landscape anyway.

It is all swings and roundabouts which means timing (which is always unknown) plays too much of a consideration. This only exists because rent v mortgage costs have become massively skewed.

Interest rates are not on a perma low. Quite the opposite but it requires some mathematical understanding on behalf of borrowers to grasp the implications.
- back in the late 70s when base rates where 17% or, more recently, the 90s when they meant borrowing hit 15%, the rise from (say) 14% to 15% overnight was painful. BUT in terms of expenditure, I only had to find another 7% over what I was already paying.
- now, if base rates jump from 0.1% to a "normal" 1%, then a typical mortgage is going from 3% to 4%........ and I doubt many borrowers geared to the hilt can swallow a 25% rise in mortgage costs. Those on deals who can't refinance then could easily see a doubling.

[Paddington Bear]

I rent because raising £60kish for a deposit takes a while, rather than out of choice. Not that there aren't advantages, but I'd guess I've spent £20-30k in rent since leaving home which I'd probably rather have spent in other ways if possible.

Incidentally the only mate of mine who is looking at a reasonable sized house in the SE is 28 and has lived with his parents since graduation. Fair enough but not for most.

[robmatic]

- now, if base rates jump from 0.1% to a "normal" 1%, then a typical mortgage is going from 3% to 4%........ and I doubt many borrowers geared to the hilt can swallow a 25% rise in mortgage costs. Those on deals who can't refinance then could easily see a doubling.

Actually, that's probably quite easy for almost everyone to swallow, I imagine. For people with interest-only mortgages it would be a 33% (not 25%, be careful with your arithmetic) increase on the monthly outgoings, but still likely to be cheap relative to salary even on modern mortgage multiples.

The vast majority of folk are on repayment mortgages and would see a much less dramatic increase in their monthly costs. A 200k 25-year mortgage costs £948 @ 3% and £1056 @ 4%.

[Torquemada 1420]

I rent because raising £60kish for a deposit takes a while, rather than out of choice. Not that there aren't advantages, but I'd guess I've spent £20-30k in rent since leaving home which I'd probably rather have spent in other ways if possible.

Incidentally the only mate of mine who is looking at a reasonable sized house in the SE is 28 and has lived with his parents since graduation. Fair enough but not for most.

Average age of 1st time buyer is now 34. In the SE, I think it has now exceeded 40!!!!

[Paddington Bear]

I rent because raising £60kish for a deposit takes a while, rather than out of choice. Not that there aren't advantages, but I'd guess I've spent £20-30k in rent since leaving home which I'd probably rather have spent in other ways if possible.

Incidentally the only mate of mine who is looking at a reasonable sized house in the SE is 28 and has lived with his parents since graduation. Fair enough but not for most.

Average age of 1st time buyer is now 34. In the SE, I think it has now exceeded 40!!!!

Which will have serious societal consequences that we’ll live with for a long time.
Also makes my point about affordable 3 beds - 2 beds are starter homes if you’re in your 20s, the aim being to upsize with a family. Clearly not going to happen

[Glaston]

I rent because raising £60kish for a deposit takes a while, rather than out of choice. Not that there aren't advantages, but I'd guess I've spent £20-30k in rent since leaving home which I'd probably rather have spent in other ways if possible.

Incidentally the only mate of mine who is looking at a reasonable sized house in the SE is 28 and has lived with his parents since graduation. Fair enough but not for most.

Average age of 1st time buyer is now 34. In the SE, I think it has now exceeded 40!!!!

Whats wrong with those age groups?

I was 37 when I bought my first house. mid 90's
My mother was over 40 when she bought her first house. We are talking mid 70's here. First woman at local Building Soc to get a mortgage.

[Biffer]

Also worth noting that people aren’t taking 25 year mortgages anymore. They’re 35 or 40 year terms. Taken on the assumption that future gains in equity will mean that they won’t be paying that long.

35 year mortgage in your late 30s. Hmmm.

[Yeeb]

[
I was speaking broadly , didn’t mean absolute
Unsure how much psychological damage there would be, feeling bad at having to pay £500 a month mortgage for sownthing only now worth £400 a month, or paying £1000 a month rent for a similar property (of course you’d save the deposit though). There are always financial things to feel unhappy about, interest rates are (perma?) low so I hope jmk goes for it and does well and loves owning a place.

It’s all swings and roundabouts, obviously as a landlord I’m delighted some people prefer to rent.

Very few people prefer to rent: well, not in the current landscape anyway.

