|
|
Post by Yellow River on Aug 15, 2010 9:13:16 GMT
Britain's "golden age of home ownership" is coming to an end, and millions of young people face a lifetime of renting instead, a major housing organisation warns today. The Chartered Institute of Housing is calling on the government to turn its attention urgently to the needs of more than three million households in the private rental sector. Its wake-up call comes as figures reveal that in the most expensive parts of the country first-time buyers need to amass deposits of more than £40,000, almost double the average income, to have any chance of buying a home. Research released today by Hometrack, the property analyst, shows that in London a single person would need to earn more than £50,000 a year to obtain a mortgage for a two-bedroom flat at the bottom end of the market. Here's the full article... www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/15/housing-crisis-rental-marketI have a lot of sympathy for first time buyers at the moment, the vast majority priced out of the market altogether by ridiculous house price levels. However we could see a drop in house prices with, the combination of Public sector cuts this autumn, VAT rise in January, reductions in housing benefits and Mortgage interest support. |
|
|
|
Post by malcolmnl on Aug 15, 2010 11:13:12 GMT
An alternative to the current system of saving a deposit is in use in Holland which gives first timers a better chance.
They can get a 100% mortgage with a government backed paying guarentee if the purchase price is below a certain level. If the purchase price is above the set limit then the buyers are expected to at least fill the difference with their savings. Of course any savings put in help the mortgage company to help you.
Not a perfect system as it may encourage borrowing too much too early in life, but it is a chance. And of course the house price must be reasonable and backed by an independent valuation.
|
|
gilo
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by gilo on Aug 15, 2010 14:24:57 GMT
An alternative to the current system of saving a deposit is in use in Holland which gives first timers a better chance. They can get a 100% mortgage with a government backed paying guarentee if the purchase price is below a certain level. If the purchase price is above the set limit then the buyers are expected to at least fill the difference with their savings. Of course any savings put in help the mortgage company to help you. Not a perfect system as it may encourage borrowing too much too early in life, but it is a chance. And of course the house price must be reasonable and backed by an independent valuation. The government do (or used to do) that here where they would lend you up to 30% of the value for 10 years interest free but only on new homes (which I would advise everyone to avoid). Think it was called HomeBuy or something like that |
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Aug 15, 2010 18:27:16 GMT
An alternative to the current system of saving a deposit is in use in Holland which gives first timers a better chance. They can get a 100% mortgage with a government backed paying guarentee if the purchase price is below a certain level. If the purchase price is above the set limit then the buyers are expected to at least fill the difference with their savings. Of course any savings put in help the mortgage company to help you. Not a perfect system as it may encourage borrowing too much too early in life, but it is a chance. And of course the house price must be reasonable and backed by an independent valuation. The government do (or used to do) that here where they would lend you up to 30% of the value for 10 years interest free but only on new homes (which I would advise everyone to avoid). Think it was called HomeBuy or something like that I'm not sure why they don't apply it to all homes. The problem is not lack of homes - it's lack of homes for sale. In other words, when people move they are not releasing them back on to the market, and instead are opting to rent them out so they have a second source of income. Unless the governement act on this soon, we'll be returning to the bad old days where we have land-owners and peasants. |
|
|
|
Post by 'Beav' on Aug 15, 2010 18:43:38 GMT
The government do (or used to do) that here where they would lend you up to 30% of the value for 10 years interest free but only on new homes (which I would advise everyone to avoid). Think it was called HomeBuy or something like that I'm not sure why they don't apply it to all homes. The problem is not lack of homes - it's lack of homes for sale. In other words, when people move they are not releasing them back on to the market, and instead are opting to rent them out so they have a second source of income. Unless the governement act on this soon, we'll be returning to the bad old days where we have land-owners and peasants. Bicester'll be fine. With plans to add 25,000 people. It'll be bigger than Banbury. Plus the whole town centre is being re-developed. Tesco is moving so Bicester Village gets more shops. Plus Tesco is becomign a Tesco Extra. The one with the TVs and clothes. |
|
|
|
Post by dannyc on Aug 15, 2010 21:05:23 GMT
more depressing news then
|
|
|
|
Post by Neverforget on Aug 16, 2010 0:45:40 GMT
Bicester'll be fine. With plans to add 25,000 people. It'll be bigger than Banbury. Plus the whole town centre is being re-developed. Tesco is moving so Bicester Village gets more shops. Plus Tesco is becomign a Tesco Extra. The one with the TVs and clothes. But problem is Bicester is FAR too expensive. Your looking at £170,000 for 1 bed flat. We're looking at moving away from here, will be sad to go but its to expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Pogue Mahone on Aug 16, 2010 7:46:53 GMT
I know I can't afford to purchase in Oxford. It's mad prices for what it is, but the demand is there. The only way to bring prices down is to saturate the market with new homes. The demand far outstrips the resource.
What I have done is buy a house in sunny Stoke-on-Trent, and rent it out. The mortgage is paid more or less by the rent received. I saved up a deposit over the course of 4 years, £300 per month that gave me a deposit of £14,000. I found a 2 bed place for £106,000, and purchased it. With fees on top and making it habitable, the total was close to £113,000.
Now, I am saving another £300 per month, and I will be purchasing another in hopefully 2 years time, and then another in 5 years.
