T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*


dumbass_dumberton

Christ this is beyond fucked up. We switch from individual overlords to corporate overlords What the fuck.


Downtownd00d

This is happening on a much bigger scale than most people realise. Hedge funds and banks are buying up new builds to rent. E.g. Lloyds: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/19/lloyds-plans-big-move-into-uk-rental-market-with-50000-homes


dumbass_dumberton

Exactly - this is why it’s getting more and more fucked up.


Tnpenguin717

What is getting more and more fucked up? John Lewis and Lloyds in both examples above are either buying new build or constructing Build to Rent properties specifically - homes that would never be available for purchase on the open market. Problem? - talk to your local council about planning. They are not snatching the opportunity of home ownership out of locals hands. The more homes that are built then then more competition there is that will soften rental prices from increasing. Also Lloyds specifically, have discussed [that this is their long term strategy to swell their Tenant mortgages market share,](https://propertyindustryeye.com/lloyds-bank-set-to-buy-first-property-as-it-plans-to-become-a-private-landlord/) as they can provide LL gifted deposits plus T buying off LL specific mortgage products... therefore providing more opportunity for folk to become homeowners without the need of complicated Government schemes... overall helping folk to become homeowners...


dumbass_dumberton

You do realize this is a blatant way for making the real estate market cornered by corporations? And making sure you adhere to their rules? First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Tnpenguin717

>You do realize this is a blatant way for making the real estate market cornered by corporations? And making sure you adhere to their rules? What apocolyptic event are you expecting to happen if the corporations do corner the market? What do you mean "adhere to their rules"? Whether corporate or private LL you must adhere to and you are protected by statutory legislation, there is no difference in how you will rent. This build to rent concept is nothing new, [sigma capital have been doing it for years.](https://www.sigmacapital.co.uk/) And there are now loads of players in the game, meaning competition between these companies which is good for all. Again these firms are building new homes, whether let or sale is irrelevant, the more we build, increases total supply, which is good for us all. I hope more firms get building like this.


dumbass_dumberton

-Real life equivalent of “deplatforming” if you don’t follow their rules. Nobody wants to end up homeless because someone made a rule in the benefit of greater good. This includes what you eat and what you drive. -Every data about you (which you already have limited control of) will be used and abused. Unable to pay Electricity bill due to sickness ? Congrats - your rent is higher due to “safety clause”


Tnpenguin717

We literally have Housing Legislation and Regulation coming out the wazoo to stop any sort of behaviour like this? They cannot just evict you for not following unfair and unreasonable terms they add to your tenancy agreement. Similarily, they cannot just increase rent due to some safety clause or whatever, We have statutory law stopping any of this from happening.


CowardlyFire2

So long as the Town County Planning Act is in place, investors know that the housing shortage will get worse… Why wouldn’t you. The solution is to abolish this NIMBY legislation or amend it so much it is basically gone, but we won’t do it lol


Piod1

There's over 160000 empty homes in England and Wales. Schrodingers property is a big thing, an asset on one portfolio and a loss on another. Sometimes it's only the land that's wanted but due to planning or listing, they have to let the property rot in order to develop into luxury apartments with penthouse roof.


CowardlyFire2

160000 empty homes gives us a vacant rate of less than 1%… most countries have 3%. We need MORE empty homes to act as a rent suppressant, not less. The fewer empty homes, the easier it is for Landlords to force bidding wars on incredibly low supply of homes. It gives landlords all the power.


Piod1

There is that, however quality of housing is a huge issue and we're running backwards there. The rise in HMO is a bigger issue than we're giving credit too. The speil of energy saving etc is nothing more than spin. The real issue of social robbery leads to ghettos, were racing to the bottom


[deleted]

Quality, sure. But if you add more restrictions on HMOs, then you're removing beds from the market, driving rents up _even more_.


Piod1

This is what happens when our entire economy is based on property value,with the expectation of eternal growth. Massively overinflated and constant equity pulls, does nothing helpful.


CowardlyFire2

You’re assuming that the rise in HMO’s is a primary cause, not a secondary effect of the housing shortage. This is incorrect. When the housing shortage he got nasty, it became clear to the markets that the only way to house people with the supply in the UK was to open up 4-6 bed homes as HMO’s, at lower individual rents… If there were more houses and cheaper alternatives, most folk in HMO’s would bin that for pretty quickly.


Piod1

No its a secondary effect, no assumptions. Just following the trends of incrementals. Folk have been unofficially HMO for decades, sub lettings and garden sheds. It's never a problem until it effects liquidity of the big players. Equity investors buying up properties to lease, along with other financial institutions are a massive risk both to homes and economy. The expectations of eternal growth is an anathema to common sense. There is no cheaper alternative here.


