Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

End of home owning dream: 20 years ago, two thirds of average earners aged up to 34 could afford their own house... now it’s just one in four


201p

Recommended Posts

 
End of home owning dream: 20 years ago, two thirds of average earners aged up to 34 could afford their own house... now it’s just one in four



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5397697/Home-owner-crisis-just-one-four-afford-home.html#ixzz57Eb7CeDB 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

----

 

Here it is in pictures.

1998 - this many could buy a house, under 34 years of age

0307_two-thirds_white.png&f=1

 

2018 - this many can buy a house, under 34 years of age

Fourth01.png&f=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tremendous # on the lung
4 hours ago, 201p said:

What will it be in another 20 years in 2038? Pop back to this thread to find out.

?

Eighth01.png

Science and Nature.

I'd go for Sport next

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have reverted to norm.

my grandparents couldn’t afford their own home but benefited greatly from the post war building process and got a brand new council house.

my parents could afford to buy a family home on one modest wage

we needed two wages

,y kids are back to the position of my grandparents but there isn’t the council houses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 201p said:

What will it be in another 20 years in 2038? Pop back to this thread to find out.

?

Eighth01.png

You can buy 25% of a property. Shared ownership has marked the insanity, yet the media thinks it's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

You can buy 25% of a property. Shared ownership has marked the insanity, yet the media thinks it's fine.

Shared ownership is the ideal tenure for some people (youngish, earnings set to increase) as it's your house and you buy additional percentages of it every few years until it's fully purchased.

If you're not in this position and you won't realistically be able to buy any more then, in your example, owning just 25% of the house, paying rent on the other 75%, and being responsible and paying for all the maintenance is a very poor deal.  You would be better off straight renting; especially when it comes time for a new roof.  You pay £30k for a new roof and only actually own £7.5k of it.  Bargain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Shared ownership is the ideal tenure for some people (youngish, earnings set to increase) as it's your house and you buy additional percentages of it every few years until it's fully purchased.

If you're not in this position and you won't realistically be able to buy any more then, in your example, owning just 25% of the house, paying rent on the other 75%, and being responsible and paying for all the maintenance is a very poor deal.  You would be better off straight renting; especially when it comes time for a new roof.  You pay £30k for a new roof and only actually own £7.5k of it.  Bargain.

It's all a poor deal!

If they were only allowed in law to sell a whole house then prices would have had to dropped. Or there'd be more landlords. 

It's an appalling con we inflict on people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

It's all a poor deal!

If they were only allowed in law to sell a whole house then prices would have had to dropped. Or there'd be more landlords. 

It's an appalling con we inflict on people. 

Agree. Yet another prop for the housing market  builders 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, One percent said:

Agree. Yet another prop for the housing market  builders 

My little sister is trapped in a 50% flat. She shouldn't have been allowed to buy it. She's only got 5 more years of tax credits and absolutely no room to pop out another child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

It's all a poor deal!

If they were only allowed in law to sell a whole house then prices would have had to dropped. Or there'd be more landlords. 

It's an appalling con we inflict on people. 

I think pretty much everyone on here would agree that house prices are ridiculously high and it would be good news if they fell.

But in certain circumstances they are ideal; not for your sister from the sound of it.

If I was mid twenties, on an ok wage but insufficient to buy, and with a likelihood of that wage rising over time, then it would let me "buy" a reasonable house at 25 and steadily buy out the rest of it without having to move.  Without that I'd have to buy somewhere grotty and always be looking to uproot to somewhere better.   I know someone who has been doing just this for the last ten years and lives somewhere he could not otherwise have afforded.

It is a good way of giving young families (they'd just had their first child) a decent home from which they won't be evicted on the whim of a landlord.

But yes they're not suitable for everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

It is a good way of giving young families (they'd just had their first child) a decent home from which they won't be evicted on the whim of a landlord.

But yes they're not suitable for everybody.

But presumably if you don't pay the rented bit's rent you'll get into trouble and get evicted anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/sep/03/hidden-dangers-shared-ownership

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

But presumably if you don't pay the rented bit's rent you'll get into trouble and get evicted anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/sep/03/hidden-dangers-shared-ownership

 

Yes, as with any rental if you don;t pay the rent then you're out, though the more common way of losing them is inability to pay the mortgage.

But as it stands a landlord can have you evicted for merely complaining about them even if you have no rent arreras (I think the law on this is changing in six months) but with a SO you can't just be thrown out if you're up to date with your rent and mortgage payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long time lurking
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

I think pretty much everyone on here would agree that house prices are ridiculously high and it would be good news if they fell.

But in certain circumstances they are ideal; not for your sister from the sound of it.

If I was mid twenties, on an ok wage but insufficient to buy, and with a likelihood of that wage rising over time, then it would let me "buy" a reasonable house at 25 and steadily buy out the rest of it without having to move.  Without that I'd have to buy somewhere grotty and always be looking to uproot to somewhere better.   I know someone who has been doing just this for the last ten years and lives somewhere he could not otherwise have afforded.

