Stop voting for fucking Tories

[I like neeps]

I’m sorry if we can’t build flats in town centres then we need to have a serious conversation about a population policy as there’s clearly no way of housing the population we have. Fwiw, the old ‘high street’ is on it’s arse up and down the country (with exceptions), you’d have thought a hundred or so new residents in close proximity might give it a little boost.

The population policy is: I don't mind it growing, just nowhere near me.

I have no issue with development. I do care if it's grossly over-sized or rental only. You can't build a decent community with transient residents IMO.

Also there are about a dozen (70s style) commercial buildings (offices, warehouses, etc) in close proximity to this proposed area that have stood empty for 10+ years. Bulldoze those eye-sores if you want some new flats!

One 1920s office building has stood empty for 14 years (my wife use to work in it) and is finally being turned into flats. 4 bedroom penthouses for £1m+ each, but you know....

If those 4 bed penthouses sell for 1m sell surely no issue?

And with the 200 year old building it must be up for sale and the warehouses aren't if that's why it's selected for property? And is it empty? Really is no use in having old buildings that are empty really.

And unfortunately build to rent flats are very important in the UK property sector currently. Young people without BOMAD or a job that pays hugely over the UK average are locked out of home ownership and stable accomodation with private landlords more institutional BTL a la Europe is very important.

Communities in the UK are dead not because of transient housing but because of "there's no such thing as society" Thatcher and the Tories not funding community projects and spaces, and the decline of a focal point in the community such as a church, and people move much more often for work and family reasons, and other reasons. Renters aren't the reason, sadly. I'd actually argue if you had BTL multifamily that encouraged parents and children that is what builds community links - the same school run, same sports clubs etc the kids are at.

[JM2K6]

It matters who is buying the properties. A huge number of places are bought either as investment/money laundering efforts by overseas interests, or by developers/landlords looking to rent out and squeeze the public dry.

[_Os_]

The Canary Wharf Group/Vertus business model is that only they get to own and everyone else rents.

This is the new model cropping up everywhere. Our town is in a battle with developers who want to bulldoze a 200 year old section of 2 story buildings near the High Street and replace with 6 story high flats for rent only. Zero care given to heritage, over-stretched local services or parking.

On the model, yes exactly. The first group of people I knew of who you would expect to be natural Tory supporters but really hated them, were landlords (minimum 5+ properties). This was since Cameron/Osborne tax changes. More recently the main gripe is that the Tories/government only want corporate landlords, it's easier to extract money from a few large corporates than it is from thousands of private individuals. I heard this first about the student rental sector (seemed like a conspiracy theory, given the unis themselves are businesses so would be keen on developers building to rent if it generated revenue for the uni). But we're now seeing the model expand out of the student sector.

There's a big difference between a developer selling what they build, and a developer not selling anything they build. With the former there's a conversation about who is buying, with the latter there isn't even a conversation. Build to rent only works for a developer if housing remains a dysfunctional market, those they're renting to need to have limited options both to buy and rent somewhere cheaper. They're not doing this if they think there's a chance the people they're renting to will ever be able to get a mortgage, or if there'll be enough private landlords still around to undercut them.

On redeveloping town centres. Probably don't agree. It's the UK so there'll be no plan and it'll be a total mess. The shit building from the 1970s that is mostly vacant because the council rates and other costs are too high, will remain standing and vacant. The building with the maximum level of listing, which has been a literal ruin for as long as anyone can remember and has a tree growing in the middle of it, will continue to be rubble. The building which has some architectural merit and isn't a ruin, will be demolished and redeveloped. Building has to happen somewhere and no one has a plan. Currently there's NIMBYs protesting against houses being built on Tesco car parks.

[_Os_]

And unfortunately build to rent flats are very important in the UK property sector currently. Young people without BOMAD or a job that pays hugely over the UK average are locked out of home ownership and stable accomodation with private landlords more institutional BTL a la Europe is very important.

Communities in the UK are dead not because of transient housing but because of "there's no such thing as society" Thatcher and the Tories not funding community projects and spaces, and the decline of a focal point in the community such as a church, and people move much more often for work and family reasons, and other reasons. Renters aren't the reason, sadly. I'd actually argue if you had BTL multifamily that encouraged parents and children that is what builds community links - the same school run, same sports clubs etc the kids are at.

The track record of privatisation in the UK, isn't corporates running sectors of the UK's economy/infrastructure as if they were the state and benevolent. it's that shock horror, they're corporates motivated by profit seeking, which ends up squeezing the people the state once served who have limited options to go elsewhere (ie the maximum rent possible is extracted). The corporate then uses their scale (gifted to them directly by the state through privatisation, or indirectly by the state through regulation, or both) to crush smaller private competitors. At the same time as this is happening investment dries up, especially large joined up national scale infrastructure.