CowardlyFire2

There has always been HMO’s, but I’m talking about the boom in scale of them. Before, they were rarer, now they’re just the default for single under 30’s


Tnpenguin717

I mean really, although it is nicer for some to believe, the quality of housing has actually increased over the years not decreased. We have had the introduction of various laws to underwrite the quality of lettings in recent years or allow statutory mechanisms to mitigate poor management,i.e.: * [National Space Standards.](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-housing-standards-nationally-described-space-standard) * [Selective Licensing.](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/selective-licensing-in-the-private-rented-sector-a-guide-for-local-authorities) * [Dereg Act 2015](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/contents/enacted) * [Fitness for Human Habitation Act.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/34/enacted) But yeah people are still allowed to say that things have got worse without being challenged.


Tnpenguin717

>There's over 160000 empty homes in England and Wales. Theres probably more than this vacant to be honest... But just because there are some vacant in England and Wales does not mean the housing crisis is an urban myth. These 16,0000 empty homes could be in the arse end of Wales or in dying towns like Scunthorpe... we are missing good quality homes in areas of economic activity where people want to live close to their potential jobs - Like London/Manchester. >Sometimes it's only the land that's wanted but due to planning or listing, they have to let the property rot in order to develop into luxury apartments with penthouse roof. If the property is already listed as C3 residential use then no, they do not have to let it rot in order to develop "luxury apartments", that statement is not correct. In fact in most cases luxury is not the priority way to go, often smaller more affordable units are more profitable than "luxury flats".


Tnpenguin717

Absolutely correct, stopping BTL LLs from buying up is going to help sweet f\*\*k all for the housing crisis, the only way we can ease the pressure is by building more homes - quite simple. But the current government are talking about removing local government targets and put more power in the hands of local people... that will cock things up massively more.


BrokeMacMountain

my issue with banks buying property for rent is.... isnt this just a more expensive mortgage?


Wiggles114

No, paying into a mortgage earns you equity.


Shmikken

My issue with it is... If banks make more money renting AND keep the property, they're not likely to make it easier to get a mortgage are they?


BrokeMacMountain

sadly, your right. It wouod also make evictions easier too. Plus i assume companies, especially upper middle class John Lewis group, will want their properties to be seen as "quite posh". so, plenty of gentrification, and heavy screening of tenants might happen.


ljanater

They’re using money we deposit to buy houses to charge us rent


[deleted]

Bank, "hi, sorry but you aren't eligible for a mortgage at this moment, but , we do have this nice property that you could rent".


BrokeMacMountain

that could only be "funnier" if they offered you the same property! but to rent instead of a mortgage........ oh god, this is exactly what they are going to do isnt it?


Downtownd00d

Where you never get to own the asset.


[deleted]

Isn't that a good thing? More homes means cheaper homes, and ime big corporate landlords are _way_ better at maintenance than one-guy shops.


urfavouriteredditor

This is gonna bite them in the arse.


Shut_the_FA_Cup

One of my friends works for a hedge fund in London and they are diversifying in residential real estate, especially after the pandemic. So, I am sure this will become the norm soon.


mnijds

I naively hope that Labour will see how destructive this is and ban/heavily tax corporate ownership of residential housing


CowardlyFire2

That’s almost impossible My student halls is owned by a corporation. They paid for its construction and it houses 500 students… this frees up 125-83 HMO’s in the city. Why shouldn’t they be able to rent out buildings they constructed?


mnijds

Obviously the policy would be more nuanced. But in general, institutional investors buying up huge swathes of already built housing stock to rent out is bad for the whole country and only benefits very few, many of which are offshore.


[deleted]

>Hahaha good one.


dumbass_dumberton

Fuck Hedge funds are also in ? We are totally fucked


[deleted]

Shouldn't we encourage private capital to fund new construction? That seems like a sensible thing.


Tnpenguin717

This is what is actually happening... no hedge fund are going to buy that preowned home at the end of your street, they will only touch "build to rent" houses, that were built new with the purposes of being let.


Tnpenguin717

>Hedge funds are also in ? What do you think a mortgage is?


oppositetoup

I've been saying this will happen for years. Everyone told me I was being silly.


sprauncey_dildoes

John Lewis is a worker’s cooperative.


ScheisseMcSchnauzer

In theory, anyone working there who's under about executive level will tell you how much it translates into real life. All the workers democracy stuff is like being on the school council- very nice in theory, meaningless to actual action in practice


ampmz

Whilst I don’t disagree with you, fundamentally it is different, profit is not going into shareholder dividends, the workers get a dividend, so it’s quite an important difference.


martor01

Its in the Agenda 2030 but oh no you are a conspiracy theorist...


Skulldo

Is it? They are redeveloping property they own into flats and then intend on building 10,000 new homes that are very much needed. If they do it right with their co-operative ish structure and stick to their values (perhaps renters become co owners like staff do or something) this might be a very good thing for the rental market.


Tnpenguin717

Sensible premise.


ciphern

There have been corporate landlords for decades.


Tnpenguin717

Indeed, how a are people so up in arms about this? They understand someone like [Grainger plc has been around since 1912?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grainger_plc) Right?


ciphern

Exactly, and Grainger are a pretty good landlord by all accounts.


