Renters: how much of your net income do you pay for the roof over your head?

[UnderOpenSky]

Think the rule should be that if a BTL landlord want's to sell a property a) the tenant must get "first refusal" with the rent previously paid to count as the "deposit" and b) even if the tenant refuses [or can't buy] then their right to live there is not affected by the change in ownership ie the old landlord can't evict to get "vacant possession"

It will reduce the number of landlords and many of them will sell. Which is great if your trying to buy a house. Less so if buying a house it totaly unachievable, even at half the price.

We need more decent social housing if you wanted to do something like this to deal with the aftermath.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Think the rule should be that if a BTL landlord want's to sell a property a) the tenant must get "first refusal" with the rent previously paid to count as the "deposit" and b) even if the tenant refuses [or can't buy] then their right to live there is not affected by the change in ownership ie the old landlord can't evict to get "vacant possession"

I think the proposed new rule is that you can't sell for three months after evicting someone. So you'd still be able to evict people in order to sell up, but you'd have to take a haircut on rent for those three months.

The first refusal thing is a great idea but as it would effectively transfer equity form the landlord to the tennant it will never be allowed. It would tank the whole BTL model of getting someone else to pay for your equity.

We would buy this house if it came up for sale (or try to) but as it stands we'd have to just write off the 30 grand or so we've already paid for it. You'd hope to be able to come to some compromise price with the landlord by promising a hassle-free, no chain sale but we've never actually met our landlord.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It will reduce the number of landlords and many of them will sell. Which is great if your trying to buy a house. Less so if buying a house it totaly unachievable, even at half the price.

We need more decent social housing if you wanted to do something like this to deal with the aftermath.

If we legislated to close the loopholes on evicting people then the aftermath, for tennants at least, would be minimised. Local authorities could be empowered to buy up any BTL properties landlords want to offload, keeping tennants in place.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

If we legislated to close the loopholes on evicting people then the aftermath, for tennants at least, would be minimised. Local authorities could be empowered to buy up any BTL properties landlords want to offload, keeping tennants in place.

You might have actually come up with a plan that would suit both landlords and renters. The downside I can see is local authorities being stuck with older properties that need more ongoing work.

If that money was made available I think there might be more benefit in high quality, energy efficient new builds, at least where its possible.

 

[JoeyBoy]

Think the rule should be that if a BTL landlord want's to sell a property a) the tenant must get "first refusal" with the rent previously paid to count as the "deposit" and b) even if the tenant refuses [or can't buy] then their right to live there is not affected by the change in ownership ie the old landlord can't evict to get "vacant possession"

Even I can see the obvious problem with the first idea, the landlord hasn't kept the rent paid so far, it has been given to the bank so if he's forced to knock a given amount off his price, he's just going to put the price up to make sure the amount he has to knock off just brings it down to what he would have asked for in the first place and with the second idea what happens if the new owners want to live there themselves.
I think a better idea might be to make it so the landlord can't sell at all whilst the house is occupied. He has to wait until the tenant moves out before he can sell up unless maybe to another landlord with the tenant in situ.

 

[StoneRoad]

It will reduce the number of landlords and many of them will sell. Which is great if your trying to buy a house. Less so if buying a house it totaly unachievable, even at half the price.

We need more decent social housing if you wanted to do something like this to deal with the aftermath.

Agree totally with the BiB - tbh selling off council houses without using the money for replacing the stock was a major mistake ...

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Agree totally with the BiB - tbh selling off council houses without using the money for replacing the stock was a major mistake ...

Almost like it was political.

Wasted opportunity. Should have got rid of the older stuff to those who wanted to buy it and replaced it with newer.

 

[scifisam]

42% for me, but that's with low rent (social housing) and high utility bills, and I pay heavily into my pension.

 

[krink]

Quarter of my pay goes on rent. That seems low/OK but it's low rent from HA. If I had to pay market rent it'd be at least a third and edging ever nearer to half. I honestly don't know what I will do when my job eventually gets automated. Probably move onto my allotment

 

[farmerbarleymow]

30% excluding bills. 39% with bills.

 

[BigMoaner]

pay £1100 for a one bedroom with a yard. which me and two kids share for half the week, just me the rest of it.

 

[BigMoaner]

that's about %30 of my net income each month, but after bills and childmaintenance, yeah even the idea of a foreign holiday is a hillarous joke. i get by.

 

[weepiper]

I've been looking for another flat as my landlord is a heel-dragging prick about repairs and I'm getting a bit sick of it. Only there is now only one single 3 bedroom flat for rent in Edinburgh which is for rent that is less than my entire take-home pay.

 

[Orang Utan]

Don’t pay rent. Flat paid for.
Bills and food comprise 15% of income.

 

[pbsmooth]

just on a very very basic level, it's mental that someone can put down 10% for a house (let's say 50k) and then get someone else to pay the mortgage for 25 years (let's say, 450k value with interest which could be 750k), and then the first guy owns it all at the end. I mean... why?

 

[newme]

just on a very very basic level, it's mental that someone can put down 10% for a house (let's say 50k) and then get someone else to pay the mortgage for 25 years (let's say, 450k value with interest which could be 750k), and then the first guy owns it all at the end. I mean... why?

Crapitalism?

 

[bellaozzydog]

Through trial and error my equation for “fair rent” (no rent is fair tbh) is maximum 21.75% of income


Caveat:evil landlord

 

[emanymton]

Rent plus gas and electric is about a quater of my net pay. But it is HA and I keep my gas bill pretty low.

 

[Cat Fan]

Londoner here, think it's about 40% before bills. I count myself lucky because I'm seeing well paid younger people at my work struggling to find accommodation even in a zone 2/3 flat share. The market is brutal and dysfunctional

 

[Orang Utan]

I can never move back to London on my public sector salary.
I can’t even rent in Leeds and am still back living with my 81-year-old dad paying for half the bills but no rent. Which is fine to a point…..

 

[mango5]

No rent. Other housing charges and bills around a third of household income, plus irregular but huge non-negotiable bills for 'major works' (over 60k per flat in my block over the last 10 years).

 

[metalguru]

I really worry about ‘major works’ - wondering am I just one ‘share of costs for replacement roof for the block’, or similar, away from bankruptcy

 

[Sasaferrato]

If we legislated to close the loopholes on evicting people then the aftermath, for tennants at least, would be minimised. Local authorities could be empowered to buy up any BTL properties landlords want to offload, keeping tennants in place.

This happens in West Lothian, two of the houses in our square were rentals sold to the Council.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I've been looking for another flat as my landlord is a heel-dragging prick about repairs and I'm getting a bit sick of it. Only there is now only one single 3 bedroom flat for rent in Edinburgh which is for rent that is less than my entire take-home pay.

I was just looking at rental costs in Livingston,

The average for a house like ours is £950.00 a month.

Four years ago when my daughter was renting a similar house, it was £550.00.

 

[rubbershoes]

I really worry about ‘major works’ - wondering am I just one ‘share of costs for replacement roof for the block’, or similar, away from bankruptcy

If you rent, you shoudn't be responsible for those.

 

[metalguru]

If you rent, you shoudn't be responsible for those.

Shared ownership - involves paying rent and service charge for the building's upkeep.