[Slick]

It matters who is buying the properties. A huge number of places are bought either as investment/money laundering efforts by overseas interests, or by developers/landlords looking to rent out and squeeze the public dry.

Yup, there was a recent development in Edinburgh that didn't even go on the open market, all sold off plan to foreign investors.

[tabascoboy]

I’m sorry if we can’t build flats in town centres then we need to have a serious conversation about a population policy as there’s clearly no way of housing the population we have. Fwiw, the old ‘high street’ is on it’s arse up and down the country (with exceptions), you’d have thought a hundred or so new residents in close proximity might give it a little boost.

We have new town centre apartment blocks all over the place in the last 10 years and it's done sweet FA here to noticeably regenerate the town. Of course there must be extra disposable income with increasing population but I guess it's all going elsewhere

[tabascoboy]

Wow. Penny Mordaunt suggests the public should be grateful for Michelle Donelan as she didn't take a £16,000 redundancy payout she was entitled to after resigning as Education Secretary after.... two days

She suggests this wipes out the £15,000 the taxpayer paid for Donelan

[I like neeps]

And unfortunately build to rent flats are very important in the UK property sector currently. Young people without BOMAD or a job that pays hugely over the UK average are locked out of home ownership and stable accomodation with private landlords more institutional BTL a la Europe is very important.

Communities in the UK are dead not because of transient housing but because of "there's no such thing as society" Thatcher and the Tories not funding community projects and spaces, and the decline of a focal point in the community such as a church, and people move much more often for work and family reasons, and other reasons. Renters aren't the reason, sadly. I'd actually argue if you had BTL multifamily that encouraged parents and children that is what builds community links - the same school run, same sports clubs etc the kids are at.

The track record of privatisation in the UK, isn't corporates running sectors of the UK's economy/infrastructure as if they were the state and benevolent. it's that shock horror, they're corporates motivated by profit seeking, which ends up squeezing the people the state once served who have limited options to go elsewhere (ie the maximum rent possible is extracted). The corporate then uses their scale (gifted to them directly by the state through privatisation, or indirectly by the state through regulation, or both) to crush smaller private competitors. At the same time as this is happening investment dries up, especially large joined up national scale infrastructure.

Shock horror - landlords and agents currently now work on the profit seeking and profit maximisation motives and the standards are sh*te. Institutional pension funds investing in BLT multi family property in Europe with the profit motivations and proper regulated standards is a better housing world.

[sockwithaticket]

Wow. Penny Mordaunt suggests the public should be grateful for Michelle Donelan as she didn't take a £16,000 redundancy payout she was entitled to after resigning as Education Secretary after.... two days

She suggests this wipes out the £15,000 the taxpayer paid for Donelan

Why the fuck is she entitled to £16k? Can't think of many environments where a screw up big enough for you to resign, let alone after a mere two days in post, comes with a payout like that.

[_Os_]

And unfortunately build to rent flats are very important in the UK property sector currently. Young people without BOMAD or a job that pays hugely over the UK average are locked out of home ownership and stable accomodation with private landlords more institutional BTL a la Europe is very important.

Communities in the UK are dead not because of transient housing but because of "there's no such thing as society" Thatcher and the Tories not funding community projects and spaces, and the decline of a focal point in the community such as a church, and people move much more often for work and family reasons, and other reasons. Renters aren't the reason, sadly. I'd actually argue if you had BTL multifamily that encouraged parents and children that is what builds community links - the same school run, same sports clubs etc the kids are at.

The track record of privatisation in the UK, isn't corporates running sectors of the UK's economy/infrastructure as if they were the state and benevolent. it's that shock horror, they're corporates motivated by profit seeking, which ends up squeezing the people the state once served who have limited options to go elsewhere (ie the maximum rent possible is extracted). The corporate then uses their scale (gifted to them directly by the state through privatisation, or indirectly by the state through regulation, or both) to crush smaller private competitors. At the same time as this is happening investment dries up, especially large joined up national scale infrastructure.

Shock horror - landlords and agents currently now work on the profit seeking and profit maximisation motives and the standards are sh*te. Institutional pension funds investing in BLT multi family property in Europe with the profit motivations and proper regulated standards is a better housing world.