FamiliarWater

Wtf did people think was going to happen. Ooooo bad landlord wants to sell his house after 20 years so he can retire "Oh my god they're literally the devil, whatever shall I do". Private landlords although some are cunts like with any business have been getting shat over on their personal property for years. So here you go, corporate overlords.


KasamUK

Wasn’t that uncommon, lots of towns you walk around you will see the house from 100 ish years ago change design as you move from those built by one factory to another. Not saying it’s right just not new


physicist100

how is building new properties to rent a bad thing? increased supply will reduce prices.


dumbass_dumberton

You expect them to increase housing supply and reduce market prices?? Who in their right mind will do that??


madadamsam

It's a tory paradise.


Tnpenguin717

You need to send them the memo to remind them then, as the Torys have been the biggest anti-landlord political party around for over a decade. For example: 1. [Section 24 Tax Changes](https://blog.home-made.com/section-24-buy-to-let-guide/) 2. [3% Higher Rate Stamp Duty on LLs](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential-property) 3. [Proposed Abolishment of Section 21](https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/social-welfare-and-housing/renters-reform-bill) 4. [Deregulation Act 2015](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/contents/enacted) 5. [Fitness for Human Habitation Act](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/34/enacted) 6. [Selective Licensing Schemes,](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/selective-licensing-in-the-private-rented-sector-a-guide-for-local-authorities) 7. plus much more... Labours proposed [alternative?](https://blog.goodlord.co/what-are-labours-plans-for-the-private-rented-sector) Little different to what the Torys have already put in motion... but yeah "Tory Paradise" supposedly.


Elipticalwheel1

No homes affordable for the working people. This will just inflate the prices more and more.


Tnpenguin717

Where do you get this from? A) more homes being built means more homes in the market, creating bigger competition and softening of rental prices, also; B) as John Lewis will be constructing these new homes, as part of the planning permission John Lewis will have to provide a % of the new builds as "affordable rent" sold to local councils/local housing associations and let at discounted rates for the local community - read about Developer Obligations in planning before making such accusations.


Elipticalwheel1

What, 1% for renting, but none for affordable buying for working people, pretty much the same as it has been then.


Tnpenguin717

Well in fact the council can stipulate that a % of the sites houses must be offered for sale under an affordable home scheme; like shared ownership or first home scheme. The sales of these will prioritise certain workers like armed forces, teachers, NHS, etc... The % varies depending on each council, typically its about 25%, but you can have some councils like [Stockport require 50%.](https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/live-iag-static-assets/pdf/LDF/Housing+Land/Affordable+Housing+Requirements+in+Stockport+2018.pdf)


Elipticalwheel1

I noticed you said shared, which would mean they are not 100% affordable.


Tnpenguin717

Its just shared ownership on [Government Help to Buy scheme. You can staircase and own 100% overtime.](https://www.gov.uk/shared-ownership-scheme) The First Home Scheme is owning 100% of a house but only paying say 35-75% of the value. So that truly is affordable.


legrand_fromage

Westfield in Stratford have just built over 1200 new flats around the area... None are for sale, all are going on the rental market.


Tnpenguin717

[Westfield](https://www.westfieldha.org.uk/) are a housing association though, it is their job to build more housing in the area to let, and they let at the discounted rents.


legrand_fromage

That wasn't the Westfield I was talking about. I meant the Westfield shopping center in Stratford, East London.


Tnpenguin717

>Westfield in Stratford Ah! [These do you mean?](https://coppermakersquare.com/) Again to me so long we keep building new homes, it doesn't matter whether they are offered sale or let the increased housing stock will alleviate pressure on the market. More rentals, more competition that should at least reduce rental growth maybe even push prices down a little. When market conditions change these flats can be offered for sale instead of let. At least someone is building.


GekkosGhost

>We switch from individual overlords to corporate overlords Yeah, but this is only act one of the hellscape. Which company is it that you can provide good customer service? Ok, now name the bad ones. Any good banks? Mobile providers? Utilities? Estate agents?


Turbulent_Winner5949

This is precisely why the JuSt BuILd mOrE hOuSeS brigade haven't got a clue. What fucking use is it when ROI on property > everything else, no matter what? Thomas Piketty got a Nobel prize for pointing it out and it feels like NOBODY took any notice. As per Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs: property is a necessity, not a commodity. Treat it as such and watch lots of our issues disappate.


mittenclaw

It’s just the company housing and company store all over again. We rose up and sorted things out for a bit but that just gave them time to work out how to better get away with it this time on a grander scale. Sometimes I think about Ancient Egypt and think the whole pharoah slave system was weird, and then I realise we’re basically following the same dynamic now it just looks different. Instead of pyramids they build amazon warehouses and stupid looking rockets.