So, once I have three I can concentrate on paying the mortgages off. With the time value of money increasing, I will be able to start turning a small profit in around 5 years and carry on from here. Within 15 years, I should have enough equity and enough deposit saved for an Oxford or Henley homestead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Aug 16, 2010 16:07:36 GMT
I know I can't afford to purchase in Oxford. It's mad prices for what it is, but the demand is there. The only way to bring prices down is to saturate the market with new homes. The demand far outstrips the resource.
Or put interest rates up  |
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Aug 16, 2010 16:20:40 GMT
I know I can't afford to purchase in Oxford. It's mad prices for what it is, but the demand is there. The only way to bring prices down is to saturate the market with new homes. The demand far outstrips the resource.
Or put interest rates up Or heavily tax those with second homes or investment properties. They should first and foremost be places to live, and not sources of income. |
|
|
|
Post by edgecam on Aug 16, 2010 16:28:55 GMT
Or put interest rates up Or heavily tax those with second homes or investment properties. They should first and foremost be places to live, and not sources of income. If it was not for owners who rent out their properties who would people rent from? |
|
|
|
Post by edgecam on Aug 16, 2010 16:34:42 GMT
Ok I am now going to admit something most of you will not like. Back in 1987 I moved out of Oxfordshire because I wanted to buy my own house. Yep you guess it. I now live in SN. Sometimes you have to move were work is and second you an afford to live and back in 87 no way could I buy a house in Oxfordshire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Aug 16, 2010 17:41:09 GMT
Or heavily tax those with second homes or investment properties. They should first and foremost be places to live, and not sources of income.
Property speculators, buy-to-let landlords aided by stupid lending practicies by banks have helped to cause a property bubble & ridiculous house price levels thus forcing the first time buyer with no other option but to rent. The average of the first time buyer without help from their parents is 37! |
|
|
|
Post by edgecam on Aug 16, 2010 19:30:00 GMT
If it was not for owners who rent out their properties who would people rent from?
The average of the first time buyer without help from their parents is 37! . Where did you get this stat from? I know plenty of people that are way under that and have recently got themselves on the property ladder. |
|
|
|
Post by Behind The Goal on Aug 16, 2010 20:18:45 GMT
Where did all the council housing go?!!
It wasn't to do with the greed that Thatcher stirred up, was it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Aug 17, 2010 6:28:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by baldy on Aug 17, 2010 7:44:04 GMT
I know I can't afford to purchase in Oxford. It's mad prices for what it is, but the demand is there. The only way to bring prices down is to saturate the market with new homes. The demand far outstrips the resource. What I have done is buy a house in sunny Stoke-on-Trent, and rent it out. The mortgage is paid more or less by the rent received. I saved up a deposit over the course of 4 years, £300 per month that gave me a deposit of £14,000. I found a 2 bed place for £106,000, and purchased it. With fees on top and making it habitable, the total was close to £113,000. Now, I am saving another £300 per month, and I will be purchasing another in hopefully 2 years time, and then another in 5 years. So, once I have three I can concentrate on paying the mortgages off. With the time value of money increasing, I will be able to start turning a small profit in around 5 years and carry on from here. Within 15 years, I should have enough equity and enough deposit saved for an Oxford or Henley homestead. Part of the problem is that young people (18-25) can't be bothered to save and put some aside. They pretty much live in a spend, spend, spend culture where the only thing that matters is Friday night closely followed by Saturday night. Come Sunday they're skint and the vicious circle starts again on Monday at work. Not wishing to sound like an old git (I'm 46 !) but at that age I struck a balance between saving and enjoying myself and by 21 or 22 had enough aside for the minimum deposit on the smallest, most basic property imaginable but it got me on the ladder and I've never been off it since. How many youngsters of today could accumulate, say, £20,000 (£4,000 a year should be do-able) over a five year period from when they start work and watch it build without being tempted to dive into it ? Not many, in fact very few. |
|
|
|
Post by Pogue Mahone on Aug 17, 2010 7:45:25 GMT
I'm 26 and have been a home owner for 3 years....
|
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Yellow on Aug 17, 2010 8:22:04 GMT
Bicester'll be fine. With plans to add 25,000 people. It'll be bigger than Banbury. Plus the whole town centre is being re-developed. Tesco is moving so Bicester Village gets more shops. Plus Tesco is becomign a Tesco Extra. The one with the TVs and clothes. But problem is Bicester is FAR too expensive. Your looking at £170,000 for 1 bed flat. We're looking at moving away from here, will be sad to go but its to expensive. Plus- what you've forgotten to mention is that Bicester's a hole, having lived there for most of my life I couldn't think of anything worse than moving back there. You have an ever increasing population but with little to no amenities for them, Sheep Street and Market Square have been on a downward slope for many years. The council have always promised redevelopment but have delivered nothing. Bicester is and always will be an Army/commuter town and nothing else, I feel sorry for anyone who are trapped there. I'm well out of there! |
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Aug 17, 2010 8:27:53 GMT
Or heavily tax those with second homes or investment properties. They should first and foremost be places to live, and not sources of income. If it was not for owners who rent out their properties who would people rent from? If it wasn't for people owning two, three, ten or even fifty properties, there would be a lot more available housing on the market, and prices wouldn't be so astronomically high. I'm not sure what it's like where you live, but here in Bracknell our property paper consists of about 8 pages of homes for sale and 12 of homes to rent - that is simply not right. |
|