It is a good way of giving young families (they'd just had their first child) a decent home from which they won't be evicted on the whim of a landlord.

But yes they're not suitable for everybody.

It`s never ended well for any i have known and i have known a few including family members, IMO it`s a scam ,the rent plus mortgage payments are never that far away from the cost of a mortgage on the whole property,to me it`s a tax on those who cannot raise a decent deposit ad to that it`s very difficult to move if you need to so it`s limiting future employment opportunities 

There`s always an exception to the rule but i think  it`s a tiny percentage  

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

It`s never ended well for any i have known and i have known a few including family members, IMO it`s a scam ,the rent plus mortgage payments are never that far away from the cost of a mortgage on the whole property,to me it`s a tax on those who cannot raise a decent deposit ad to that it`s very difficult to move if you need to so it`s limiting future employment opportunities 

There`s always an exception to the rule but i think  it`s a tiny percentage  

  

 

It's definitely not a scam!  It's usually a requirement of planning.  There is a much better (up to 50% greater) financial return on capital from doing simple affordable rented, let alone market rented, so housing associations and council ALMOs would, if just trying to maximise return, only ever build rented.  The theory behind the planning is that by doing mixed tenure on new build estates (rented, shared ownership, and outright sale) then you get a good mix of tenants so no posh enclaves or sink estates and tbh this does tend to work reasonably well.

The difficulty in moving that you flag is absolutely that's the case, and if you can buy outright rather than going shared ownership then you should of course do this.

The circumstances I outlined above are pretty much ideal reasons for buying a shared ownership - you can't afford to buy outright as yet but you want control of your home and you want to stay in the same town - but if you start taking those reasons away then it becomes a steadily less good idea.

The ideal I suppose would be house prices falling to genuinely affordable levels on local salaries and then the need for shared ownership entirely falls away and instead you get the traditional small "starter homes" (not Cameron's 20% discount ones) built which people will buy as a first home and live in for ten years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long time lurking
37 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It's definitely not a scam!  It's usually a requirement of planning.  There is a much better (up to 50% greater) financial return on capital from doing simple affordable rented, let alone market rented, so housing associations and council ALMOs would, if just trying to maximise return, only ever build rented.  The theory behind the planning is that by doing mixed tenure on new build estates (rented, shared ownership, and outright sale) then you get a good mix of tenants so no posh enclaves or sink estates and tbh this does tend to work reasonably well.

The difficulty in moving that you flag is absolutely that's the case, and if you can buy outright rather than going shared ownership then you should of course do this.

The circumstances I outlined above are pretty much ideal reasons for buying a shared ownership - you can't afford to buy outright as yet but you want control of your home and you want to stay in the same town - but if you start taking those reasons away then it becomes a steadily less good idea.

The ideal I suppose would be house prices falling to genuinely affordable levels on local salaries and then the need for shared ownership entirely falls away and instead you get the traditional small "starter homes" (not Cameron's 20% discount ones) built which people will buy as a first home and live in for ten years or so.

My point was more about this  the cost of rent plus mortgage is close to buying outright, so it`s the deposit that`s the problem  not  "affordability "

From a council /HA point of view it makes very good sense ,as they have a very good unpaid caretaker (they have skin in the game)that also pays for the maintenance 

As for it`s a requirement of planing ,there was no need for that 40 years ago ,it`s a measure put in place to cover the cracks of a failed market/policy ..treating the symptoms not the cause comes to mind 

Like i said there`s and exception to the rule where it will benefit some 

The problem with falling prices and shared ownership is the HA holds all the cards ,its the punter that takes the hit and this is a massive problem ( caveat unless things have changed since the 90`s and there`s something in the contract ) 

Edit : BTW concerning the last sentence the small print is the danger in all these schemes ,i seen a deal that seemed to be to good to be true last week so i inquired and yes as the saying goes it was to good to be true but it`s only visible in the small print  it had nothing to do with falling prices though it was a massive maintenance issue in this case concerning mixed social/private ownership

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

Targeted press release carried across all MSM outlets simultaneously... I'm suspicious, Shariza is planning something.

Maybe, just maybe, this is the year that interest rates start getting materially higher.

As soon as that happens the long overdue crash will happen; so start planting the news that high house prices are bad and big falls in them, whilst causing huge problems for some, will on the whole be a good thing.

Then you can resist the squeals for rate cuts from highly-leveraged BTLers on the grounds that it is necessary pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Maybe, just maybe, this is the year that interest rates start getting materially higher.

As soon as that happens the long overdue crash will happen; so start planting the news that high house prices are bad and big falls in them, whilst causing huge problems for some, will on the whole be a good thing.

Then you can resist the squeals for rate cuts from highly-leveraged BTLers on the grounds that it is necessary pain.

I wish, but so many debt bubbles will implode and I can't see any politician pressing that button. More likely what will happen is Shariza tears up the planning laws even further and lets housebuilders run riot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long time lurking
12 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Maybe, just maybe, this is the year that interest rates start getting materially higher.