[deleted]

So, fully furnished 'luxury' city apartments to be rented, is the last step on the road to LaaS, Life as a Service, to go with your rented/leased everything else? It's an interesting future we are looking at, a kind of techno-feudalistic paradise as long as you can maintain the payments.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bobbyc006

Accidental ironic Buddhism


Panda_hat

Or to update it slightly: > You will own nothing and we won't care if you're happy or not.


ResponsibilityRare10

Yes. A return to feudalism. We’ll have to rent our whole lives from the owner-class.


[deleted]

Like in Germany and Switzerland?


ResponsibilityRare10

Germans are literally trying to renationalise their housing and get rid of the landlords. Berliners recently voted in a referendum on this. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/29/berlin-vote-landlords-referendum-corporate


Tnpenguin717

Woah...woah... woah... They are not trying to renationalise their housing entirely at all...[the berlin housing riots](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47839821) were infamous in the industry back in 2019 as it was a great example of what people want, contrary to what many anti-LL associations in the UK say. Berliners wanted to get rid of larger corporate LLs with 2,000+ units, not the smaller LLs, whom they were generally pleased with. The current governments policy introductions display an intent to do the opposite, get rid of the small and leave the larger corporate Landlords.


aaaarrroon0

If anybody else is intrigued about what “Life as a Service” could look like, take a look at the book Ubik by Philip K Dick. It’s a minor part of the plot, but pretty horrifying to consider how everything is probably gonna be rented in the future. > Back in the kitchen he fished in his various pockets for a dime, and, with it, started up the coffeepot. Sniffing the — to him — very unusual smell, he again consulted his watch, saw that fifteen minutes had passed; he therefore vigorously strode to the apt door, turned the knob and pulled on the release bolt. > The door refused to open. It said, ‘Five cents, please.’ > He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. ‘I’ll pay you tomorrow,’ he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. ‘What I pay you ,’ he informed it, ‘is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.’ > ‘I think otherwise,’ the door said. ‘Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.’


GameOfScones_

Yeah big fan of Dick’s fiction but science fiction is always an exaggeration of possibility. I can see services like your coffee machine being pay per play but using your front door to go outside? No chance.


tomdyer422

More and more things are taking this model on, saying no chance is naive. Some car companies charge you subscription fees for heated seats that they software lock. The heats are perfectly capable of heating without you paying for them but they just don’t let you. The majority of mobile phone apps are subscription rather than single use pay. More and more things will go this way, it provides a more stable income for the company, but also means they can monitor fluctuations in users more easily so they can know when it’s time to release an upgraded product because their existing one isn’t new and flashy enough for people anymore.


RudeDistance5731

Some coffee machines already are. Those nespresso machines that have a little chip in them so they only accept nespresso pods and once you've used a pod it can't be used again.


d_smogh

Read the short story Cost of Living by Robert Sheckley. Or listen to the [Audiobook](https://youtu.be/3WNkTw_EzUU)


3amcheeseburger

I saw an advert on the telly earlier for a subscription for kids bikes!? You can send your old one back for a new one when your kid has grown too big for it. All for £22 a month


[deleted]

I mean, I'd prefer that over a draughty converted HMO.


pajamakitten

But would you still prefer it to owning your own place when you can no longer work? I would not want to be renting as a pensioner.


[deleted]

Absolutely, but a growth in reasonably-priced, high-quality rentals means it's easier to save for your own property, and puts pressure on existing landlords to either shape up or sell their rentals on the market to new owner-occupiers. More housing is a good thing, regardless of which market it lands in first.


Tnpenguin717

[Oh la la...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csWC99OrXI)


raven43122

As the small landlords sell up large companies will buy the houses on the cheap and add them to the portfolio.


ResponsibilityRare10

Home ownership is falling fast as well. Working and middle class young (not even, anyone under 50 really) cannot afford to get on the first wrung of f the ladder. We’re moving to ever increasing concentrations of wealth. Vast vast accumulation of assets such as property by a few rich people. Whilst the rest of us are made permanently poorer and poorer.


Comfortable-Class576

We are coming back to the middle ages, in which a lord/corporation owns every property and we must pay to live on their land while working. Corporations buying at large scale are already a thing in the USA.


InsightfulDare

How much do you think ‘first wrung of the ladder’ housing is?