It is all swings and roundabouts which means timing (which is always unknown) plays too much of a consideration. This only exists because rent v mortgage costs have become massively skewed.

Interest rates are not on a perma low. Quite the opposite but it requires some mathematical understanding on behalf of borrowers to grasp the implications.
- back in the late 70s when base rates where 17% or, more recently, the 90s when they meant borrowing hit 15%, the rise from (say) 14% to 15% overnight was painful. BUT in terms of expenditure, I only had to find another 7% over what I was already paying.
- now, if base rates jump from 0.1% to a "normal" 1%, then a typical mortgage is going from 3% to 4%........ and I doubt many borrowers geared to the hilt can swallow a 25% rise in mortgage costs. Those on deals who can't refinance then could easily see a doubling.

Disagree to an extent - that lanky Henry guy, had a job in London and bemoaned his high rent , yet didn’t want to live in a cheaper place like Luton that he could have afforded to buy much earlier in his life. Renting is a lot more fluid and tenants have an awful lot of power and rights in the uk, and often it is a choice in lifestyle and location that dictates which route people go down .

I’ve often thought it utterly bonkers that someone can be vetted and deemed OK to afford a £1000 rent, yet denied a mortgage for £1000 a month. Plenty of properties of all sizes are available around the UK for under £100k, they are cheap because nobody wants to live there compared to a few miles away. Where my dad lived in Torquay is a classic case, 4 bed house for £200k or if a 20 min walk away similar sized is £1m plus

[fishfoodie]

Also worth noting that people aren’t taking 25 year mortgages anymore. They’re 35 or 40 year terms. Taken on the assumption that future gains in equity will mean that they won’t be paying that long.

35 year mortgage in your late 30s. Hmmm.

Yep; & I wonder how many liar loans are happening too; with loan officers, "helping", people.

For the last year, it seems like that bleeding ad for checking your credit rating is every other ad break.

[Torquemada 1420]

- now, if base rates jump from 0.1% to a "normal" 1%, then a typical mortgage is going from 3% to 4%........ and I doubt many borrowers geared to the hilt can swallow a 25% rise in mortgage costs. Those on deals who can't refinance then could easily see a doubling.

Actually, that's probably quite easy for almost everyone to swallow, I imagine. For people with interest-only mortgages it would be a 33% (not 25%, be careful with your arithmetic) increase on the monthly outgoings, but still likely to be cheap relative to salary even on modern mortgage multiples.

The vast majority of folk are on repayment mortgages and would see a much less dramatic increase in their monthly costs. A 200k 25-year mortgage costs £948 @ 3% and £1056 @ 4%.

Hah. More thinking, less typing.

1) Defo not true in the BTL space where the overwhelming majority are interest only.
2) Hard to know in the home owner space. It was about half back just before the 2008 crash. After that the regulator got its knickers in a twist and it's probably as low as 10% now for new borrowers but no-one knows the profile across the whole market because many legacy contracts exist.
3) Bottom quarter of income households in the UK "save" MINUS £350pm. 6% of people have no savings at all and 1/4 less than £1k in savings. That makes your safety margins look more tenuous than you suggest.
4) There is a wave of unemployment coming post COVID which will increase the stresses on the finances of those already at the limit.

[Biffer]

- now, if base rates jump from 0.1% to a "normal" 1%, then a typical mortgage is going from 3% to 4%........ and I doubt many borrowers geared to the hilt can swallow a 25% rise in mortgage costs. Those on deals who can't refinance then could easily see a doubling.

Actually, that's probably quite easy for almost everyone to swallow, I imagine. For people with interest-only mortgages it would be a 33% (not 25%, be careful with your arithmetic) increase on the monthly outgoings, but still likely to be cheap relative to salary even on modern mortgage multiples.

The vast majority of folk are on repayment mortgages and would see a much less dramatic increase in their monthly costs. A 200k 25-year mortgage costs £948 @ 3% and £1056 @ 4%.

Hah. More thinking, less typing.

1) Defo not true in the BTL space where the overwhelming majority are interest only.
2) Hard to know in the home owner space. It was about half back just before the 2008 crash. After that the regulator got its knickers in a twist and it's probably as low as 10% now for new borrowers but no-one knows the profile across the whole market because many legacy contracts exist.
3) Bottom quarter of income households in the UK "save" MINUS £350pm. 6% of people have no savings at all and 1/4 less than £1k in savings. That makes your safety margins look more tenuous than you suggest.
4) There is a wave of unemployment coming post COVID which will increase the stresses on the finances of those already at the limit.