The cartoon version of operators in the PRS is that. Back in the real world (as in stuff I've seen for real), a landlord refuses to raise the rent because the tenant is disabled, a landlord wasn't raising rents before interest rate rises, a landlord only increases the rent after a renovation and/or when a new tenant moves in. This is what happens in the real world. You look at the numbers and tell them "you should be jacking up the rent on all these", and they'll reply with something completely rational like "yes but they pay on time and aren't wrecking the property, better to have them than risk losing them and getting a bad tenant" or "yes but they've been there for decades the property cannot achieve that rent without refurbishment which cannot happen with them in there, and they pay". The relationship a small enterprise has with a consumer is different to the one a corporate has with the same person.

The standards aren't shit in the PRS, they're onerous to the point of it being difficult to imagine how much further regulation could go. There's a lot of laws around who can rent (with massive penalties for the landlord if they get it wrong), energy efficiency (far above that of an owner occupier), the expected minimum standards (that are higher for HMOs), and all the usual planning laws (there's no breaks just because someone is a landlord).

Where you see bad stories in the media it's almost always large institutional investors that look a lot like what you want more of. An individual who has 10 renters or whatever isn't going to want the roof falling down and the entire property filling up with black mold, because one way or another they're paying for that. A corporate with 1000s of rented units and it's all just lines in a spreadsheet is a different matter, their scale means they can afford to ignore very serious issues (low number of people impacted by a problem + high cost for action + other problems impacting more people and cheaper to fix + money those at the top want to extract = some poor people living in death traps).

[Biffer]

Wow. Penny Mordaunt suggests the public should be grateful for Michelle Donelan as she didn't take a £16,000 redundancy payout she was entitled to after resigning as Education Secretary after.... two days

She suggests this wipes out the £15,000 the taxpayer paid for Donelan

Why the fuck is she entitled to £16k? Can't think of many environments where a screw up big enough for you to resign, let alone after a mere two days in post, comes with a payout like that.

These fuckers exemplify a problem with modern society - people let their morality be decided by rules. This pish with Donelan may indeed all be within the rules, it's just not fucking right. It's not moral behaviour.

[C T]

Why the fuck is she entitled to £16k? Can't think of many environments where a screw up big enough for you to resign, let alone after a mere two days in post, comes with a payout like that.

These fuckers exemplify a problem with modern society - people let their morality be decided by rules. This pish with Donelan may indeed all be within the rules, it's just not fucking right. It's not moral behaviour.

In my own naive wee world, didn't realise that "redundancy" could be a word applied to someone resigning.

[I like neeps]

The track record of privatisation in the UK, isn't corporates running sectors of the UK's economy/infrastructure as if they were the state and benevolent. it's that shock horror, they're corporates motivated by profit seeking, which ends up squeezing the people the state once served who have limited options to go elsewhere (ie the maximum rent possible is extracted). The corporate then uses their scale (gifted to them directly by the state through privatisation, or indirectly by the state through regulation, or both) to crush smaller private competitors. At the same time as this is happening investment dries up, especially large joined up national scale infrastructure.

Shock horror - landlords and agents currently now work on the profit seeking and profit maximisation motives and the standards are sh*te. Institutional pension funds investing in BLT multi family property in Europe with the profit motivations and proper regulated standards is a better housing world.

The cartoon version of operators in the PRS is that. Back in the real world (as in stuff I've seen for real), a landlord refuses to raise the rent because the tenant is disabled, a landlord wasn't raising rents before interest rate rises, a landlord only increases the rent after a renovation and/or when a new tenant moves in. This is what happens in the real world. You look at the numbers and tell them "you should be jacking up the rent on all these", and they'll reply with something completely rational like "yes but they pay on time and aren't wrecking the property, better to have them than risk losing them and getting a bad tenant" or "yes but they've been there for decades the property cannot achieve that rent without refurbishment which cannot happen with them in there, and they pay". The relationship a small enterprise has with a consumer is different to the one a corporate has with the same person.

The standards aren't shit in the PRS, they're onerous to the point of it being difficult to imagine how much further regulation could go. There's a lot of laws around who can rent (with massive penalties for the landlord if they get it wrong), energy efficiency (far above that of an owner occupier), the expected minimum standards (that are higher for HMOs), and all the usual planning laws (there's no breaks just because someone is a landlord).

Where you see bad stories in the media it's almost always large institutional investors that look a lot like what you want more of. An individual who has 10 renters or whatever isn't going to want the roof falling down and the entire property filling up with black mold, because one way or another they're paying for that. A corporate with 1000s of rented units and it's all just lines in a spreadsheet is a different matter, their scale means they can afford to ignore very serious issues (low number of people impacted by a problem + high cost for action + other problems impacting more people and cheaper to fix + money those at the top want to extract = some poor people living in death traps).