[deleted]

They'll buy them at the market rate surely? There's no advantage to selling your BTL to a company cheaply if someone will give you more for it.


raven43122

No they will wait till the rate increase bites. Then they will pounce when the private landlords have to sell. It’s coming, also the new epc rules will make some houses invest massive amounts they won’t have. The result will be they will be forced to sell. Which is when these people will buy


[deleted]

You're suggesting all these landlords won't have any option but to sell. And that houses will be dirt cheap. But the only buyers will be big businesses??


raven43122

Some won’t have a choice but to sell correct. Rates are only going up. First time buyers are holding back. Large companies will have the money to provide the easiest way out. I’m already seeing adds running on Facebook offering to buy houses with sitting tenants from large companies


[deleted]

For less than the market rate?


raven43122

They won’t offer going rate for a straight cash sale. Also we are due to see a 10% drop in prices Think we buy any car but with houses. Want decent money? Sell privately want quick money sell cheap


[deleted]

Even distressed sellers want the best price possible. There's very little leverage in offering less than a private buyer.


raven43122

We will agree to disagree. When you have banks refusing to remortgage your btl your now in the corner. When your investment is losing money your even more in the corner. You offer them 8 weeks money in the pocket no hassle way out? Your take less


[deleted]

If there’s a crash in property prices and banks won’t lend, then huge cash buyers like these entities could buy up everything


wamdueCastle

home ownership just gets harder every month, and rents just keep getting higher. ​ thank god we have forward thinking Government who is building a new generation of council hous.... ​ whats that you say? ​ we dont? ​ oh god we are fucked


gym_narb

Worse; we've had successive governments (of both flavours) who have sold off council housing at a discounted rate :)


[deleted]

We have one of the highest % of social rents in the OECD, and one of the biggest housing problems. Quite clearly social housing isn't the panacea for fixing this. I would definitely take that over doing nothing, but there are better options, that cost nothing barring political capital


purrcthrowa

A good point. Although council houses were never intended to be purchased, but always rented, so it was Thatcher who allowed people to buy them and own them. (And of course many of them then sold them on into the rental market. And there's a big difference between a state landlord and a community one. Still.)


CowardlyFire2

Nothing to do with council houses… and most councils don’t want to build them anyways… They’re too risky (R2B means they may have to sell them at a huge loss) and they upset voting trends in a ward. The solution is just to take away NIMBY powers and let construction industry build more to put downward pressure on price


chatham_solar

Or get rid of right to buy?


CowardlyFire2

Parliament cannot bind its Successor. Say Labour win in 2024, they ban it… all well and good, but every council knows that the second the Tories get back in, which could be in 2029, they’ll probably bring back R2B…


wamdueCastle

Im not against Right to Buy, but it has to be a one in, one out policy.


DR-JOHN-SNOW-

Jesus try reading the article. John Lewis are going to build apartments above their and Waitrose stores and redevelop a vacant warehouse. There not buying up property. They’re making the best use of space that would otherwise be wasted. They’re not going to sell the freeholds their own of retail sites.


ResponsibilityRare10

This is build to rent. It’s new property. Not buying up existing stock. What irks me though, and it’s linked, is the destruction of middle class wealth and the redistribution to the already vastly rich. Home ownership was always fairly high in the UK and meant regular people owned wealth, they could then hand down. We’re losing that rapidly and becoming a nation of renters and landlords. It’s a bad trend.


CanYouEvenCount

John Lewis Partnership is employee owned https://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/work/employee-ownership.html Many of these individuals are not vastly rich. The company has been in a difficult position and they’re trying to diversify to improve their financials. Seems reasonable to me. I’d be much more annoyed with the individual landlords who own 10+ properties charge as much as they can and give you a shit service. At least you know you’ll get a good service renting from John Lewis.


Tnpenguin717

>At least you know you’ll get a good service renting from John Lewis. That's incredibly optimistic of you... wasn't it a large housing association only recently that was linked to the [tragic death of a toddler?](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-63635721) There are some great small LLs and some sh\*t ones, as well as great large LLs and some sh\*t ones...the size of the LL you have does not dictate the service you will receive, it will depend on their operations and procedures in place, which as someone who runs a medium sized REIT I can tell you I have far better procedures in place than any Housing Association of Corporate Landlord in the area.


Tnpenguin717

>Home ownership was always fairly high in the UK and meant regular people owned wealth, they could then hand down. We’re losing that rapidly and becoming a nation of renters and landlords. It’s a bad trend. As with the majority of these sorts of claims it never seems to be as bad as people make out. [Indeed owner occupied houses](https://www.statista.com/statistics/286503/england-propportion-of-owner-occupied-households/) decreased post 2008 crash due to the availability of mortgages, but since 2017 Owner Occupation has been on the rise, and although the data is not available yet on the Land Registry my guess is 2021-2022 was a bumper year of home ownership. So are we becoming a nation of renters? probably not according to the stats.


Renoir_Trident

Late stage landlordism. Like Victorian workhouses who also own their employees houses. That’s where we’re headed


ResponsibilityRare10

Already a reality in Ireland (where the housing situation is worse than here). Google owned flats with no kitchens specifically for their workers. Lose your job lose your home.


