[Ben Reeve Lewis has not had a good week..)
Its not been a good week and as I tap away on my crumb and fluff covered keyboard I can’t guarantee I’ll get a coherent piece together.
Frazzy has pneumonia and I have a chest infection from hell whilst Hector, our demanding Cocker Spaniel insists on walking in circles with one of our shoes in his mouth, letting us know he wants to go for a walk, which neither of us is up to.
Then flopping on the floor with a hurt look that would turn the heart of Reinhardt Heydrich.
I’m learning that dogs are great at emotional blackmail. He has even found a ‘Dog sigh’, which really winds me up.
Foxtons underground
Foxton’s billionaire supremo John Hunt has won a case against the French government over planning permission to dig down a mega basement in his Kensington property next door to the French embassy.
While ordinary homeowners are re-mortgaging to pay for a loft extension to get their teenagers out of their hair London’s elite are digging down to the centre of the earth, in a sort of inverse tower block affair.
Level upon level of home cinema, personal gym, cocktail bar or whatever else the super rich decide is absolutely essential for a normal life whilst the homeless sequestered away in local authority temporary accommodation simply dream of somewhere bigger than a single room for them and their 4 kids outside of a B&B 30 miles from where they come from.
Welcome to modern Britain.
Kingdom Tower
While the Saudis, those supporters, trainers and suppliers of Islamic State Terrorists have been investing their ill gotten gains, probably accrued from selling ISIS oil, in building the world’s most irrelevant building, a Kilometre tall ‘Kingdom tower’.
You have to wonder exactly whose kingdom they are actually talking about here. Certainly not mine.
Boss of the project Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud said:
“The City will be a “must-go destination for those who visit Jeddah for business, trade, entertainment, culture, medical treatment and education”
So David Cameron and a wide variety of corporate scumbags will have somewhere new to go on holiday….and the world turns.
Ireland!
Yes I know that read weird but remember I have a temperature and broken sleep.
Jules Birch, a housing journalist you really should follow, has been looking at the Emerald Isle’s way of renting and forecasting some models which could make their way across the Irish Sea.
Apparently our distant cousins have been talking politically about ‘Rent certainty’ whereby the government there have been embroiled in a huge debate about the same stuff we discuss in the UK, landlord’s rights over tenant security.
Check this out, copied directly from Jules article:
- For the next four years, landlords will only be allowed to increase their rents once every 24 months rather than 12 months as at present
- Landlords will have to give 90 days notice of any increase (up from 28)
- Landlords will have to provide evidence that any future increases are in line with the local market rate and inform tenants of their legal right to challenge them
- Tenants will have stronger protection against unscrupulous landlords who falsely declare they need to sell the home or move in a family member: landlords will have to sign a statutory declaration and face fines if it is invalid
- Landlords who house tenants on social security will get 100% mortgage tax relief against their rent (up from 75%).
Interesting stuff huh?
Law changes
In Wales we have mandatory landlord licensing.
England has introduced the various elements of the Deregulation Bill 2015, making it very difficult for a landlord to operate as a clueless amateur anymore and the incoming Housing Bill which effectively creates a ‘Glorious Twelfth’, for council rogue landlord enforcement teams.
Tessa posted on Monday pondering on what undercurrents were going on in a political environment which has for years promoted landlording as a legitimate investment opportunity but which suddenly seems to be turning on itself in a most surprising way.
Going back to Jules he points out that Scotland is due to introduce ‘Pressure areas” where rampant rents can have controls enforced.
What seems to be driving so much of this is perceived self-interest of landlords and concerns about foreign investors messing with the market and causing problems for ordinary citizens just trying to find a home they can afford.
Jules points out:
“Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams (now an Irish TD) accused Fine Gael of opposing rent certainty because more than a third of its TDs are landlords. And independent TD Mick Wallace accused the government of selling control of the rental market to a ‘cartel’ of foreign investors.”
A backlash seems to be in the offing in many localised areas in different ways but with the same drivers.
What made me smile this week
This article in the Guardian about Barratt Homes and Persimmon Homes being criticised by the Royal Institute of British Architects for building overpriced rabbit hutches.
Arguing that the room space in many of the homes don’t even meet environmental health minimum space standards.
Get these heartwarming stats:
“It (RIBA) found Barratt homes were on average 6.7sq metres smaller than minimum space standards and Persimmon homes were on average 10.8sq m too small – about the size of a double bedroom”
While Camo’s mob push for more affordable homeownership through last week’s spending review announcements to make £4 billion available for property developers like Barratt and Persimmon RIBA states:
“Sadly, our research shows that, for many people, a new home means living somewhere that’s been built well below the minimum space standard needed for a comfortable home. The government must take action to ensure a fairer minimum space standard is applied to all new homes across the country.”
So while small landlords are being squeezed out and young couples, in the mad scramble to get out of renting, Thatcher’s ‘Property owning democracy’ are busting a gut to borrow money to buy overpriced shoeboxes.
We do indeed live in mad times.
Next thing you know we will be murdering loads of innocent people in Raqqa to make the world a safer place. Of course that won’t happen…get serious.
See ya next week
Landlords and foreign investors may be driving up prices and rents in some areas, but that is the market in action, they’re not ‘messing’ with it. The government stepping in with rent controls on the other hand most certainly is ‘messing with the market’ and will lead to all sorts of problems.
I agree modern starter homes are terrible things, but development land is a scarce resource so we can’t force builders to increase the average size without an increase in price. That wont help anyone. The only way to solve this is to relax planning laws and make it easier to build, but we don’t like housing developments on our doorstep so what do we do?
I’ve decided I’m now going to start a new inventory clerk company and call it ‘Crumb & Fluff’.
-> “Landlords who house tenants on social security will get 100% mortgage tax relief against their rent (up from 75%)”
Interesting concept, but will the landlord then evict the tenant for getting a job….
The key question is whether or not the free market approach works in housing. I am convinced it doesnt. Homes arent loaves of bread.
The logic doesnt transfer over at all.
You can argue about minimum space standards, proscribed through environmental health legislation v. prosaic acceptance of things as they are but if we disregard the laws created to protect citizens, and all laws are created for that reason and we put financial imperatives over the laws we create what is the point of carrying on?
Lets just let investors do what they want because that is a free market?
I agree though on the relaxing of planning laws Jamie, although probably not for the reason you do.
I dont think council bureaucrats or developers should be dictating to the people of Britain how they should build but our laws are what they are.
If minimum space standards are proscribed by planning and environmental health regulations should we just throw them out the window so people can make more money?
The free market approach requires minimum intervention from government and a mobile labour force. Sadly we have neither because we have too many working people reliant on benefits which artificially supports rents and house prices which in turn leads to lack of mobility in the workforce.
There will always be those at the bottom who are failed by the market and that’s where you need the state to step in. The problem is that the minimum acceptable level of state support was driven inexorably upwards by Labour as a way of distributing wealth.
Capping benefits will force people to be more mobile. I know it can mean upheaval, but what is the alternative? We can’t make all housing state-provided, so do we just keep giving people more and more to subsidise their wages? Does it help anyone in the long run?
On the minimum sizes, I agree that that existing legal minimums should be enforced, but I don’t think you can increase them and at the same time expect house builders to increase overall supply.
Profit isn’t a dirty word. Barratt & Persimmon are both Plcs listed on the stock exchange. Where do you think your public sector pension is invested?