Housing White Paper Released – “Fixing our Broken Housing Market”

Or in other words....

What a waste of hot air, it's so depressing that the good intentions are expressed, but who do these people actually take advice from?

Longer tenancies - what's the lenders view?
Mine say 12 months max and no benefit claimants allowed.

3 years and longer a deed is required.

Institutional Investment - How will they evict or even house a tenant from hell?

The councils will end up with the nutters or the PRS, if it still exists.

Rents at 20% below market value, but tax at infinite rates if financed used by Individual Landlords, how the hell does that work?

Loss of planning if not used within 2 years - as I recall its lack of capital that slows down a project.
Is the credit crunch and new lending criteria finished now?

Downsizing the retired? - put them into a home they can't afford to pay for or rent? - who dreams this up?

£4000 per year ISA? Ha ha ha ha ha ah ah, (stop it your making my eyes water).
20 years to save for a deposit?
That's why it's called a Lifetime ISA, it's for your great grandkids.

Prefabricated construction? I want to see the Housing Minister live in one for two years to check for leaks.

Im trying to to be cynical, but when the first tax bills start hitting PRS Landlords carpets, after Section 24, Theresa May will be taking in Lodgers herself.

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Dully" at "07/02/2017 - 13:42":

My understanding is that 3 year tenancies won't apply to us. Although I'd be happy to offer them if evicting for not paying rent or ASB, within a reasonable timeframe, was realistic.

"• ensure that family-friendly tenancies of three or more years are available for those tenants that want them on schemes that benefit from our changes. We are working with the British Property Federation and National Housing Federation to consolidate this approach across the sector"

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "07/02/2017 - 13:53":

Government keep banging the same old drum about longer term tenancies but nbody really want one; tenant don’t want to commit long term and it causes funding problems for landlords.

There is a far better alternative and Government know it. Perhaps if it had the Legal & General badge on it then Government, Shelter and Generation Rent would promote it?

Please read more via the link below.
.

Watchin the House of Commons is like watching an episode of the muppets

'Making renting fairer for tenants.'
How will that work? What does it mean? Looks like words without meaning to me.

'Improving neighbourhoods by continuing to crack down on empty homes, and supporting areas most affected by second homes.'
What does that mean? Massive council tax bills for people who don't use council services? If there is a discount for single occupancy why a bigger bill for no occupancy? It makes no sense. If the owner has created that second home themselves (eg converting a barn), why is that anyone's business? They haven't 'stolen' it from someone meaning that they should be punished.

'Helping the most vulnerable who need support with their housing, developing a sustainable
and workable approach to funding supported housing in the future.'
They're going to need a lot more state-funded social housing because those of us in the private sector who currently plug the gaps and provide this housing soon won't be. Abolishing Section 24 would be far more effective in terms of helping the most vulnerable, as we well know.

'Doing more to prevent homelessness by supporting households at risk before they reach
crisis point as well as reducing rough sleeping.'
So are they going to stop councils from giving the advice to non-paying tenants that they stay put and bleed the landlord dry before they get re-housed? In my experience, 'households at risk' have invariably been little shits who decide to spend the rent money on fun things like nights up the club. They're not ill; they make the wrong decisions and are quite often 'bad' people, actually (that's my experience).

'Making better use of land for housing by encouraging higher densities, where appropriate, such as in urban locations where there is high housing demand; and by reviewing space standards'
Whoopee, obviously this means they're going to stop hammering us for converting houses into HMOs and stop all the licensing schemes and reimburse those of us who have had to shell out a fortune on these. (and yet not, I suspect)

'Encouraging more institutional investors into housing, including for building more homes for private rent, and encouraging family- friendly tenancies.'
Not one legitimate reason has been given for favouring institutions. It is absurd to be 'encouraging' one group of people to provide houses for rent whilst simultaneously clobbering the group which provides the most rented housing already in this country. Also, what is this obsession with families? Do single people and couples not count? I find this discriminatory.

Family friendly? How about having a few families who don't split up? There must be thousands of people who normally live alone (separated) but need extra bedroom(s) for when they have the kids round.

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "07/02/2017 - 15:42":

‘Encouraging more institutional investors into housing, including for building more homes for private rent, and encouraging family- friendly tenancies.’

Not forgetting that these institutional investors provide housing that is extraordinarily expensive, anywhere up to 50% higher than the going rate for private landlords down here. You're having a laugh if they are even familiar with the concept of affordable housing. Of course we don't have to pay fat cat salaries, shareholder dividends and the inevitable "contribution" to Tory Party funds.

So Sajid & Gavin - if you want "affordable" housing, guess what chaps - you already have it in spades! S24 / SDLT / licencing / min. room sizes etc will wreak enormous damage on the existing stock of affordable housing. Trouble is that you are so blinded by London / South East that you are screwing the rest of the country. Thanks a bunch guys!

A load of twaddle as per usual Ive given up taking any notice

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "07/02/2017 - 15:42":

I get your points Ros but you're missing the positive.
There is no private landlord bashing in there for once. That is a big shift from recent events. It is a good result.
Not expecting a U turn but it has paved the way for a few concessions in next month's budget. At the very least, no further clobbering.

Reply to the comment left by "Monty Bodkin" at "07/02/2017 - 17:50":

Yes, good point, Monty. It could be seen as a stepping stone towards a reversal of s24 and a move towards a positive way of seeing us! I like a bit of positive thinking.