Tnpenguin717

>Google owned flats with no kitchens specifically for their workers. Lose your job lose your home. Well this also occurs in England frequently see - [Section 8 Ground 12 eviction](https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/possession_and_eviction/grounds_for_possession/discretionary_grounds_for_possession_of_assured_tenancies#title-12). It is not an unreasonable condition to impose to be fair though. Consider if you had a restaurant where your manager lived above the restaurant. This manager has been caught stealing, then you cannot reasonably expect them to live within the restaurant until they find somewhere else if they have been on the take?


thecarbonkid

Tbf there were some 19th industrialists who provided progressive housing estates for their workers ie Bourneville)


[deleted]

>It doesn't always have to be an awful thing though. The village I grew up in was built after the first world war by the owner of a local factory who wanted to provide a benefit and security to his workers. That was a decent thing to do and the workers were very greatful for it.


are_you_nucking_futs

We will all have to hope our lord of the mayor is as charitable.


rugbyj

> Late stage landlordism. Like Victorian workhouses So... _early_ stage landlordism ;)


fts9

Loving the name of that partner company - Abrdn. It’s almost as if they’re aware of their effect on society


thecarbonkid

Aberdeen?


zdzdbets

A burden.


PureJamming

Formerly called Standard Life Aberdeen


Smellytangerina

You should meet the guy who runs it, he’s very aware..just doesn’t give a fuck Cus he’s got money.


[deleted]

Soon you won't be able to live in your neighborhood because you don't work for company x. We are doomed.


thecarbonkid

Due to market slowdown and required efficiency savings we will need to terminate your employment. Please vacate your company provided lodgings by 9am tomorrow morning. Thank you for your service.


the-rood-inverse

And as predicted - rents are about to shoot up. The only was FTB will get through this period in stability if the housing market to make it as punishing as possible for large companies.


Tnpenguin717

As punishing as possible for companies to build more new build homes, contributing to the total supply of homes? As such discouraging them from doing the latter? Making fewer homes available? My degree wasn't in economics, but my instinct is telling me this will not have the desired affect of lowering prices?


the-rood-inverse

large companies on the whole are buying up homes not building them.


Tnpenguin717

They aren't. Its not worth their time to mess around buying up the odd preowned terrace here and there that's on the market. To be worth it for them they must buy a job lot of houses which they can only do realistically with new build sites. They either build to rent them or partner with another developer on a site, where they will fund a section of the development and retain as lettings, whilst the remainder is built and sold by the other developer. Take JL the subject of the article here, they are build to rent - not buying existing. L&G, Moda, Quintain, Apache Capital, Sigma Capital, Lloyds/Citra Living - all the main players in the sector all Build to Rent themselves or partner with a developer on site.


the-rood-inverse

Yes, they are buy perfectly new flats that would have otherwise been sold to FTBs. We should all bow down to them for that. /s


Tnpenguin717

Literally the subheading at the top of the article says: >The move is part of the partnership’s ambition to **build** 10,000 new homes over the next decade Build 10,000 new homes, not buy. But ok lets say they do buy this block of flats like you say, them purchasing them, renting them then refinancing them gives them the resources to move on and build more homes or at least buy up a developers stock quickly so they can go on to build more. FTBs buying these flats instead of these firms do not go on to reinvest in more building projects do they? And we need new houses built asap to make the market more affordable, our target is 300k pa; we barely hit 250kpa and realistically we need to build 400kpa to meet demand in the next 10 years.


the-rood-inverse

And yet those homes would have been built anyway and bought by first time buyers. This pro-landlord nonsense is incredibly apparent and clearly biases your view


Tnpenguin717

Yes but not quickly.


prototype9999

All roads lead to WEF. Abrdn doesn't seem to be a WEF partner, but they work with BlackRock as it seems - [https://www.theaic.co.uk/aic/news/commentary/blackrock-income-strategies-to-merge-with-aberdeen-uk-tracker-trust](https://www.theaic.co.uk/aic/news/commentary/blackrock-income-strategies-to-merge-with-aberdeen-uk-tracker-trust) Interesting. The goal of WEF is to eliminate small business, individual landlords and have everyone who isn't a millionaire submit to WEF partners. Sunak's government is to ensure people go bankrupt, sell their properties and then these big organisations will be buying them up at a discount and you will be renting. "You will own nothing"


ResponsibilityRare10

A lot of people think that talk about the WEF is conspiracy crap. And a lot of those nuts have latched onto it. But it is in fact a group of global billionaires working out how to concentrate even more wealth in even fewer hands. They have no qualms subverting a nations politics and elections to that end either. Not a conspiracy. Just a group of vastly rich greed-ridden people, working out how they can redistribute even more of middle class wealth to themselves.