And when the pressure comes, the government will step in to prevent significant price falls. There will be all sorts of equity protection schemes, joint ownership models etc etc.

[Lemoentjie]

I'm a socialist, but rent control is a terrible idea. The solution is to build more houses.

[fishfoodie]

I'm a socialist, but rent control is a terrible idea. The solution is to build more houses.

Where ?

The areas where you use rent control, are the very areas where you can't build more houses; the middle of cities; & even then, it should only be used judiciously; & always be time limited.

If you just let rents go out of control in cities, you run the risk of making it impossible for essential workers, to live even vaguely close to their jobs.

If you make a condition of building a new apartment block, that any units that are rented are subject to a decade of rent control; you provide a place for someone to rent, & have a better opportunity to save up a deposit, & leaving it at a decade means that serious investors won't be put off.

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm a socialist, but rent control is a terrible idea. The solution is to build more houses.

Did you bother to read any of this thread?!! Rent control is a bad idea, not least because it won't work any more than trying to cut out loan sharks. The solution is to legislate against deep and/or cheap credit for BTL speculators. A simple, maximum 50% LTV for BTLs would put an end to it and reward the bona fide, prudent landlords.

[Paddington Bear]

I'm a socialist, but rent control is a terrible idea. The solution is to build more houses.

Where ?

The areas where you use rent control, are the very areas where you can't build more houses; the middle of cities; & even then, it should only be used judiciously; & always be time limited.

If you just let rents go out of control in cities, you run the risk of making it impossible for essential workers, to live even vaguely close to their jobs.

If you make a condition of building a new apartment block, that any units that are rented are subject to a decade of rent control; you provide a place for someone to rent, & have a better opportunity to save up a deposit, & leaving it at a decade means that serious investors won't be put off.

London’s population density is dismal, zone 3 & out is just row upon row of dreary semis. Real waste of land

[Lemoentjie]

I'm a socialist, but rent control is a terrible idea. The solution is to build more houses.

Where ?

The areas where you use rent control, are the very areas where you can't build more houses; the middle of cities; & even then, it should only be used judiciously; & always be time limited.

If you just let rents go out of control in cities, you run the risk of making it impossible for essential workers, to live even vaguely close to their jobs.

If you make a condition of building a new apartment block, that any units that are rented are subject to a decade of rent control; you provide a place for someone to rent, & have a better opportunity to save up a deposit, & leaving it at a decade means that serious investors won't be put off.

You build upwards.

Go to even Spain or Germany and compare it to the UK. Many more apartments.

[Torquemada 1420]

You build upwards.

Go to even Spain or Germany and compare it to the UK. Many more apartments.

That's always worked out well in the UK. If you survive being stabbed or raped, you at least have a reasonable chance of not having to heat your flat once in your tenure.

[Paddington Bear]

You build upwards.

Go to even Spain or Germany and compare it to the UK. Many more apartments.

That's always worked out well in the UK. If you survive being stabbed or raped, you at least have a reasonable chance of not having to heat your flat once in your tenure.

The 3/4 storey townhouse blocks you get in Central and Edinburgh are very popular and dense. Should build more

[tabascoboy]

You build upwards.

Go to even Spain or Germany and compare it to the UK. Many more apartments.

That's always worked out well in the UK. If you survive being stabbed or raped, you at least have a reasonable chance of not having to heat your flat once in your tenure.

The 3/4 storey townhouse blocks you get in Central and Edinburgh are very popular and dense. Should build more

They seem to be so here too, despite being rather plain, generic and indistinguished looking. Mostly 1/2 beds, they sell quickly, no doubt almost exclusively to DINKYs who have no interest in a garden.

[Paddington Bear]

That's always worked out well in the UK. If you survive being stabbed or raped, you at least have a reasonable chance of not having to heat your flat once in your tenure.

The 3/4 storey townhouse blocks you get in Central and Edinburgh are very popular and dense. Should build more

They seem to be so here too, despite being rather plain, generic and indistinguished looking. Mostly 1/2 beds, they sell quickly, no doubt almost exclusively to DINKYs who have no interest in a garden.

They look far nicer than the endless rows of semis and 2 ups 2 downs. Plus they give a real variety of housing - used to live on a road of them which was pretty evenly split between flats and family homes.

