Senior economist predicts house price crash of between 20 to 50%

they do? Where? I probably wouldn't be homeless if such a beast really existed - surely they're mythical?

Jim.

No, mostly it's that there's no market for sensible rents, like Tim mentions, it's nearly impossible to rent somewhere without masses of hassle, and continous moving.

I'm not an HPC proponent (although do I think one is more likely than not), I'm just disagreeing the the analysis that if you beleive it you have to sell your house.

Who'd want to live in a new build? - well some of people obviously, but not necessarily the individual you're advocating sell. I certainly wouldn't - unless it was my own new build.

because you place the profit in someones home above everything else - rather than recognizing that there are many good reasons for people not to move simply for a bit of money.

There are other people than the people who are enjoying their home...

Jim.

It is a stupid debate anyway. I was born in 1929 and there has been a steady increase in property prices, (note: not value), ever since.

You have to measure the price of the property against the average income in the country.

As incomes go up so do the costs of everything else go up - thus the, "value", of the properties remains substantially even throughout the years. Thus property has always been the best hedge against inflation. For example the, "value", of pensions goes down even if the total sum in pounds goes up but the cost of a property goes up while its value stays the same.

So if you wish to make money from property in the short term you buy cheap and sell dear and invest the profit in your next cheap buy. If you want a hedge against inflation then buy a house you can afford, live in it while watching the prices climb.

The only people making big profits are the mortgage lenders, estate agents and the tradespeople doing the renovations.

I used to be one. I suspect that Richard could do you the same deal.

tim

You've obviously never owned a dog, they will eat anything they can get their paws on.

Your European Nivarna may exist in Sweden but it is by no means universal. France has long terms lets but in places where you might be able to get a job - ie Paris, you have to give landlords your first born to get an apartment. When I last rented there they required a year's rent up front! Munich wasn't great either. Personally I prefered the flexibility of the UK market to the moribund Parisian rental market.

YMMV.

In message , "tim (in sweden)" writes

When I let to a tenant, I hope that they will stay forever, (unless they cause trouble, or dont pay the rent etc..). There is no way I will ask a good tenant to leave, nor will I put the rent up until there is a substantial difference between what is being paid and the market rent.

Do you (or your agent) actively market your property this way and do you actively discuss contractual terms which meet the tenants needs?

When I owned BTLs I did this, but now I am thinking of renting all I can find are agency deals on a take it or leave it, X months fixed term basis. And that's before we get to the check for this, fee for that, part of the contract.

I haven't yet sussed out whether it is a sellars or a buyers market where I am thinking of moving to, so I don't know if I can call their bluff or not. (Though the listing of available properties on rightmove.com is still identical to that which was there two weeks ago when I started this process, not sure if thata's a long enough period to tell).

tim

If you bought a cottage for GBP600 in 1962, it can't have been much of a property. At that time, new 2-bed bungalows in a not-upmarket area of Rotherham were going for GBP1800. We moved to Rochdale in 1963, and prices were a little lower there, probably GBP1600.

You could find a 2-up/2-down property with outside toilet for about GBP800, and a life of maybe 5 or 6 years before demolition, or the end of its 99-year lease. The ground rents were going for about 5-6 years' times the annual rental.

In message , "tim (in sweden)" writes

I'm sure we have discussed it on occasions, and I think he stresses that they need not worry about being moved out, although I tend to just leave him to it, and he does a fabulous job, (the main agent - see below).

I have one agent who looks after 16 flats for me. He charges 10% + VAT of rent collected, and no more. Nothing for finding a tenant, nothing for an inventory, nothing for anything else... and he collects a few quid as a result.

He usually re-lets any of my flats which come empty before they are vacated, or at least within a few days.

So he's a dream of an agent, and I actually worry what I will do if he were to close down...

I have one other flat, in an area he cant let in, (Manchester City Centre, and he's tried). So I use a City Centre agent, who has let it twice (very quickly), but they charge 10%+VAT of rent collected, plus £595 + VAT each time they find a tenant. The first tenant only stayed 6 months, but the second lot, (moved in today), have signed a 12 month agreement. I manage this one myself as it is brand new, so not much to get involved with as I can usually point the tenants to the concierge for help.

No idea. The agent who manages the City Centre flat tried very hard to get the management, and offered within minutes to let for a fee of £500+VAT, and manage for a fee of 8%+VAT, so there was probably room to push them for more.

You obviously never owned many dogs. They are all different. Many are fussy eaters. Furthermore, if properly trained in the first place, will stick to a really good diet. The most obvious thing is that their systems cannot cope with too much salt and their lives are much shortened if fed on the same diet as humans. Strange as it may seem small dogs need proportionately more food than big dogs. Generally speaking dogs that overeat are not getting enough to do, or enough to occupy their minds.

It was more than two bedrooms and it was in great condition with a large bit of groung attached.

I wasn't in Rotherham. In fact I was not in a town but a larhe village.

I live in Scotland and the village was then a mining community surrounded by pits and mines. I knew the mining industry in this area was about to be cut back and bought the cottage. I kept it for a while and sold at a very good profit and moved into a smaller former mine undermanager's cottage. This also had a large plot of land with it. However, this one was outside the village and really needed lots of work done. I can do any kind of renovation work and I did the whole place up in my spare time. Rewired, re-plumbed, central heating, re-roofed and new doors and windows fitted.

Now I live on the outer edge of the village and I'm surrounded by nature reserves, bird sancturies and look out upon a Country Park with Loch Ore, Benarty Hill and a farm house forming a rather attractive outlook.

No problems like that around here. We did not even have Feu Duty to pay on the second cottage and there is no signs that it was ever a mining village except for the bronze statue of a miner that stands outside the public library.