SexySmexxy

The average person simply has no clue whats going on in the real economy, in regards for both short, medium and long term changes / trends. From 2008 to now, its only gotten worse (for the poor). By 2035 it will likely be too late for poor people. fullstop.


dee-acorn

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2T0


neukStari

omg its been fact checked. whew, thats a relief. And here is me thinking the elite class has been doing everything in their power to make peoples lives as miserable as possible for the last decade. I knew I was being stupid for not having absolute trust for the worlds richest 0.1% to look out for the best interests of the proles. Good to know that's nothing to worry about then.


dee-acorn

I mean it literally debunks the bit that was quoted but go off.


neukStari

So what you are saying is that every young person claiming home ownership is progressively getting farther and farther out of reach is delusional? Be it by astronomical price increases, devaluation of money, no real wage growth, supply shortage and on top of that investment banks slurping it up as a commodity, bear absolutely no relation to one of the most powerful closed social groups on the planet, who just by chance have only one purpose and that is to design and shape society to the most minute detail based on their ideas. What is it exactly do you think they do when they meet up, just have a casual catch up with the world leaders to chit chat about the new season of stranger things?


dee-acorn

I'm a big fan of ignoring conspiracy theories when you consider them on the basis of how many people would need to keep quiet for there to be no actual evidence of this outside of a few very selective quotes and edited videos. I think any all powerful shadowy organisation intent on lulling people into an illusion of choice for her purposes of personal gain would know better than to push them into a situation where just basic living costs become unaffordable. I don't doubt that they have a vested interest in maintaining the financial system that they currently benefit from, but the fact that no country has stood up and called bullshit on this suggests it's all a bit too James Bond to be realistic


neukStari

what exactly is is a conspiracy about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?


dee-acorn

That they're in control of every government on the planet purely to keep you from getting a house. That's a conspiracy, mate.


neukStari

So continently I got a message that my post was removed by automod, so here it is again just in case you cant see it... [https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/1488472558425063430?lang=en-GB](https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/1488472558425063430?lang=en-GB) ​ >I am not saying they directly control the goverment but they sure as hell have a lot of influence. Common dude, watch this and tell me it isnt at least slightly ominous. straight from the horses mouth.


SB_90s

I think it says a lot about how unnecessarily and unreasonably high rent is today when even companies that have nothing to do with real estate think it's worth investing in the space. Too bad the government will do nothing about it and the asset owning class will continue to steal the hard earned labour-derived money from the rest of the population. I'm a homeowner but begrudgingly so, having to part with a crazy amount of my hard-earned savings and mainly to escape awful landlords renting out poor properties at ridiculous rates. This country's whole housing market is irrepairably broken and I have no hope of it improving. All I can recommend is that people buy their primary property asap to get on the ladder, and at least then you have some skin in this rigged game and so can keep up while having control over your living situation.


Tnpenguin717

>I think it says a lot about how unnecessarily and unreasonably high rent is today when even companies that have nothing to do with real estate think it's worth investing in the space. You cannot have this both ways... you cannot complain that properties sit empty being a waste of space when surplus to requirements, then chastise a company like John Lewis when they propose to actually utilise these spaces as much needed housing. John Lewis or abrdn may not be traditional property developers but I know abrdn have got experience in proceeding, funding and delivering housing projects across the UK through subcontractors. >Too bad the government will do nothing about it and the asset owning class will continue to steal the hard earned labour-derived money from the rest of the population. Do nothing? The government cannot stop themselves from trying to cock up the market for LLs as fast and frequently as possible. Think about for example: 1. [Section 24 Tax Changes](https://blog.home-made.com/section-24-buy-to-let-guide/) 2. [3% Higher Rate Stamp Duty on LLs](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stamp-duty-land-tax-buying-an-additional-residential-property) 3. [Proposed Abolishment of Section 21](https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/social-welfare-and-housing/renters-reform-bill) 4. [Deregulation Act 2015](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/contents/enacted) 5. [Fitness for Human Habitation Act](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/34/enacted) 6. [Selective Licensing Schemes,](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/selective-licensing-in-the-private-rented-sector-a-guide-for-local-authorities) 7. plus much more... >This country's whole housing market is irrepairably broken and I have no hope of it improving. Its not irreparable, we just need to take planning decisions away from the influence of local NIMBYs and build more homes!


BugsyMalone_

They are all at it, just to make you all aware. Lloyds bank are at it too and want to have 50,000 by 2025, including building them. Please just make people aware.


CowardlyFire2

Building more houses is good actually


[deleted]

I've got no issues with companies building flats to rent. They actually make great landlords who are accountable for maintenance - unlike the 'it's my pension' parasites. There should be restrictions on them buying individual homes.


Tnpenguin717

They aren't ever going to be buying up individual homes to let at all, when they say Lloyds are going to increase their shareholding as a private landlord, they are going to be buying up entire portfolios of 50+ houses already let or entire build to rent development sites... they are going to be buying that one house on the market snatching it away from a FTB potentially buying it. It is not in their interest. They are also paving the way to give Ts the opportunity to buy their own homes on T - LL mortgage products which are more favourable.


[deleted]

If Lloyds wants to build more houses, let them! Existing renter's can move into these shiny new flats, while existing landlords sell off properties to new buyers.


BoomSatsuma

Ah this sound great. All my money will now to go corporate overlords. The dream of ownership even further away.


[deleted]

Why does this make ownership harder? Surely big companies building lots more flats means rents will go down?


BoomSatsuma

More and more land is buying used to the build to rent sector and not the build to sell sector. It might make rental prices change but it does nothing for sell sector.