It's just not what has happened in the real world though. I'm sure there are examples of landlords not raising rents when they could. But just look at the statistics of rent rises the last two years and you will see the "real world". Your quaint examples of imaginary landlords just don't reflect the data. And you've even said yourself agents say we could raise the rent here and the landlord usually doesn't say x,y,z they say great. Not all, but most as to be reflected in the numbers.

And you're final point - it's privately provisioned social housing that are the mold ridden death traps. Not BTLs built for long term rental to families. And I'd agree, social housing provision should never be privatised or for profit.

Unfortunately we live in a world where European style institutional BTLs should be because even though I'd love for massive housebuilding so everyone can realistically afford a home, that won't happen with the NIMBYs worried about their views/old buildings/non-existent communities. It's much better to have long term rental options from reputable investors so people can plan for a future.

[Ymx]

Oh Jesus, someone needs to check on refry / whatever his name on here is



He thought he would be safe with Labour

[_Os_]

Shock horror - landlords and agents currently now work on the profit seeking and profit maximisation motives and the standards are sh*te. Institutional pension funds investing in BLT multi family property in Europe with the profit motivations and proper regulated standards is a better housing world.

The cartoon version of operators in the PRS is that. Back in the real world (as in stuff I've seen for real), a landlord refuses to raise the rent because the tenant is disabled, a landlord wasn't raising rents before interest rate rises, a landlord only increases the rent after a renovation and/or when a new tenant moves in. This is what happens in the real world. You look at the numbers and tell them "you should be jacking up the rent on all these", and they'll reply with something completely rational like "yes but they pay on time and aren't wrecking the property, better to have them than risk losing them and getting a bad tenant" or "yes but they've been there for decades the property cannot achieve that rent without refurbishment which cannot happen with them in there, and they pay". The relationship a small enterprise has with a consumer is different to the one a corporate has with the same person.

The standards aren't shit in the PRS, they're onerous to the point of it being difficult to imagine how much further regulation could go. There's a lot of laws around who can rent (with massive penalties for the landlord if they get it wrong), energy efficiency (far above that of an owner occupier), the expected minimum standards (that are higher for HMOs), and all the usual planning laws (there's no breaks just because someone is a landlord).

Where you see bad stories in the media it's almost always large institutional investors that look a lot like what you want more of. An individual who has 10 renters or whatever isn't going to want the roof falling down and the entire property filling up with black mold, because one way or another they're paying for that. A corporate with 1000s of rented units and it's all just lines in a spreadsheet is a different matter, their scale means they can afford to ignore very serious issues (low number of people impacted by a problem + high cost for action + other problems impacting more people and cheaper to fix + money those at the top want to extract = some poor people living in death traps).

It's just not what has happened in the real world though. I'm sure there are examples of landlords not raising rents when they could. But just look at the statistics of rent rises the last two years and you will see the "real world". Your quaint examples of imaginary landlords just don't reflect the data. And you've even said yourself agents say we could raise the rent here and the landlord usually doesn't say x,y,z they say great. Not all, but most as to be reflected in the numbers.

And you're final point - it's privately provisioned social housing that are the mold ridden death traps. Not BTLs built for long term rental to families. And I'd agree, social housing provision should never be privatised or for profit.

Unfortunately we live in a world where European style institutional BTLs should be because even though I'd love for massive housebuilding so everyone can realistically afford a home, that won't happen with the NIMBYs worried about their views/old buildings/non-existent communities. It's much better to have long term rental options from reputable investors so people can plan for a future.

It's not imaginary landlords, I'm describing the reality. Someone that has a low number of properties is going to be very wary of voids and bad tenants because the financial risk to them is significant (suddenly they're paying a mortgage, and council tax, and any renovation costs). The incentive is not simply to screw the tenant, there's also an incentive to actually be paid at all and for the property not to be ruined. The main reason rent has been rising in the last two years is interest rate increases, obviously if a lot of landlords have not regularly increased their rents then they have more room to increase rents to cover increased mortgage costs, if a landlord is already at ceiling then it's harder to increase rent.