It's not the leaving, it's the fixed term contracts, you can either get 6 month minimum then 2 months notice until the 12, then you have to negotiate normally getting offered something like another 6 month minimum which you can argue down to 2 months if you accept the rent increase.

What I want is something like an indefinate 2 months notice no minimum forever - rent adjustments agreed by some mechanism at certain periods, I don't want this continual re-arranging, talking to agents is just too much f'ing hassle, I detest it. - So I'm homeless.

So it's not the "I don't want to be kicked out" insecurity, landlords are unlikely to have that problem unless they need to sell for some reason, it's just the continual hassle of renogiating, especially with high minimum times.

Jim.

In message , Jim Ley writes

From a landlords point of view the minimum period they can let for, and ask for possession at the end, is 6 months, so that tends to be the minimum. Having said that, there is nothing to stop us agreeing a 2 month term, after which you would be free to move, but we still would not be able to ask for possession until 6 months.

In addition, it would not be worth letting to someone for 2 months, given that there is often an empty period whilst arranging for the next tenant. I accept that you seem to want 2 months minimum for peace of mind, and I assume that if you found a nice place, you would stay indefinitely. But asking for a 2 month term suggests that there is a strong chance you may leave after 2 months.

At the end of a 6 month tenancy, you can give 1 months notice, and the landlord must give you 2 months notice. AFAIK, most landlords dont suggest a formula for increasing rents, and will only try to get an increase if they feel that rents have risen, (by how much depends on the landlord), or if they would be happy for the tenant to leave.

As long as they pay the rent, most tenants have no need to talk to the agents or the landlord, unless there is a problem with the property, (or them?).

Where are you trying to live? I.e. what part of the country

If you really want low minimum times, you could rent service flats, which tend to be let, (possibly licensed), on a daily or weekly, or monthly basis, but at much higher rates than those available with a minimum 6 month term - perhaps a bit like holiday lets.

Erm, every agreement I've seen recently expires after a year, and a new agreement needs to made, the agent starts endlessly hassling you about this - phone calls whilst I'm abroad continously, not just leave a message wait 2 weeks - with about 10 weeks left of the tenancy in my experience, if the place was nice, I'd probably even agree a 6 month minimum then a straight forever more 1 or 2 months notice.

I don't want to talk to the agent ever, and the landlord only if there is a problem, or if they need to come do some maintenance or something.

No idea, but my experience has been in south west London.

but even more hassle! :-)

Cheers,

Jim.

In message , Jim Ley writes

Nope! Once an Assured Shorthold Tenancy expires, if nobody does anything, it automatically becomes a Periodic Tenancy whereby it continues on exactly the same terms as the original tenancy except that the tenant can give the landlord 1 months notice and the landlord can give the tenant 2 months notice.

Many agents either do not know that they need do nothing to continue the tenancy, or the dishonourable ones create a new agreement so that they can charge the landlord or tenant or both for it.

See above...

Agreed.

Come and rent one of my flats in Manchester, and you will get something which should suit you, (maybe not the flats, which tend to be let, or let quickly, so I'm not trying to sell anything), but the agreement should be right

Regds

I've never had an agent or landlord who will not give the 2 months notice at 10 months unless you agree to sign a new contract with fixed terms - and there's no way to find out if there are really are better ones until you've already invested those 10 months.

You can't get to the case where one expires, at leat I've never been able to.

But then it's in manchester, haven't you got something a little more rural?

Cheers,

Jim.

Yes, you had told us about the deal before. But I had just assumed that this was a normal 'high street' agent that had offered a volumn discount and who still imposed their, often unreasonable, rules and charges on tenants.

The problem as I see it here, is that most landlords just accept this agency 'rip-off' without murmur, probably because of ignorance. And then they wonder why the get bad tenants (OK they'd probably get them anyway), or no tenants.

I went back yesterday to look at the sales page to see what the yield is (5% with no voids, probably 4% with) and found two of the rental properties in the sales pages. It's not clear if they are trying to sell because they cannot get a tenant, or trying to rent because they cannot get a sale. Probably the latter, but that doesn't bode well for the prospective long tenant.

I'm sure that it's much easier to negotiate as a landlord. As a tenant if you want to walk away because the agency are imposing terms/charges that you don't want to accept, you usually end up losing the property as well.

tim

The 6 month minimum let part is clearly necessary.

It might not be what I would want, but it's a condition that one has accept in the market, it's all the other stuff that is the problem IMHO.

And it's all stuff that doesn't (really) need to be there, it tends to be imposed by agencies, sometimes to increase their take, but often, just because they can. The landlords need to see that these terms are not in their interests in finding/keeping good tenants, and need to be negotiated out by them if they don't see the need for them.

Example. There's the post on ul (that I know you have seen) from a tenant complaining about the agent's imposition of bi-mothly condition checks.

Why do the agents want to do this? I guess that it's simply because they want to be seen to justify their fee. Why they think that these checks help, I really cannot fathom. Is a check every 2 months going to stop a bad tenant from trashing the place? (very very unlikely) Is inconveniencing the tenant to perform these checks going to encourage the tenant to stay? (No).

My experience is in the wider London commuter zone.

I have lived in Manchester before and I know that it is better, but it didn't used to be as bad as it is now in the SE, so they could have caught up. (Though the agents were as useful as a chocolate teapot when it came to fixing problems - even though I didn't ask for something that cost money - perhaps that was the problem).

Do these exist outside of city centres? In London they tend to be very very expensive because of their location. The target market is short term quality hotel replacement and they are priced accordingly.

tim