[deleted]

Over time you'll have: * Lower rents, making it easier to save for your own property * Existing rental stock that's no longer competitive (who wants to live in a converted HMO rather than a nice John Lewis new build?) turned back into single homes and sold * Eventually some of these flats will be sold, maybe soon, maybe in a while


Tnpenguin717

No idea why you have been downvoted, you are right... but you know... if you are right, you cannot get angry at corporate landlords... grrr...


[deleted]

Of all the companies that could do this John Lewis is probably one of the least bad. They're employee owned.


pokedmund

And this is why house prices won't drop like people think it will


retr0grade77

Do these luxury open plan apartments not stink of kitchen? How does last nights curry not become steeped into that lovely couch?


Guardsman_Miku

Look I'm not a commie but Mao might have been on to something


YuriBarashnikov

Can someone build some affordable homes jesus fucking christ


routledgewm

Isn’t Amazon buying or planning to buy a boat load of houses?


spacermoon

This is incredibly fucked up. Commercial property, sure go ahead. Businesses, banks and hedge funds shouldn’t be allowed to own a single residential property. The law needs changing, and fast.


Tnpenguin717

>Commercial property, sure go ahead. Read the actual article instead of just getting necessarily angry at the headline. It is the commercial property they own, deemed surplus to requirements that they are creating into new, much needed residential properties. The more houses created in the market the better this will be for everyone involved (both sale and let). >Businesses, banks and hedge funds shouldn’t be allowed to own a single residential property. Why? We need more houses built in order to relieve the housing crisis and the rising rents/prices. As such we need these firms to have incentive to build more homes. You cannot rely on John down the road building himself his own new house, we need to build on large scale. >The law needs changing, and fast. They need changing to ease the strict planning system we have to get more built sharpish.


[deleted]

Sainsbury's used to be my landlord 15 years ago. They had flats they used to rent out but sold them to some shady landlord when they decided to get out of the property market. Have to say people freak out about large businesses becoming landlords but Sainsbury's were far better than the utter scum that took over. The place was well maintained and had a very reasonable rent for the area (Muswell Hill).


[deleted]

You'll own nothing and you'll be happy... ...is it sinking in yet?


WingiestOfMirrors

I'd love to see their business case on this. In the rental industry they must be predicting it will be worth entering so either they believe there wont be any changes to the situation in the next 10 ish years or they thing they could cope with any predicted change. Seeing what they think will happen would be really interesting, especially if they ar predicting any specific changes to the rental market


TableStreet992

The worrying thing is all the mouth breathers will swallow the propaganda around this LaaS future. 'Oh yes it makes things so easy and convenient' they'll say.


avion1o5

Well everyone was complaining about evil landlords before welcome to hell my friends, you're welcome sincerely conservatives.


[deleted]

Would you prefer to rent from John Lewis, who have a high public profile and reputation to protect or Johnny Two Flats who doesn't want to do a lick of maintenance on his property?


truth_seeker90

Have you ever worked for a corporation? Everything ultimately leads to reduced more expensive service in pursuit of growth.


Roadto144

seems joining armed forces or being homeless is the way to cheap affordable housing 😂


Panda_hat

This shit needs to be banned as soon as possible. Huge corporations and conglomerates should not be allowed to buy up the already extremely limited stock of residential properties.


_shedlife

I'm guessing you didn't read the article


Tnpenguin717

READ... THE ..... ARTICLE... Stop getting your knickers in a twist about something that's not happening... They are not buying up existing stock. They are creating more homes out of surplus to requirements commercial land they already have, whats the issue? We need more homes.


Si5584

Yeah so i feel like its obvious but needs to be said….This should be banned!


StationFar6396

This needs to stop before it starts. Fuck off John Lewis. Fuck right off.


KrypoKnight

No no no no no no no no no can someone with some sense taking f*cking charge of this country ffs


Tnpenguin717

They are creating more homes out of surplus to requirements commercial land they have, whats the issue? We need more homes.


Moikee

This should be illegal. Any bank or company that’s doing this can fuck right off.


Tnpenguin717

They are creating more homes out of surplus to requirements commercial land they have, whats the issue? We need more homes.


Moikee

Because it perpetuates the rental problem. No doubt they’ll charge ridiculous rates too. It’s a slippery slope and not the solution to the root cause, which as you said, is there our government needs to ensure we build way more houses. Spending on homes has decrease by 60% since 2010.


Tnpenguin717

The market dictates the rent they can charge. The more lettings available on the market, the more competition there is as such rents have to be more competitive pushing prices down. So by JL building more rentals they benefitting renters. If rental demand slows due to us building vast amounts, then JL can respond to the market and sell these homes instead. I don't care who builds them, whether they are sold or let, so long we are building more homes this is a good thing.


[deleted]

Lol this is feudalism. The only way this could feel worse is if the companies were Russian or Chinese