I think you're getting your terminology confused, BTL means Buy To Let, it's a mortgage product used by those who want to become landlords (something I do not advise doing for what it's worth, very little money in it, massive risk, excessive regulation). The poor quality housing is almost always housing association. The child that died from black mold was in a dwelling owned by a housing association, RBH which owns 10k+ properties, it was established through state funds and mostly used that money to buy council houses (that's definitely how it started they've also built some). They receive state funding but councils have no control over them as they're private entities, so when executives increase their own salaries through cost cutting (as happened with RBH) there's nothing the council can do. Because they work closely with councils, there's also incentive for the council to say their properties meet standards. The bureaucracy I describe surely played a role in a child dying from poor quality housing, then some guy letting a flat on Zoopla basically becomes the devil (when as is the case with letting agents, there's photos/videos of properties in the PRS publicly available otherwise they don't get tenants and it's obvious they're not death traps ... the social sector is very different it's often about the privatisation of state assets and run by fat cats, those dwellings aren't on Zoopla). It would be something like a supermarket's products turning out to be poison and everyone blaming the guy running a struggling specialist bakery that has nothing whatever to do with the supermarket chain.

[I like neeps]

The cartoon version of operators in the PRS is that. Back in the real world (as in stuff I've seen for real), a landlord refuses to raise the rent because the tenant is disabled, a landlord wasn't raising rents before interest rate rises, a landlord only increases the rent after a renovation and/or when a new tenant moves in. This is what happens in the real world. You look at the numbers and tell them "you should be jacking up the rent on all these", and they'll reply with something completely rational like "yes but they pay on time and aren't wrecking the property, better to have them than risk losing them and getting a bad tenant" or "yes but they've been there for decades the property cannot achieve that rent without refurbishment which cannot happen with them in there, and they pay". The relationship a small enterprise has with a consumer is different to the one a corporate has with the same person.

The standards aren't shit in the PRS, they're onerous to the point of it being difficult to imagine how much further regulation could go. There's a lot of laws around who can rent (with massive penalties for the landlord if they get it wrong), energy efficiency (far above that of an owner occupier), the expected minimum standards (that are higher for HMOs), and all the usual planning laws (there's no breaks just because someone is a landlord).

Where you see bad stories in the media it's almost always large institutional investors that look a lot like what you want more of. An individual who has 10 renters or whatever isn't going to want the roof falling down and the entire property filling up with black mold, because one way or another they're paying for that. A corporate with 1000s of rented units and it's all just lines in a spreadsheet is a different matter, their scale means they can afford to ignore very serious issues (low number of people impacted by a problem + high cost for action + other problems impacting more people and cheaper to fix + money those at the top want to extract = some poor people living in death traps).

It's just not what has happened in the real world though. I'm sure there are examples of landlords not raising rents when they could. But just look at the statistics of rent rises the last two years and you will see the "real world". Your quaint examples of imaginary landlords just don't reflect the data. And you've even said yourself agents say we could raise the rent here and the landlord usually doesn't say x,y,z they say great. Not all, but most as to be reflected in the numbers.

And you're final point - it's privately provisioned social housing that are the mold ridden death traps. Not BTLs built for long term rental to families. And I'd agree, social housing provision should never be privatised or for profit.

Unfortunately we live in a world where European style institutional BTLs should be because even though I'd love for massive housebuilding so everyone can realistically afford a home, that won't happen with the NIMBYs worried about their views/old buildings/non-existent communities. It's much better to have long term rental options from reputable investors so people can plan for a future.

It's not imaginary landlords, I'm describing the reality. Someone that has a low number of properties is going to be very wary of voids and bad tenants because the financial risk to them is significant (suddenly they're paying a mortgage, and council tax, and any renovation costs). The incentive is not simply to screw the tenant, there's also an incentive to actually be paid at all and for the property not to be ruined. The main reason rent has been rising in the last two years is interest rate increases, obviously if a lot of landlords have not regularly increased their rents then they have more room to increase rents to cover increased mortgage costs, if a landlord is already at ceiling then it's harder to increase rent.

I think you're getting your terminology confused, BTL means Buy To Let, it's a mortgage product used by those who want to become landlords (something I do not advise doing for what it's worth, very little money in it, massive risk, excessive regulation). The poor quality housing is almost always housing association. The child that died from black mold was in a dwelling owned by a housing association, RBH which owns 10k+ properties, it was established through state funds and mostly used that money to buy council houses (that's definitely how it started they've also built some). They receive state funding but councils have no control over them as they're private entities, so when executives increase their own salaries through cost cutting (as happened with RBH) there's nothing the council can do. Because they work closely with councils, there's also incentive for the council to say their properties meet standards. The bureaucracy I describe surely played a role in a child dying from poor quality housing, then some guy letting a flat on Zoopla basically becomes the devil (when as is the case with letting agents, there's photos/videos of properties in the PRS publicly available otherwise they don't get tenants and it's obvious they're not death traps ... the social sector is very different it's often about the privatisation of state assets and run by fat cats, those dwellings aren't on Zoopla). It would be something like a supermarket's products turning out to be poison and everyone blaming the guy running a struggling specialist bakery that has nothing whatever to do with the supermarket chain.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflatio ... cember2023

Again, the empirical evidence completely contradicts your claim. Rents have risen hugely over the last year. Let's cut the imaginary landlords and look at the evidence. Yes interest rates are a factor, but they aren't the whole story.