[tabascoboy]

The 3/4 storey townhouse blocks you get in Central and Edinburgh are very popular and dense. Should build more

They seem to be so here too, despite being rather plain, generic and indistinguished looking. Mostly 1/2 beds, they sell quickly, no doubt almost exclusively to DINKYs who have no interest in a garden.

They look far nicer than the endless rows of semis and 2 ups 2 downs. Plus they give a real variety of housing - used to live on a road of them which was pretty evenly split between flats and family homes.

Not here they don't ( small country town).

[Paddington Bear]

They seem to be so here too, despite being rather plain, generic and indistinguished looking. Mostly 1/2 beds, they sell quickly, no doubt almost exclusively to DINKYs who have no interest in a garden.

They look far nicer than the endless rows of semis and 2 ups 2 downs. Plus they give a real variety of housing - used to live on a road of them which was pretty evenly split between flats and family homes.

Not here they don't ( small country town).

Get your point. What I'm getting at is that London and other cities should be much denser, and it doesn't require horrible tower blocks to do it. Places like Willesden, Harrow etc could look and feel much nicer, fit in a larger population and keep the people living there satisfied by this level of density. It's the only way I can see that alleviates the housing crunch in the SE without concreting over the entire region.

[Calculon]

What's the occupancy rate for London? When I was staying in Central London in 2017 it was pretty obvious that lots of the surrounding, very expensive, flats stood empty.

[tabascoboy]

What's the occupancy rate for London? When I was staying in Central London in 2017 it was pretty obvious that lots of the surrounding, very expensive, flats stood empty.

A big issue with overseas or non-doms owning property purely for investment but not wanting tenants, or just as part of money laundering

Wealth investment leaves an estimated 125,000 homes in London without anyone living in them.

In collating new research on new-build luxury apartments and houses, I have found that many of the homes in these developments lie underused or vacant. Around one in 20 homes in Central and West London lies empty, according to the UK government’s statistics agency. A full 89% of all new builds in London are apartments, and between 2014 and 2016 around one in six of these was sold to overseas buyers – that’s 13%.

This figure rises to more than one-third of buyers, or 36%, if we look at the “prime” market areas of central London over the same period. Here, vacancy was measured by looking at homes with little or no “transactional data”, relating to finance, retail or other forms of administration, such as tax records and bills.

On this measure, we find that half of residences in new builds in general are empty, as are 19% of dwellings across London’s inner boroughs. The likelihood that a home is empty rises alongside its market value: 39% of homes worth £1m to £5m are underused, and 64% of homes worth more than £5m. Of the homes owned by foreign investors, 42% are empty.

https://theconversation.com/londons-ext ... aled-97947

[Biffer]

What's the occupancy rate for London? When I was staying in Central London in 2017 it was pretty obvious that lots of the surrounding, very expensive, flats stood empty.

A big issue with overseas or non-doms owning property purely for investment but not wanting tenants, or just as part of money laundering

Wealth investment leaves an estimated 125,000 homes in London without anyone living in them.

In collating new research on new-build luxury apartments and houses, I have found that many of the homes in these developments lie underused or vacant. Around one in 20 homes in Central and West London lies empty, according to the UK government’s statistics agency. A full 89% of all new builds in London are apartments, and between 2014 and 2016 around one in six of these was sold to overseas buyers – that’s 13%.

This figure rises to more than one-third of buyers, or 36%, if we look at the “prime” market areas of central London over the same period. Here, vacancy was measured by looking at homes with little or no “transactional data”, relating to finance, retail or other forms of administration, such as tax records and bills.

On this measure, we find that half of residences in new builds in general are empty, as are 19% of dwellings across London’s inner boroughs. The likelihood that a home is empty rises alongside its market value: 39% of homes worth £1m to £5m are underused, and 64% of homes worth more than £5m. Of the homes owned by foreign investors, 42% are empty.

https://theconversation.com/londons-ext ... aled-97947

I would tax the fuck out of unoccupied properties tbh. Won’t affect property prices but at least you can get some tax income out of the fuckers.

[Torquemada 1420]

I would tax the fuck out of unoccupied properties tbh. Won’t affect property prices but at least you can get some tax income out of the fuckers.

A fine idea except they are all owned by non dom, non res money launderers. How do you propose to tax them? The only thing that might work is some sort of property surcharge based on value and % of time unoccupied with a recourse to (re)possession for failure to pay.

Reality is politicians are NOT going to shaft their billionaire, foreign cronies.