As soon as that happens the long overdue crash will happen; so start planting the news that high house prices are bad and big falls in them, whilst causing huge problems for some, will on the whole be a good thing.

Then you can resist the squeals for rate cuts from highly-leveraged BTLers on the grounds that it is necessary pain.

Nothing to do with the post i`m quoting but i edited my post above to add a bit on the end 

Just to clarify what the HA was doing i only questioned it because they have form ,a mate got stung a few years ago after buying a flat outright in a HA /social block  

The maintenance payments and any futer costs were for the "whole" block roughly 60/40 private social seems fair most would say 

My mate thought the same when he bought his knowing his story i asked is this cost just for the maintenance of the structure communal area`s  or does it include literally everything ,,,they would not give exact details other that the whole block 

My mate had a bill a few years ago for £5 k they were renewing all the kitchens in the social side he got feck all for his money  

 

12 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

I wish, but so many debt bubbles will implode and I can't see any politician pressing that button. More likely what will happen is Shariza tears up the planning laws even further and lets housebuilders run riot.

The world has turned Japaneses 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

I wish, but so many debt bubbles will implode and I can't see any politician pressing that button. More likely what will happen is Shariza tears up the planning laws even further and lets housebuilders run riot.

I think US rates will keep going up so unless we want sterling to weaken, vast inflation, and nobody wanting to buy government debt then we will be reluctantly following them up. I don't think it will take much to crash the housing market, 3% base rates maybe.

22 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

Nothing to do with the post i`m quoting but i edited my post above to add a bit on the end 

Just to clarify what the HA was doing i only questioned it because they have form ,a mate got stung a few years ago after buying a flat outright in a HA /social block  

The maintenance payments and any futer costs were for the "whole" block roughly 60/40 private social seems fair most would say 

My mate thought the same when he bought his knowing his story i asked is this cost just for the maintenance of the structure communal area`s  or does it include literally everything ,,,they would not give exact details other that the whole block 

My mate had a bill a few years ago for £5 k they were renewing all the kitchens in the social side he got feck all for his money  

 

The world has turned Japaneses 

Your mate should have gone to a leaseholder tribunal; if you are not benefitting from the works in some way then you do not need to pay them.

So he would have to pay for roof, cladding, lift maintenance (even if on the ground floor, though people do try this one but never win).

But if the HA was fitting kitchens inside the flats, this was what the £5k was funding, and he didn't get one then he did not have to pay for it.  The HA took a flyer and won. It wasn't Sanctuary was it as they have form for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long time lurking
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

I think US rates will keep going up so unless we want sterling to weaken, vast inflation, and nobody wanting to buy government debt then we will be reluctantly following them up. I don't think it will take much to crash the housing market, 3% base rates maybe.

Your mate should have gone to a leaseholder tribunal; if you are not benefitting from the works in some way then you do not need to pay them.

So he would have to pay for roof, cladding, lift maintenance (even if on the ground floor, though people do try this one but never win).

But if the HA was fitting kitchens inside the flats, this was what the £5k was funding, and he didn't get one then he did not have to pay for it.  The HA took a flyer and won. It wasn't Sanctuary was it as they have form for this?

No it was not sanctuary, Hafod ,my mate and the other owners sought legal advise  and was told there was no guarantee  as the contract was very "grey" and in their opinion it was grey by design  they went to a tribunal which ruled against them due to the contract 

 IIRC  the problem with the tribunal was the HA argued they were entitled to a new kitchen ( im not sure if it was a bathroom or windows as well)......but the ones that owned there places all already had better than what was offerd 

My point is you can easily end up footing the bill for social upgrades 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

No it was not sanctuary, Hafod ,my mate and the other owners sought legal advise  and was told there was no guarantee  as the contract was very "grey" and in their opinion it was grey by design  they went to a tribunal which ruled against them due to the contract 

 IIRC  the problem with the tribunal was the HA argued they were entitled to a new kitchen ( im not sure if it was a bathroom or windows as well)......but the ones that owned there places all already had better than what was offerd 

My point is you can easily end up footing the bill for social upgrades 

Very crafty of them; some would say: underhand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long time lurking
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Very crafty of them; some would say: underhand.

Thoes flats were built 30 years ago the new ones they are offering ,at a discount for locals and people with connections to the area (similar to key workers schemes) have the same grey area in the contract when it comes to maintenance 

So it`s obviously a proven ploy and yes very underhanded 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a 'homeowner' briefly between 2004 and 2010. Well... a mortgaged leaseholder more like!

I sold up because I was in and out work and I no longer wanted to be beholden to my parents with the deposit, so I paid them back once sold. Also, the pearls of wisdom from tos about taking on so much debt made me think that it wasn't such a great idea.

Prices of 2 bedroomed homes in my area are now just stupid. Well beyond my affordability criteria as a singleton - 7 to 10 x salary. Just for a bog standard 2 bedder.

Now I have my council flat I really can't be fecking bothered now. I wish that all local authorities would build new council homes so that priced out people at least have a greater choice in their housing options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...