Buy to let, build to rent - whatever the terminology is. The flats sandstorm described and the L&Gs of this world building with pension funds Built to Rent family units is essential in the housing system becoming more supportive of younger people and families. And large institutional landlords will be better than agents telling their landlords with five properties what's the highest they can charge at every opportunity.

[C69]

Rachel Reeves getting into bed with big business.
Mark Carney and the head of Barclays part of Labours plan to spearhead investment plans for the UK.

Pretty smart to get business on board not to frighten the City or the Shires.
Very bland and boring all the way.
I may not like the direction but can see why they are doing it.
The polls are pretty steady atm hopefully the Tories will be decimated and big tactical votes should do that.

[robmatic]

It's just not what has happened in the real world though. I'm sure there are examples of landlords not raising rents when they could. But just look at the statistics of rent rises the last two years and you will see the "real world". Your quaint examples of imaginary landlords just don't reflect the data. And you've even said yourself agents say we could raise the rent here and the landlord usually doesn't say x,y,z they say great. Not all, but most as to be reflected in the numbers.

And you're final point - it's privately provisioned social housing that are the mold ridden death traps. Not BTLs built for long term rental to families. And I'd agree, social housing provision should never be privatised or for profit.

Unfortunately we live in a world where European style institutional BTLs should be because even though I'd love for massive housebuilding so everyone can realistically afford a home, that won't happen with the NIMBYs worried about their views/old buildings/non-existent communities. It's much better to have long term rental options from reputable investors so people can plan for a future.

It's not imaginary landlords, I'm describing the reality. Someone that has a low number of properties is going to be very wary of voids and bad tenants because the financial risk to them is significant (suddenly they're paying a mortgage, and council tax, and any renovation costs). The incentive is not simply to screw the tenant, there's also an incentive to actually be paid at all and for the property not to be ruined. The main reason rent has been rising in the last two years is interest rate increases, obviously if a lot of landlords have not regularly increased their rents then they have more room to increase rents to cover increased mortgage costs, if a landlord is already at ceiling then it's harder to increase rent.

I think you're getting your terminology confused, BTL means Buy To Let, it's a mortgage product used by those who want to become landlords (something I do not advise doing for what it's worth, very little money in it, massive risk, excessive regulation). The poor quality housing is almost always housing association. The child that died from black mold was in a dwelling owned by a housing association, RBH which owns 10k+ properties, it was established through state funds and mostly used that money to buy council houses (that's definitely how it started they've also built some). They receive state funding but councils have no control over them as they're private entities, so when executives increase their own salaries through cost cutting (as happened with RBH) there's nothing the council can do. Because they work closely with councils, there's also incentive for the council to say their properties meet standards. The bureaucracy I describe surely played a role in a child dying from poor quality housing, then some guy letting a flat on Zoopla basically becomes the devil (when as is the case with letting agents, there's photos/videos of properties in the PRS publicly available otherwise they don't get tenants and it's obvious they're not death traps ... the social sector is very different it's often about the privatisation of state assets and run by fat cats, those dwellings aren't on Zoopla). It would be something like a supermarket's products turning out to be poison and everyone blaming the guy running a struggling specialist bakery that has nothing whatever to do with the supermarket chain.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflatio ... cember2023

Again, the empirical evidence completely contradicts your claim. Rents have risen hugely over the last year. Let's cut the imaginary landlords and look at the evidence. Yes interest rates are a factor, but they aren't the whole story.

Buy to let, build to rent - whatever the terminology is. The flats sandstorm described and the L&Gs of this world building with pension funds Built to Rent family units is essential in the housing system becoming more supportive of younger people and families. And large institutional landlords will be better than agents telling their landlords with five properties what's the highest they can charge at every opportunity.

That huge rental increase in the PRS is broadly in line with RPI.

[Hal Jordan]

Rachel Reeves getting into bed with big business.
Mark Carney and the head of Barclays part of Labours plan to spearhead investment plans for the UK.

Pretty smart to get business on board not to frighten the City or the Shires.
Very bland and boring all the way.
I may not like the direction but can see why they are doing it.
The polls are pretty steady atm hopefully the Tories will be decimated and big tactical votes should do that.

