To continue the strand of UK general election threads, I thought one on housing could go next.
The Liberal Democrats have proposed a ‘rent to own’ scheme whereby first-time owners can pay monthly installments akin to rent without a deposit to buy their home.
Sounds intriguing, but what’s the catch? What would landlords say about such a scheme, what would they need as an incentive?
How about the other parties? Labour, the Greens and the Tories appear to be proposing a flat-out ‘build more homes’ thing, which has been promised before.
The real issue isn’t houses, it’s a lack of highly skilled jobs in areas of the country outside the South East. Building thousands of new homes on greenbelt land or new “garden towns” in the South East is just a sticking plaster as the demand for property here is insatiable and cannot be realistically met without a heroic political commitment that is unlikely to come from any of the big three parties.
in such a scheme would the local authority be purchasing the house and then the occupants “rent to own” it? I cant see it being viable that you can gain the right to own your landlords asset out from under them.
The homes would be built by charitable organisations who would collect rent over a long period with ownership passing to the tenant after thirty years of renting. I am not sure what would happen if people moved out.
Can’t charitable organizations do that already, if they want? And how is this plan preferable to “buy your house with a 30 year mortgage?”, which is basically the same thing…paying a monthly amount until 30 years are up at which point you own the house, except that, with a traditional mortgage, you at least have equity in the house that you can take out if you do move out.
ISTM that a big drag on employee mobility is the English system of selling houses. It can take a very long time to sell a house. I’d like to see the rest of the U.K. switch to the Scottish system.
I don’t even know who the English system is meant to serve. Who benefits from it? It’s just a pain in the arse for everybody involved, whether selling or buying.
Although I prefer the Scottish system, it does not speed up sales considerably, merely stop gazumping and gazundering, and keeps estate agents honest. Many houses just stay on the market because they do not reach the minimum price because the seller overestimates the market.
Speed and certainty. Of course, if you put your house on the market at too high a price it isn’t going to get any offers, but in Scotland, once an offer has been made and accepted, that is generally it.
I certainly agree that the virtual certainty of an offer being the final sale price and conditions is an advantage, but that does not affect the speed of selling from offer to completion, just makes it more certain. I have seen many houses locally offered and reoffered over the years with no successful bids as people over priced to await a rise in the market. In both England and Scotland the only way to sell quickly is to set a price that the market will bear.