Sadly also meeting with Big Oil.

[I like neeps]

It's not imaginary landlords, I'm describing the reality. Someone that has a low number of properties is going to be very wary of voids and bad tenants because the financial risk to them is significant (suddenly they're paying a mortgage, and council tax, and any renovation costs). The incentive is not simply to screw the tenant, there's also an incentive to actually be paid at all and for the property not to be ruined. The main reason rent has been rising in the last two years is interest rate increases, obviously if a lot of landlords have not regularly increased their rents then they have more room to increase rents to cover increased mortgage costs, if a landlord is already at ceiling then it's harder to increase rent.

I think you're getting your terminology confused, BTL means Buy To Let, it's a mortgage product used by those who want to become landlords (something I do not advise doing for what it's worth, very little money in it, massive risk, excessive regulation). The poor quality housing is almost always housing association. The child that died from black mold was in a dwelling owned by a housing association, RBH which owns 10k+ properties, it was established through state funds and mostly used that money to buy council houses (that's definitely how it started they've also built some). They receive state funding but councils have no control over them as they're private entities, so when executives increase their own salaries through cost cutting (as happened with RBH) there's nothing the council can do. Because they work closely with councils, there's also incentive for the council to say their properties meet standards. The bureaucracy I describe surely played a role in a child dying from poor quality housing, then some guy letting a flat on Zoopla basically becomes the devil (when as is the case with letting agents, there's photos/videos of properties in the PRS publicly available otherwise they don't get tenants and it's obvious they're not death traps ... the social sector is very different it's often about the privatisation of state assets and run by fat cats, those dwellings aren't on Zoopla). It would be something like a supermarket's products turning out to be poison and everyone blaming the guy running a struggling specialist bakery that has nothing whatever to do with the supermarket chain.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflatio ... cember2023

Again, the empirical evidence completely contradicts your claim. Rents have risen hugely over the last year. Let's cut the imaginary landlords and look at the evidence. Yes interest rates are a factor, but they aren't the whole story.

Buy to let, build to rent - whatever the terminology is. The flats sandstorm described and the L&Gs of this world building with pension funds Built to Rent family units is essential in the housing system becoming more supportive of younger people and families. And large institutional landlords will be better than agents telling their landlords with five properties what's the highest they can charge at every opportunity.

That huge rental increase in the PRS is broadly in line with RPI.

You'd expect so considering that's what the index that agents use to tell the landlords what to charge their tenants.

[robmatic]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflatio ... cember2023

Again, the empirical evidence completely contradicts your claim. Rents have risen hugely over the last year. Let's cut the imaginary landlords and look at the evidence. Yes interest rates are a factor, but they aren't the whole story.

Buy to let, build to rent - whatever the terminology is. The flats sandstorm described and the L&Gs of this world building with pension funds Built to Rent family units is essential in the housing system becoming more supportive of younger people and families. And large institutional landlords will be better than agents telling their landlords with five properties what's the highest they can charge at every opportunity.

That huge rental increase in the PRS is broadly in line with RPI.

You'd expect so considering that's what the index that agents use to tell the landlords what to charge their tenants.

How do you think institutional landlords will determine rent increases?

[C69]

Rachel Reeves getting into bed with big business.
Mark Carney and the head of Barclays part of Labours plan to spearhead investment plans for the UK.

Pretty smart to get business on board not to frighten the City or the Shires.
Very bland and boring all the way.
I may not like the direction but can see why they are doing it.
The polls are pretty steady atm hopefully the Tories will be decimated and big tactical votes should do that.

Sadly also meeting with Big Oil.

New Labour mk 2

[I like neeps]

That huge rental increase in the PRS is broadly in line with RPI.

You'd expect so considering that's what the index that agents use to tell the landlords what to charge their tenants.

How do you think institutional landlords will determine rent increases?

Their long term models that dictate their target rate of return and not letting agents telling them they could increase at every opportunity.

[Sandstorm]

Rachel Reeves getting into bed with big business.
Mark Carney and the head of Barclays part of Labours plan to spearhead investment plans for the UK.

Pretty smart to get business on board not to frighten the City or the Shires.
Very bland and boring all the way.
I may not like the direction but can see why they are doing it.
The polls are pretty steady atm hopefully the Tories will be decimated and big tactical votes should do that.

Sadly also meeting with Big Oil.

Would you want to be in the room with Big Wind?

[Hal Jordan]

I see the usual suspects are banging the drum.to overthrow Sunak and return Johnson to the helm as he us the only man who can lead the Conservatives to reelection.

[Hal Jordan]

I see the usual suspects are banging the drum to overthrow Sunak and return Johnson to the helm as he us the only man who can lead the Conservatives to reelection.

[robmatic]

You'd expect so considering that's what the index that agents use to tell the landlords what to charge their tenants.

How do you think institutional landlords will determine rent increases?

Their long term models that dictate their target rate of return and not letting agents telling them they could increase at every opportunity.

In practical terms, they will increase existing rents on an annual basis (as currently happens in the private rented sector) by some sort of index-linked value (something like RPI perhaps) and will place them on the market at what their research tells them is the maximum achievable rent (exactly how letting agents currently advise their clients). The main difference is that there will be fewer financially illiterate BTL landlords involved in the process.

[C69]

I see the usual suspects are banging the drum to overthrow Sunak and return Johnson to the helm as he us the only man who can lead the Conservatives to reelection.

Long may they bang the drum and divide

[Hal Jordan]

Oh, and the plan is also to have a referendum about leaving the ECHR on the same day as the election to head off the threat of Reform.

[Harveys]

You'd expect so considering that's what the index that agents use to tell the landlords what to charge their tenants.

How do you think institutional landlords will determine rent increases?

Their long term models that dictate their target rate of return and not letting agents telling them they could increase at every opportunity.

Agent’s suggest increases when current rent sits below market. Neither Agens nor landlords benefit from property sitting empty due to being priced above market. Suggesting large corporates wont turn the screws at every opportunity possible is painting quite the fantasy.

[fishfoodie]

I see the usual suspects are banging the drum.to overthrow Sunak and return Johnson to the helm as he us the only man who can lead the Conservatives to reelection.

I did think about posting to ask what the fuck he thought he was doing pretending to still be relevant, by getting his donors to fly him around pretending to be a statesman, & then today I saw why ......

I think the Covid inquiry needs to issue monthly updates, just to remind even the thickest of voters just why the UK had a higher impact from Covid, despite being an island, & having advance warning, & all the other advantages it had !

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Rachel Reeves getting into bed with big business.
Mark Carney and the head of Barclays part of Labours plan to spearhead investment plans for the UK.

Pretty smart to get business on board not to frighten the City or the Shires.
Very bland and boring all the way.
I may not like the direction but can see why they are doing it.
The polls are pretty steady atm hopefully the Tories will be decimated and big tactical votes should do that.

What I want to know is how much scope Starmer has a a reshuffle. He hardly dislikes Reeves, but he's also to the left of Reeves and keener on spending, but given his talking about the importance of female leaders in the party and any support base Reeves has it might not be an easy call to put her in another post after the election

I'd also like to know how much will Starmer dislike being disliked, That may speed his desire for a more compliant Chancellor

[I like neeps]

How do you think institutional landlords will determine rent increases?

Their long term models that dictate their target rate of return and not letting agents telling them they could increase at every opportunity.

Agent’s suggest increases when current rent sits below market. Neither Agens nor landlords benefit from property sitting empty due to being priced above market. Suggesting large corporates wont turn the screws at every opportunity possible is painting quite the fantasy.

Well, look at Germany - they have rents increasing across the country. The largest institutional landlord - Vonovia - are talking about increasing in the future if the inflation carries on. They haven't yet, because they just have to meet a low % increase that their models demand.

They have what 50+ years to consider on these investments when considering returns and that is what the financing and rental values are based on. Not annual chasing of of inflation. It's an entirely different business case to your mom and pop 3 property landlords run by Chancellors.

[SaintK]

30p on the move by the looks

Lee Anderson being removed from Tory Whatsapp groups as per @SamCoatesSky ahead of defection to Reform UK
There’s already bad blood. One Tory MP: ‘Lee is on his third political party in six years. I don’t think he’s going to move the dial for them.

[tabascoboy]

Seems confirmed ( to the surprise of...no-one really!). They truly deserve each other...

[SaintK]

Seems confirmed ( to the surprise of...no-one really!). They truly deserve each other...

I wonder if his mates are joining him there?

[tabascoboy]

What a difference a few weeks make....

[fishfoodie]

I wonder does 30p know the intended date for the GE ?

[Lobby]

What a difference a few weeks make....

Not the first time 30p has been a hypocrite. Before accepting a salary of £100k from GBNews, he said MPs shouldn't be allowed to take second jobs. He has also refused to stand down as an MP now he's switched parties, despite previously backing an unsuccessful bid to let constituents trigger a by-election when their MP changes parties.

[SaintK]

This hasn't aged too well. Just about everything Sunak touches turns to rat shit!!!!